"It came to pass, in the days Amaraphel, King of Shinar; Aryokh, King of Ellasar; Kedorlaomer, King of Elam; and Tidal, King of Goyim, that these made war with Bera, King of Sedom, with Birsha, King of Amora, Shina, King of Adma, Shem'ever, King of Zevoyim, and the King of Bela, which is Zo'ar..." (14: 1).
The first king in the list is named Amraphel, King of Shinar, and Rashi stops to comment on his name.
He is Nimrod, who said to Avraham "fall into the fiery furnace". This interpretation is based on the assumption that the name Amraphel is made up of two elements: amar plus pol, meaning "he said: fall".
The Torah calls him Amraphel, but Rashi explains that he is really Nimrod. It is a curiosity, Rashi's interpretation. If the Torah calls him by the name Amraphel, then why should we be taught to doubt that? If his name were Nimrod then the Torah should have called him by that name, and not by any other. Why would the Torah want us to search for his real identity? Why do we need Rashi to teach us what his actual name was?
The question is not, "does this relationship appear in the words of Chazal?". We should rather ask, "why did Rashi have to quote this relationship in explaining the pasuk in line with his approach to pshat?"
"…Haran died, in the presence of his father Terach, in his native land, in Ur Kasdim…" (11: 28).
Again according to Rashi the story told in the Torah must be supplemented by the medrash (Breshit Rabba 38:13). The important thing is that there is a hint to the story in the Torah itself which is reflected in the use of the word ur.
This story became the subject of some dispute among the rishonim. If the story is told in Chazal, does that mean that it is history? Must we accept it at face value and assume that it actually happened? Or is it possible to say that the story teaches a lesson and that the event may not be history?
Rashi, by insisting that the story is alluded to in the words of the verse itself, and that the use of the word ur is a clear reference to the Nimrod-Avram story, indicates that he accepts that the medrash represented history.
However, others disagreed. One of the rationales for disagreement was the following. If such a great miracle had happened to Avram, surely the Torah would have mentioned it. After all the Torah is interested in teaching us that Hashem controls the world and looks after those who find favor in His eyes. Surely this story indicates that point. Why would the Torah cover up such an important story?
Ramban in answering this argument says that the Torah wanted to include the story, but it did not want to include the whole story because it contained arguments between Avram and Nimrod's court about theology. As a result, the story was not included in the Torah (by Hashem). Instead, a shortened version is included as part of the traditions we have from Chazal. The Ramban goes to great lengths to prove the historicity of the story and to have it included in the "biography" of Avram our father.
Rashi has taken a different position. The story is historical because the Torah has taken the opportunity to allude to it. So for Rashi, the proper pshat meaning of the ur kasdim is: "the place where the well known incident took place…". Having said that, Rashi takes the opportunity to tell us the entire story as it appears in the Midrash.
Amraphel as Nimrod, Revisited
Perhaps a similar rationale explains Rashi's comments on our verse. Rashi sees that Chazal have connected the King named Amraphel to another more well known King, Nimrod. This then is the continuation of the story. The King who threw Avram into the furnace and tried to kill him and his ideas, is later dealt with in a military action led by Avram and the troops. Just as the story is originally told through the hint in the word ur so too is the continuation of the story told to us through another hint in the name Amraphel.
For Rashi all this is history as written in the Torah. Even events that are accessible only through a complex process of interpretation are part of the history that the Torah states. If the story told relates to events in the lives of the Avot, then those events happened. According to Rashi, Avram met with Nimrod on two occasions. First when Nimrod tried to kill Avram; and second in battle where Avram emerged victorious.
Gut Shabbos, Chaim Brovender
As usual, I will be happy to respond to and possibly to post questions or comments you have on the parasha.
Missed a parasha? Visit the parasha archives...
Return to Yeshivat Hamivtar - Orot Lev
