I find the coincidence of this NYT book review of Steven Gimble's *Einstein's Jewish Science* and the list discussion of Jewish economists quite fascinating, only enhanced by the reference to "pilpul" that has engaged some here. The book is totally critical of the idea of Jewish physics, but then has some interesting things to say about the first and best definition of pilpul: "Subtle or keen rabbinical argumentation; an instance of this."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/books/review/einsteins-jewish-science-by-steven-gimbel.html?

Excerpt:

What gives Einstein’s work a Jewish flavor, Gimbel believes, is an approach to the universe that reminds him of the way a Talmudic scholar seeks to understand God’s truth. It comes only in glimpses. “Thou shalt not steal” may seem clear enough. But is it stealing to keep a $100 bill you find on the ground? It depends. Did you see the person who might have dropped it? Was it found on a busy street or in a friend’s backyard? In a hotel lobby with a lost and found? Without the luxury of a God’s-eye view, we must reckon from different vantage points.

“The heart of the Talmudic view is that there is an absolute truth, but this truth is not directly and completely available to us,” Gimbel writes. “It turns out that exactly the same style of thinking occurs in the relativity theory and in some of Einstein’s other research.”

Sumitra Shah


________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Theocarakis

Actually "pilpul" is in the OED, defined as "Subtle or keen rabbinical argumentation; an instance of this. In extended use: unprofitable argument, quibbling". First attested in 1894 . "Pilpulist" [A person who employs or engages in pilpul] is attested even earlier [1859   P. Beaton Jews in East<https://owa.stjohns.edu/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx> ii. iii. 93   There is not among them a talmudist or pilpulist of any reputation].

Christians, read "casuistry", Marxists "vulgar economics".