Q&A: Accepting Defamatory Speech
Accepting Defamatory Speech
Question
Here — https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9F/ — you wrote that it cannot be that the prohibition of accepting defamatory speech means that one is literally forbidden to believe it, because it is absurd to command someone that a fact x is true or not true.
You also wrote that Maimonides and Rabbeinu Yonah likewise say, regarding judging favorably, that one must be rational. But looking at the Maimonides you cited, it seems that this is not exactly what he says. He says that in an evenly balanced case there is indeed a command to judge favorably in the literal sense:
“And when the matter is unknown, and the act does not incline toward either of the two extremes, one should, as a matter of piety, judge it on the side of merit, whichever of the two sides it may be.”
So it comes out that according to Maimonides one does not need to be rational, no?
Answer
Not so. When the case is evenly balanced and you can choose an interpretation, he is telling you to choose the positive interpretation. You have no other position here. And he emphasizes that this is a matter of piety, meaning that you are not ignoring the fact that, factually, this is an evenly balanced situation, but you still judge him favorably.
Discussion on Answer
Obviously there is no instruction here for practical action. Practical decisions I make on the basis of facts. But a person can be required to relate to someone favorably so long as there is no strong reason to the contrary. Regard him as innocent. If I had to bet on his being innocent, I certainly wouldn’t bet on it at more than 50-50.
What is the practical meaning of judging favorably when factually I believe it’s 50-50? After all, you can’t command beliefs.