Rashi vs. Ramban

Both Rashi and Ramban were great commentators on תנך. Every person/rabbi who studies Torah finds textual anomalies and builds an explanation around that. In that sense, the text of the Torah is like a grain of sand in an oyster. Over time, a pearl will be formed out of the sand and oyster saliva. Like this, the rabbis would build a story around the problem in the text that is meant to teach us a lesson. This is the basic idea of how the Midrash was formed. Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (A.K.A. Rashi) was among the first medieval commentaries. He studied the Torah his entire life and found textual anomalies everywhere. He was well educated in the Midrash, so he knew the stories. In his study of the Torah, he wrote footnotes on the side of his text. These footnotes included the most realistic "Midrash" explanation. He did not accept that simple words in the text referred to wild and important stories. Instead, he gave an explanation that logically explained what was happening in the Torah without referring to a story unmentioned in the Torah. (He was once talking to his grandson and Rashi is reported to have said that if he could go back and change anything in his life, he would have made a commentary on the פשט: how can we understand-on the most basic level-what the text is trying to convey?) It is also important to note that RASHI DID NOT COME UP WITH HIS EXPLANATIONS. He found them in the Midrash and recorded them. Rabbi Moshe Ben Nachman (A.K.A. Ramban) was almost the opposite in ideology. He was taught (and passes on to us) that one should use the פשט interpretation, unless there is no other way to explain the text. He respected Rashi very much, but most of the time, he humbly contradicted Rashi. According to Ramban, "Ur Kasdim" is referring to an event because of the general phrasing of the statement. According to Rashi, "Ur Kasdim" is referring to a place. (If the story of the fiery pit was so important, why is it not mentioned in the text of the Torah?)

We can see here that there is even dispute in the world of the commentators. Unfortunately, we do not know what really happened or what we are supposed to get out of the phrasing of the statement "Haran died on the face of (before) Terach his father in the land of his birth in Ur Kasdim." Each person should come up with their own opinion about what is true and what is fable.