The Exclusions of “Ach” and “Rak”

אַךְ אֶת שַׁבְּתֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ:

However, you must observe My Shabbatot. (Shemot 31:13)

In keeping with the well-known principle of Chazal (Yerushalmi Berachot 9:7) that the words אך and רק are “exclusionary” in nature, that is, that they serve to diminish or limit the scope of something mentioned in the pasuk, Rashi comments (s.v. ach):

אף על פי שתהיו רדופין וזריזין בזריזות המלאכה, שבת אל תדחה מפניה. כל אכין ורקין מיעויטין הן.

Even though you are driven and energetic regarding the work (of building the Mishkan), Shabbat shall not be pushed aside by it. All instances of the word “אך” and “רק” are exclusionary.

Between אך and רק — The Malbim’s Distinction

The idea that both אך and רק denote some form of exclusion leads us to raise the following question; what is the difference between the exclusionary nature of these two terms? For it is important for us to know that, in the same way there is no happenstance when it comes to the writing the Torah, so, too, there is no such thing as two words that happen to mean exactly the same thing. Every word has its distinct nuance and connotation. There are no synonyms in the Torah.

The Malbim, in his “Ayelet Hashachar” introduction[1] to his peirush to Chumash Vayikra, expresses the difference as follows (siman 591):

The word אך denotes an exclusion within the “second” sentence, that is, the sentence that contains the word אך. In this respect, it differs from the word רק, which comes to exclude regarding something mentioned in the previous sentence.

To put this idea slightly differently:

·      The word אך indicates an exclusion concerning something we are about to learn. 

·      The word רק indicates an exclusion concerning something we have already learned.

Applying the Principle — Parshat Mishpatim

Let us illustrate this distinction with an example from the peirush of the Malbim himself.

The pasuk in Parshat Mishpatim (21:18) describes a case where two people are fighting, and one administers a severe blow to the other which, if it would kill him, would render the perpetrator liable to be killed by Beit Din (“וְכִי יְרִיבֻן אֲנָשִׁים וְהִכָּה אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בְּאֶבֶן אוֹ בְאֶגְרֹף”). However, the pasuk proceeds to state that in this case, it was (subsequently) assessed that the victim would not die from the blow (“וְלֹא יָמוּת”). Hence, the verdict is (pasuk 19) “רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא,” he must only pay for the victim’s lost time (shevet) and for his healing expenses (ripui).

The Malbim explains the connotation of the word רַק:

Even though until this point[2] (the perpetrator) was under the presumption that he was deserving of death, in which case he would not be liable for shevet or ripui,[3] now that he has been cleared from the liability of the death penalty, the obligation to pay shevet and ripui return, and similarly he is obligated in the other three payments of nezek (damage), tzaar (suffering), and boshet (embarrassment).

For one cannot say that the use of the word “רק” regarding the payment of shevet and ripui come to exclude the obligation of the other three payments, for if that were to be the case, the pasuk should have said “אך שבתו יתן ורפא ירפא”; the explanation would then be “Only shevet and ripui, but not nezek, tzaar, and boshet.” The use of the word “רק,” however, comes to exclude regarding that which was mentioned (previously), namely “וְנִקָּה הַמַּכֶּה — the injurer is exonerated,” as if to say, he is cleared from the liability of death, but not from paying shevet and ripui. For we have explained many times that the word “רק” excludes something that is part of what was mentioned in the previous sentence, while the word “אך” excludes something that is part of what is mentioned in the subsequent sentence.

Support from the Rishonim

Appreciating this distinction between אך and רק will help us understand the comment of Rabbeinu Bachye on our pasuk of “אַךְ אֶת שַׁבְּתֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ” (s.v. ach):

Seeing as the word “אך” comes to exclude — as Chazal have indeed told us that the words אך and רק are both exclusionary — it appears to me that the word אך in our pasuk comes to exclude keeping the Shabbat when it comes to bringing the korbanot that override the Shabbat, as Chazal (Pesachim 86a) expounded the word “בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ — in its appointed time”[4] (Bamidbar 28:2) to teach us “even on Shabbat.” This is similar to their drashah (Shevuot 13a) concerning the pasuk which states (Vayikra 23:27) “אַךְ בֶּעָשׂוֹר לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי הַזֶּה יוֹם הַכִּפֻּרִים הוּא — but, on the tenth of this seventh month it is Yom HaKippurim,” that the word אך also comes to exclude something, namely, to exclude those who don’t do teshuvah from receiving kaparah. And the opinion of Chazal[5] (regarding the word “אך” in our pasuk regarding Shabbat) is that it comes to exclude keeping the Shabbat in a situation of pikuach nefesh.

