Parshat Ki Tisa 5779- Making peace between Rashi and Ramban

In the parsha it refers to the basic observance of Shabbat:

יג  וְאַתָּה דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵאמֹר, אַךְ אֶת-שַׁבְּתֹתַי, תִּשְׁמֹרוּ:  כִּי אוֹת הִוא בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם, לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם--לָדַעַת, כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם.

13 'Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying: Verily ye shall keep My sabbaths, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that ye may know that I am the LORD who sanctify you.

Rashi explains:

אך את שבתתי תשמרו. אַעַ"פִּ שֶׁתִּהְיוּ רְדוּפִין וּזְרִיזִין בִּזְרִיזוּת הַמְּלָאכָה, שַׁבָּת אַל תִּדָּחֶה מִפָּנֶיהָ, כָּל אַכִין וְרַקִּין מִעוּטִין – לְמַעֵט שַׁבָּת מִמְּלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן:

אך את שבתתי תשמרו BUT NEVERTHELESS MY SABBATHS SHALL YE KEEP — Even though you be anxious and alert to do the work promptly the Sabbath nevertheless you must not set aside on its account. The words אך and רק wherever they occur in Scripture have limitative force (Rosh Hashanah 17b; cf. Rashi on Rosh Hashanah 17b on אכין ורקין). Here Scripture intends by the word אך to except the Sabbath from the days on which the work of the Tabernacle may be done.

The Ramban objects:

אך את שבתותי תשמורו אף על פי שתהיו רדופין בזריזות המלאכה אל תדחה שבת מפניה. כל אכין ורקין מיעוטין, למעט שבת ממלאכת המשכן. לשון רש'י. ולא נתכון אצלי, כי לפי מדרש רבותינו באכין ורקין ימעט בשמירת השבת, כי המיעוטים אצלם בכל מקום ימעטו בדבר המצווה בו, ואם תדרוש המיעוט בענין מלאכת המשכן יהיה מותר לעשותה בשבת. אבל המיעוט הזה למילה או לפקוח נפש וכיוצא בהן שהן דוחין את השבת. וכך אמרו במסכת יומא (ירושלמי פ'ח ה'ה) ומנין שספק נפשות דוחה שבת, רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן אך את שבתותי תשמורו, מיעוט. ומלאכת המשכן שאינה דוחה שבת, מפני שהזהיר בה בכאן: ועל דרך הפשט הוא כן יאמר תעשו מלאכת אהל מועד אבל שבתותי תשמורו לעולם ובתורת כהנים (ויקרא יא ל) יכול יהא בנין בית המקדש דוחה שבת, תלמוד לומר את שבתותי תשמורו ומקדשי תיראו אני ה': 

The Ramban has a major question on Rashi’s peshat. Rashi maintains that the word אך is an exclusionary term, which Rashi argues, allows us to exclude the building of the Mishkan from the laws of Shabbat. This means that the Mishkan cannot be built on Shabbat and the building program is stopped on Shabbat. The Ramban argues that this is not the way the word אך works, as it only has exclusionary powers in the context of the law in which the word appears. Here it appears in the sentence referring to Shabbat, which should produce an exclusion to the laws of Shabbat (Ramban explains that it does produce such an exclusion , regarding Brit Milah  and danger to life, which are both events which override Shabbat restrictions and are allowed). The question is very strong on Rashi, as he uses the word אך not as an exclusion from Shabbat observance but, quite the opposite , enforcing Shabbat laws even when it comes to building the Mishkan. No  building exclusions are allowed. If so how does Rashi answer this question and remain faithful to the tradition of Chazal regarding the use of the term אך ?

The Maskil LeDavid (Supercommentary on Rashi by R’David Pardo:16th century Italy /Israel) answers this question in a magnificent fashion. He explains that Rashi is faced with a dilemma. Normally the word אך is an exclusionary term which functions within the context of the law in which it appears, in this case, in the law of Shabbat. However there is another term in the same verse which is inclusionary and that is the phrase אֶת-שַׁבְּתֹתַי,( the word אֶת is inclusionary as seen in the famous discussion of Shimon Ha’amsoni and Rabbi Akiva regarding the inclusion of the word אֶת with reference to ‘loving God). In fact it would have been simpler if both אֶת and אך would have been missed out completely, as they seem to cancel each other out. In order to solve the dilemma, Rashi suggests that the word אך should be used as an exclusionary term in the section just before it appears, that is, in the section of the laws of the Mishkan. Therefore Rashi suggests the idea of the limitation on the building of the Mishkan which is not to be done on Shabbat, as derived from the exclusionary term אך even though it appears in another part of the Torah text.

We see from here how exact the commentators were in their analysis of Rashi. I myself had the privilege to hear the lessons of didactics on Rashi from Nechama Liebowitz zal,and from Pro.Moshe Ahrend zal, when he was on sabbatical in London (he wrote a book together with Nechama on this subject) and I remember also her incredible reverence and care when she explained Rashi’s words and links in Rashi’s explanations. It is awesome that we have such a rich tradition to draw our inspiration from and the respect for Torah is a value which we must convey to the next generation, as did those who came before us.

Shabbat Shalom          Cherry Hill NJ/SCW     Feb 2019