Actually it is in the OED: "Subtle or keen rabbinical argumentation; an 
instance of this. In extended use: unprofitable argument, quibbling." I 
rather appreciated the verbal play, as well as the invitation to learn a 
new word.

James Forder

James Forder
Fellow and Tutor in Economics
Tutor for Graduate Admissions
Balliol College Oxford

On 06/08/2012 03:06, mason gaffney wrote:
> I believe that Roy Weintraub errs to dismiss defining a Jew as mere
> “pilpul” (casuistry).  It is hard to study a subject without defining
> its central term.
>
> He is right, however, that this should not stop us from considering the
> original questions about how Jews, however defined, have made such a
> mark in academic economics. Two or three contributors have submitted
> definitions of Jews.  I would like to suggest some vital points missing
> from the definitions.
>
> #1 is that in medieval times in Europe Jews were not allowed to own
> land.  In contrast the major Christian church, Roman Catholic, was a or
> often THE major landowner.  In the feudal system, owning land was a
> personal relationship of loyalty between the sovereign and the “owner” -
> “own” relating to the word “owe”, meaning the nominal owner owed cash or
> other services to the sovereign.  Nothing is ever that simple, but that
> was a basic part of the bargain. The king’s tenant had to swear PERSONAL
> loyalty to the king, and be his subject.  A foreigner did not qualify,
> and infidels were foreigners.
>
>                  Thus it was consistent with diaspora culture, as it
> evolved under this system, that Ricardo could create a model in which
> land rents were considered a “surplus”.  Baron von Thunen in Germany
> could create an analogous model explaining urban rents, but without its
> being subject to the same interpretation of a “surplus” (at least, not
> to my knowledge – if anyone knows otherwise, correct me).
>
> #2  is that in Judeah and Israel the tribes were assigned their lands,
> except for the Levites, who lived on contributions from the landed
> tribes, and were expected to frame laws for all, owners and plebs alike.
> This included reassigning lands and forgiving debts every 50 years, a
> much more egalitarian system than evolved in Christian jurisdictions.
> This naturally entailed Jews looking at gentiles from the outside, as it
> were, hence more objectively, hence more scientifically.
>
> #3, since Jews could not own land, it followed that they were unlikely
> to lend on the security of land as collateral.  Lacking political power,
> they would be loathe to lend to sovereigns.  It would follow that they
> would lend on the security of personal property, e.g. inventories, and
> get involved in small businesses, and identify with them. Of course they
> also got involved in personal consumption loans, a source of great
> hostility.
>
> #4, American colleges were originally Christian seminaries, and later
> evolved into satrapies of robber barons and other great landowners. It
> would follow that they would disfavor Jewish economists until in recent
> times the Jews had grown richer and could identify more with great wealth.
>
> The above needs more refining and better organizing, but I hope the
> basic ideas are clear and acceptable.
>
> #5 is the matter of language.  Having a distinctive language makes it
> easier to communicate secretly, and weed out spies (as per the
> Shibboleth story). /Pilpul/, for example, is not in Webster’s Collegiate
> or the O.E.D., and is somewhat exclusionary.
>
> Mason Gaffney
>
> *From:*Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> Behalf Of *E. Roy Weintraub
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 02, 2012 4:50 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [SHOE] RVW -- Schiffman on Kuznets, _Jewish Econ omies:
> Deve lopment and Migration in America and Beyond – Volume I: Th e
> Economic Life of American Jewry_
>
> For a comment on the SHOE list, it is curious that John Brown is
> uninterested in the history of economics. The economics profession was
> certainly not secular in the sense of neutral with respect to the
> religion of the economist in the United States until after WWII. To
> teach economics in an elite institution one had to be a white Christian
> male. There were only around 100 Jewish scholars teaching any subject,
> yes any subject, in any, that's right any, US college or university
> around 1910. And the questions are not about "Jewish economics" but
> about economists who were Jews. Were their professional experiences
> different from those of Christian economists? Why were there so many
> Jewish Nobelists? These seem to me to be historically interesting
> questions. And to push such questions aside with arguments about the
> definition of a "Jew" is, frankly, pilpul.
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 2:25 PM, John Brown <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> I think that the question is interesting but largely unimportant.  In a
> predominantly secular society, in a discipline that is very secular in
> its orientation, questions of religious identity are not likely to
> feature very extensively.
>
> I am by background a WASP, however neither my Anglo-Saxon, nor my
> Protestant origins have ever had any relevance to my professional work.
> I assume that most of the many distinguished economists whose ethnic
> origins were Jewish, did not experience their work as "jewish" but as a
> contribution to the scientific traditions of economics.  In point of
> fact, the only references that I can remember to "Jewish economics"
> originate with facists (specifically Nazis.)  That very point may well
> explain the discomfort attached to singling out the Jewish contribution
> to economics.
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Daniel Schiffman <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> I thank Prof. Weintraub for his insightful comments. It is indeed puzzling
> that historians of economics have neglected the overrepresentation of Jews
> in economics.
>
> I wish to broaden the discussion to the question of religious influence on
> economists.
>
> In 2007, the Center for the History of Political Economy (CHOPE) at Duke
> University hosted a conference on the subject "Keeping Faith, Losing
> Faith: Religious Belief and Political Economy." To the surprise of the
> organizers, there were no submissions dealing with Jewish economists (Brad
> Bateman and Spencer Banzhaf, "Keeping Faith, Losing Faith: An
> Introduction," HOPE 40 (Annual Supplement), 1-20).
>
> Why were there no submissions on Jewish economists?  Was it lack of
> interest on the part of historians of economic thought? I believe not.
> Rather, I believe that the lack of submissions reflects the paucity of
> religious influences on the writings and/or activities of the leading
> Jewish economists. This is understandable, when we consider that a. Jewish
> economists were highly secularized and b. those who were less secularized
> (if any) would have been compelled to conceal any religious influence, for
> fear that it would arouse Anti-Semitism and derail their academic careers.
>
> Of course, the reality is different today. Today, an economist can publish
> work on Jewish economic history or on economic analysis of issues that
> arise in Jewish religious texts, without fear of Anti-Semitism. There is
> no need to act as Kuznets did--to write papers on Jewishly-oriented themes
> while concealing those papers from one's fellow economists.
>
>
>
> --
> *An optimist, often disappointed, but still hopeful.*
>
> John Howard Brown, Ph.D. *Physical Mail*
> Associate Professor P.O. Box 8152
> School of Economic Development School of Economic Development
> Georgia Southern University Georgia Southern University
> Statesboro, GA 30460
>
> *Telephone* (912) 478-0896           Fax (912) 478-0710
> *
>
> *
>
>
>
> --
> E. Roy Weintraub
> Professor of Economics
>
> Fellow, Center for the History of Political Economy
>
> Duke University
> www.econ.duke.edu/~erw/erw.homepage.html
> <http://www.econ.duke.edu/~erw/erw.homepage.html>
>