Sunday, November 20, 2011
Or Kasdin: Rashi and Ramban
Rashi and Ramban disagree on the meaning of the phrase Or Kasdin. Rashi gives several possibilities on what the phrase could mean. He mentions the Kivshon HaAish, but thinks that if it were referring to something so important it would be written in the Torah. He concludes that it must refer to the valley of Kasdin, the birthplace of Avraham. Ramban disagrees. He says that it is not possible for Or Kasdin to be Avraham's birth place because it is in Cham's land and Avraham is a descendant of Shem. Therefore, Or Kasdin must refer to the Kivshon HaAish.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would like to add to Emunah's post. Ramban believes that Or Kasdim is referring to an event not just because it can't be referring to a place. He finds hints in the text that seem to validate the story of Kivshon HaAish. Rashi does not base his answer on this midrash because he thinks that if this story is true, then it should have been important enough to include in the Tanach.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with Rashi. I do not think that if something is so important it must be in the Torah. So many times, we have important new laws in Judaism to follow. What are we going to do? Add them into the Torah each time something new is come up with. I think that is is very possible that is could have been the kivshon haish but just have been left out of the torah.
ReplyDeleteOrly-
ReplyDeleteI see what you're saying, but we know that when we apply laws from the תורה into our daily lives, we don't make up new laws at all. We interpret what is already in the text and apply it to the specific situation. Even then, we still stay well within the boundaries of what is written in the text. With the story of the כבשן האש, i think it's different. It's not a law that is left open to interpretation and/or application. It's a story about an event in history. Yes, everything in the תורה is there to teach us something, but when there is a law, the text says it outright what it is we should or shouldn't do. It's not the same here. Like I said before, even the laws have their basis in the text. Here, רשי finds no hint of an actual כבשן האש written in the text. He thinks, as do I, that we can't pull stories from anywhere and everywhere into the תורה. They have to at least have their basis in the text.
It's quite possible though, that there are some hints to the story in the text, as the רמבן says. I tend to agree with the רמבן that it was an event instead of a place, but I can see both sides.