Okay, thanks.
I understand that one can find here, implicitly, the assumption that Maimonides’ self-confidence, for example (since I already used him as the example), makes him more tolerant because other views do not pose a threat to him.
Could you please expand on / point me to the distinction between tolerance and pluralism?

Maimonides was non-fundamentalist?!
In today’s terms Maimonides was ultra-fundamentalist.
He is the one who innovated the Jewish law ruling that in a utopian reality every gentile who does not accept the Seven Noahide Commandments (in their religious interpretation . according to Maimonides, in an ideal situation apparently all the Hindus, Africans, and idol worshippers left in the world should be killed). specifically because of his universal adaptation—that every gentile is capable of and must recognize the “Seven Noahide Commandments” as binding law—he was very intolerant (again, of course, in thought, in theory) toward any gentile who was unable to keep those basic rules. (And he also wrote, of course, that in an ideal reality gentiles would not even have permission to maintain a religion of their own.)
Even less so: like all the rabbis up until the modern period, he was intolerant toward heretical and unbelieving Jews—one sends them down into a pit, and so on.
I never understood why people so often bring Maimonides as an example of an “enlightened ancient rabbi.” Just because he read Aristotle and “ruled” that gentiles can receive a share in the World to Come (if they believe in Judaism)? And because he mentioned the virtue of righteous converts as greater than that of someone born Jewish? (Two things that really are not his innovations at all, but determinations that can already be found in the Talmud.)

Innovated*

Okay, Ratzio, that’s exactly the point. Intellectual decisiveness that nevertheless does not lead to fundamentalism in the end. I think the Rabbi answered that very precisely.

My remarks were not about Maimonides but about the phenomenon.
As has already been noted, Maimonides is not an example of tolerance. But in general, in my view, it is impossible to measure the tolerance and enlightenment of people who are not in positions of leadership, since they have no opportunity to implement their thought in practice. What people write does not really overlap with what they would actually do in practice. Life is stronger than ideology, and that’s a good thing.
As for tolerance and pluralism, see here:

מחירה של הסובלנות

With God’s help, 25 Tammuz 5781

Maimonides was in a position of leadership, and was recognized by the authorities as the “Nagid” of the Jews of Egypt, and by virtue of his authority acted forcefully against the influence of Karaite customs on the Jews of Egypt. At the same time, with regard to Karaite children who had been raised from childhood on the heritage of denying the Oral Torah, Maimonides was lenient in judging them as inadvertent sinners, like “captured children.”

Tolerance is not legitimization of views that contradict the Torah, but rather relating to those who err as inadvertent sinners whom one should draw near, by pleasant ways and explanation, to the path of truth.

Best regards, Azriel Tzemach Halevi Kalisher

Regarding those who err in matters of faith because of a mistaken understanding of the words of the Sages, such as those who err by ascribing corporeality to God on the basis of understanding rabbinic statements literally, the Raavad regarded them as “inadvertent,” whereas Maimonides apparently held that anyone who had attained the ability to study the words of the Sages—for him, an “error in learning counts as intentional.” If one studies the sources, one must take responsibility not to err.

In Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishnah (regarding Karaite children) and in the Raavad (regarding those who err by ascribing corporeality based on the plain meaning of aggadic passages), we have seen tolerance toward those who err, even though their opinion is completely rejected; but toward those who err there is tolerance, since they are judged as inadvertent sinners.

But a fundamentalism that sanctifies the sources can also open the door to accepting a different opinion, so long as it is grounded and based on the range of views found in the sources. In such a case, even if we do not agree in Jewish law with that opinion, we can still relate to it as a well-founded view, since it has an anchor in the sources, in the sense of “These and those are the words of the living God.”

Best regards, A.T.H.K.

Okay, thank you very much.
Interesting to note that Rabbi Solomon ben Parhon (a grammarian from about 800 years ago) claims that the method of abbreviation (“elliptical Scripture,” as Rashi sometimes comments) is also found among the Sages, as in “These and those are the words of the living God,” where the meaning is: these and those are expounding the words of the living God themselves (that is, ostensibly, the Torah), and nevertheless the Jewish law follows the House of Hillel.
That is an interesting interpretation (written, incidentally, in the course of a grammatical discussion), which turns the pluralistic bowl upside down and presents specifically a monistic but tolerant position, out of appreciation for the learning method of the dissenter (after all, he is expounding the words of the living God).

Tolerance can stem from stupidity, or from condescension.
From stupidity—the tolerant person does not understand what he himself thinks or what others are saying, so he presents tolerance.
From condescension—he understands that others are foolish, and therefore they do not know the truth that he knows, and he relates to them with indulgence.
The manipulative tolerant person’s goal is to show that his position leads to tolerance and is therefore superior, and he is of course included among the condescending.

Pluralism is a concept lacking serious meaning, because every person is pluralistic in his soul. Even if not always in his verbal position, it is still meaningless because this is a very small part of the soul.

Yehotzfen, wonderful interpretation. I didn’t know it.
It reminds me of the Jerusalem tanna who uses a light expression (Bava Kamma 6). And of course, see the Vilna Gaon’s wonderful commentary there.