It is most significant to note, in terms of our discussion, that in both cases mentioned by Rabbeinu Bachye, the word אך is taken as indicating an exclusion concerning the matter about to be discussed (shemirat Shabbat or shemirat Yom Kippur). This would seem to provide ample basis and support for the approach of the Malbim.

Rashi’s Approach

It would appear, however, from Rashi’s comments (quoted in the beginning of our discussion) that he does not concur with the distinction of the Malbim and Rabbeinu Bachye. Rashi explains the word “אך” to refer to the fact that building the Mishkan does not override Shabbat. This means that although the word אך appears in the beginning of the pasuk which talks about Shabbat, it does not come to exclude any aspect of Shabbat itself, but rather comes to exclude the matter that was mentioned in the previous pesukim, that is, the building of the Mishkan, from taking place on Shabbat. In fact, the Ramban (Shemot ibid.) takes issue with Rashi over this very matter.

For in all instances Chazal understood these excluding words to exclude regarding the matter being discussed.[6] If the excluding word in our pasuk (“אך”) was indeed stated with reference to the building of the Mishkan, it would then mean that it is permitted to build it on Shabbat! Rather, the exclusion is stated with regard to milah or pikuach nefesh and other similar matters which supersede the Shabbat.[7]

The Word אך in Drash and in Pshat

Interestingly, a further look into Rabbeinu Bachye’s comments on our pasuk may provide a way to understand the word “אך” as referring to building the Mishkan, and teaching us that it does not override the Shabbat. The chiddush here is that this understanding will come from relating to the word אך not as a tool of drash, but rather on the level of pshuto shel mikra:

The pasuk teaches us that the building of the Mishkan does not override the Shabbat…and similarly, Chazal expounded (Torat Kohanim, Kedoshim, parshah 3 perek 7), that “One might think that building the Beit Hamikdash overrides the Shabbat, to this end the Torah states (Vayikra 19:30) “אֶת שַׁבְּתֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ וּמִקְדָּשִׁי תִּירָאוּ — keep My Shabbatot, and fear My Sanctuary.”[8] According to this approach, the word “אך” is understood as similar to the word “אכן,” which has a connotation of “however,” as if to say, behold I have commanded you regarding the building of the Mishkan, however, observe My Shabbatot, and do not push Shabbat aside for purposes of building the Mishkan.

In other words, the message that Chazal derived through the means of drash from the pasuk “אֶת שַׁבְּתֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ וּמִקְדָּשִׁי תִּירָאוּ,” Rabbeinu Bachye derives through pshuto shel mikra from our pasuk, whereby the word אך is taken as relating to אכן, meaning “however.”

[1] This introduction comprises six hundred and thirteen principles of language and grammar relating to lashon hakodesh, which are nuances that Chazal used to expound halachot from Torah SheBichtav.

[2] [I.e., prior to the point when it was assessed that the victim would not die from the blow.]

[3] Since one who is liable to be killed is not obligated in monetary payments as well, based on the principle of קם ליה בדרבה מיניה — let him remain with the greater punishment.

[4] Stated with reference to the two daily tamid offerings.

[5] Which is in contrast with Rabbeinu Bachye’s own explanation mentioned earlier in the paragraph.

[6] This constitutes further support for the Malbim’s approach from among the Rishonim. Indeed, Rabbeinu Bachye’s comments themselves, mentioned above, are based on these words of the Ramban.

[7] See mefarshei Rashi who discuss Rashi’s position on this matter, at length.

[8] [The drash is explaining that by mentioning Shabbat before the Mikdash, the pasuk is indicating that it takes precedence over the Mikdash.]