And then he wrote, “Remember: when there are two Jews, there are three opinions!”
Where did that expression come from. Well, the best place to look it up was – you guessed it – “Two Jews, Three Opinions: A Collection of Twentieth-Century American Jewish Quotations.” Amazon
It seems that David Ben Gurion gets the credit, though different sources offer different wording so we don’t have a solid quotation.
Rabbi Susan Grossman over at Belief Net offers this tidbit:
[Debate] so imbues who we are that even the least affiliated Jew is familiar with some version of the quip, “Ask two Jews, get three opinions.” It is this openness and concurrent tendency against dogma, which is responsible for creating the kind of cultural environment that stimulates creative thinking.
Rabbi David Zauderer illustrated the expression with a joke in Torah from Dixie and The Atlanta Jewish Times:
A new rabbi comes to a well-established congregation. Every week on the Sabbath, a fight erupts during the service. When it comes time to recite the Shema prayer, half of the congregation stands and the other half sits. The half who stand say, "Of course we stand for the Shema. It’s the credo of Judaism. Throughout history, thousands of Jews have died with the words of the Shema on their lips." The half who remain seated say, "No. According to the Shulchan Aruch (the code of Jewish law), if you are seated when you get to the Shema you remain seated."
The people who are standing yell at the people who are sitting, "Stand up!" while the people who are sitting yell at the people who are standing, "Sit down!" It’s destroying the whole decorum of the service, and driving the new rabbi crazy. Finally, it’s brought to the rabbi’s attention that at a nearby home for the aged is a 98-year-old man who was a founding member of the congregation. So, in accordance with Talmudic tradition, the rabbi appoints a delegation of three, one who stands for the Shema, one who sits, and the rabbi himself, to go interview the man. They enter his room, and the man who stands for the Shema rushes over to the old man and says, "Wasn’t it the tradition in our synagogue to stand for the Shema?"
"No," the old man answers in a weak voice. "That wasn’t the tradition."
The other man jumps in excitedly. "Wasn’t it the tradition in our synagogue to sit for the Shema?"
"No," the old man says. "That wasn’t the tradition."
At this point, the rabbi cannot control himself. He cuts in angrily. "I don’t care what the tradition was! Just tell them one or the other. Do you know what goes on in services every week — the people who are standing yell at the people who are sitting, the people who are sitting yell at the people who are standing—"
"That was the tradition," the old man says.
Okay, so if you ask two Jews, you get three opinions. But all my life, growing up, I had heard, “When two or three Episcopalians are gathered together, there are four opinions.” It’s because we are the same way, I guess. Or sometimes I heard, “When two or three Episcopalians are gathered together, there is always a fifth,” We are known not to be teetotalers like the Baptists and the Methodists.
I think we can forget about the opinions of traditions and religions and stick to science and rational material. It is more appropriate.
But Hamon had written: “. . . