LEARNING WITH COMMENTATORS · 2 OF 5
What does lecha add?
Compare Rashi and Ramban on lech lecha, using the language parallel Ramban himself brings.
In this lesson
Bring the first distinction with you
Before reading onward, recall Whose words are these? Name one difference between a verse, its English rendering and a commentary. Then try to recover the Torah phrase Rashi explains and what he says about it. If you are beginning here, make the distinction from the source cards below and return to this check.
1. What should stay separate when we read the sources?
The Torah’s words are the base text. An English rendering conveys that text in English. Rashi’s explanation is a named teacher’s commentary. Rashi comments on לך לך, lech lecha, and explains the journey as for Avram’s benefit and good. Our own response to that teaching is another kind of statement.
Look closely at two words
In Genesis, the Torah’s first book, God calls our ancestor Avram to leave his land, birthplace and father’s house. The command begins:
לך לך מארצך
Go from your land.
English rendering by Messianic Yeshiva
- לך · Lech
- Go. This is the command.
- לך · Lecha
- To you or for you. Here “you” addresses Avram.
The words look alike without vowel marks, but their pronunciation and grammatical roles differ. Our short English command conveys the sentence naturally. The Hebrew gives us a more precise question: How should we understand lecha alongside the command to go?
2. Does the Hebrew simply say the same command twice?
No. Lech is “go”; lecha is “to/for you.” Matching unpointed letters do not make them the same grammatical word. Both commentators below are considering this opening wording, not two different biblical commands.
Hear an explanation and a response
Rashi, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, reads the wording together with the promise in the following verse. Genesis 12:2 says, “I will make you into a great nation.” Here is a slightly longer selection from his comment:
להנאתך ולטובתך ושם אעשך לגוי גדול
For your benefit and for your good; there I will make you a great nation.
English rendering by Messianic Yeshiva
Ramban, Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, begins his comment by quoting Rashi’s explanation. He then gives his own response:
ואין צורך כי משפט הלשון כן
That explanation is not needed, because this is how the language works.
English rendering by Messianic Yeshiva
“That explanation” identifies what Ramban is responding to: the benefit explanation of this wording. He is not dismissing the entire work of Rashi. An idiom is a normal way a language says something whose force is not captured by giving every word a separate explanation. Ramban asks us to recognize the language’s ordinary usage here.
3. If Rashi’s explanation appears inside Ramban’s comment, whose view is it?
The quoted benefit explanation is still Rashi’s. Ramban reports it before giving his own response: he does not think that explanation is required by the wording. A commentator can preserve another teacher’s view without adopting it as his conclusion. Track where the quotation ends and the response begins.
Follow the evidence Ramban brings
Ramban supports his account with examples elsewhere in Scripture. One is a command in Deuteronomy, the Torah’s fifth book, addressed to a group:
קומו ועברו לכם את נחל זרד
A language parallel cited by Ramban on Genesis 12:1
- קומו = get up, addressed to more than one person.
- ועברו = and cross, also addressed to more than one person.
- לכם, lachem = to/for you, in the plural.
- את נחל זרד = the Zered stream.
Using the guide, say the command in natural English. Then ask why Ramban might place this sentence beside lech lecha. Keep lecha, addressed to one person, and lachem, addressed to a group, distinct.
4. What does this parallel contribute to Ramban’s argument?
Our rendering is: “Get up and cross the Zered stream.” The Hebrew includes לכם, “to/for you,” alongside the command. Natural English can convey that command without adding a separate clause promising personal benefit.
Ramban brings this as evidence for a normal biblical way of speaking: a command can include this kind of “for you” expression. The two passages use related forms, not identical words. His argument concerns how the wording works, not whether the people will benefit from crossing the stream.
Notice the steps in the argument. Ramban identifies a phrase, brings another scriptural command, and uses that parallel to explain a pattern of language. To assess the comparison fairly, we need to follow that evidence rather than replace it with a slogan about his personality.
State the actual difference
Return to Genesis 12:1–2. The passage includes both the command to leave and God’s explicit promise to make Avram a great nation. Which question separates the two comments?
- Does the word lecha call for the particular benefit explanation?
- Will God keep the promise to bless Avram?
5. Which question captures their difference, and why?
The first. Rashi draws out the journey’s benefit in lech lecha. Ramban argues that ordinary biblical usage accounts for this wording, and supports that argument with parallels. Nothing in this selected response says God will withhold the promised blessing. Both comments read a passage in which the blessing is explicit.
A fair comparison can name a real disagreement without enlarging it. Here the difference concerns the explanation the wording calls for. We have not learned everything either teacher thinks about the journey.
Write before comparing
Write three or four sentences with the sources open. Name the shared phrase, explain each teacher’s reading, and identify the evidence Ramban brings. End by stating the precise difference. Keep the model closed until you have a complete attempt.
6. Does your comparison preserve both readings and the evidence?
One possible comparison: “Rashi and Ramban both discuss lech lecha in Genesis 12:1. Rashi explains it as for Avram’s benefit and good, connecting the journey with becoming a great nation. Ramban says the wording does not require that explanation, because it follows normal biblical usage; he cites the command with lachem in Deuteronomy 2:13 as one parallel. Their difference here concerns how to explain the phrase, not whether the following promise of blessing is true.”
Check your own work for a named teacher, an accurate claim and a relevant source for each part. If you wrote only “They disagree,” add what they disagree about.
Now revise this overstatement: “Rashi cares only about encouragement, while Ramban cares only about grammar. Ramban therefore denies that the journey benefits Avram.” Replace it with a claim these selections actually support.
7. How can you make the claim precise and fair?
Write: “In this comment, Rashi draws out the benefit of Avram’s journey. Ramban argues from parallel biblical usage that the wording itself does not need that explanation.” The selections do not support an “only” claim about either teacher’s whole approach, and Ramban’s response does not deny the promised benefit.
A useful comparison describes what each teacher does here. That leaves room to discover other tools and emphases as we read more of their commentaries.
Return next session
Without looking above, explain Rashi’s benefit reading and Ramban’s language argument. Name the Deuteronomy 2:13 parallel and say what it contributes. Finish by correcting the claim that Ramban denies the blessing.
8. Which parts should you recover?
Rashi reads lech lecha as for Avram’s benefit and good, linked to becoming a great nation. Ramban treats the expression as normal biblical usage and cites, among other examples, קומו ועברו לכם את נחל זרד, “Get up and cross the Zered stream.” The lachem in that command supports his language argument. The difference concerns the phrase’s explanation, not a denial of God’s explicit blessing.
Read in context
Read Genesis 12:1–2, then Rashi and Ramban on Genesis 12:1. Follow Ramban’s cited command in Deuteronomy 2:13. We have selected one of his language parallels. The English renderings and activities are our own.
Continue with Where does the call begin? to compare how two teachers place the command within Avram’s journey.