There's a post on Godol Hador by about a piece by Dr. Alan Brill on Jewish relations with other religions. In it, he makes an error that is so strange that it is not to be believed. He writes, regarding Rashi, that
Even his very first comment on the Bible contains his own gloss on the Midrash, viewing the gentiles as armed robbers.I must say, this isn't how I remembered the first Rashi. After reading it a good ten times, every which way, I still cannot imagine how he read that Rashi (which basically mentions "listim/ armed robber" in the context of the non-Jews potentially accusing Jews of being armed robbers*coughanti-Zionistscough* with regard to possession of Israel). It is an error that defies explanation.
In the comments thread this strange mistake was rightly pounced upon, and Godol Hador, seemed taken aback by this because Alan Brill is "well respected"....wasn't he?
So some commenter said "make a note of *by whom* he's well-respected, and never take their word for anything on Judaism anymore."
Now I assume he meant Modern Orthodox Jews? After all, on RIET's web site there are fully 67 audio shiurim by Alan Brill.
I have to be mocheh. Even if it is true that Alan Brill's "bad" article disqualifies him as a serious Torah source (I haven't yet read the article, so for all I know it may be gold except for that unexplainable mistake, and I would think he deserves the benefit of the doubt) where is the logical leap that suggests to "never take their word for anything on Judaism anymore"? If single individuals represented entire paths in Torah in that way, well, there simply isn't anywhere one could take anyone's word on anything in Judaism. At the very least, not if the individual in question isn't a R. Hirsch, a R. Chaim Brisker or someone who is basically the originator and exemplar of that derekh.
The glee with which that person jumps to discredit an entire world of Torah is sad.