Thursday, July 28, 2005

What did Rashi say? Re: Dr. Alan Brill

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.

4 comments:

  1. Amen v'amen-take the truth from whom it comes. A great scholar (Neusner?) translated "Amar Rabbi Lo" in the Yerushalmi as Rabbi said: No. No one is above stupid mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Or it may have been something compiled by a research assistant that wasn't checked. Or Brill may have had a recollection about that Rashi which was incorrect, written it
    into his paper with the intention of checking the text, and forgotten to do so under the pressure of a deadline. None of this would make it acceptable, but these things happen with academic works all the time. Carelessness is not ipso facto Am-Haaratzus.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Or it may have been something compiled by a research assistant that wasn't checked. Or Brill may have had a recollection about that Rashi which was incorrect, written it
    into his paper with the intention of checking the text, and forgotten to do so under the pressure of a deadline. None of this would make it acceptable, but these things happen with academic works all the time. Carelessness is not ipso facto Am-Haaratzus.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Absolutely. I would have worded this very differently today.

    ReplyDelete