I'm wondering whether traditional sources have a name or an approach to dealing with what is known more generally as an "argument ad hominem". That is, are there sources in which some variation of the following happens:
- Rabbi A makes a claim (either halachic or aggadic)
- Rabbi B rejects Rabbi A's claim not on its substantive merits but because Rabbi A is a disreputable source
- Rabbi B is rebuked by Rabbi C for engaging in an ad hominem argument rather than addressing the substance of Rabbi A's argument.
Any instances of this kind of exchange?