Is the majority of the Haredi public very much against the concept of “accepting the truth from whoever told it”?
I have often encountered the perception among the ultra-Orthodox public that they are not at all open to critical thinking about issues that are not necessarily related to Torah and faith, and yet they were not willing to listen.
Is the Maimonides’ approach of “accepting the truth from the one who said it” really said this about every topic? Because from what I understand, Maimonides says that if I look at a particular article, I should not look at who wrote it, but at what it says. And the Haredi community generally feels that if there is a particular book but there is no consensus on it, it simply does not count. Is there any explanation for this phenomenon?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why?
Maimonides himself said, “Accept the truth from the one who said it.” For me, every person. Whether it was a Muslim scholar who said something wise or a Christian monk.
If we do indeed reject anything for which we do not know the author, then we will also have to shelve the “Unknown Commentary” on the Gemara because we do not know the identity of the author. For me personally, it makes no difference, and for me, even if a Gentile wrote the “Unknown Commentary” it would not make any difference in my view of the commentary.
Well, you made life easy for yourself. Obviously, the arguments should be discussed on their merits. The proposal to remove his books from the courtroom has an educational purpose. Not because there is nothing to learn from his words, but because people should be educated to be skeptical of him. And I still think it is wrong to do so (assuming the books are worth something).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
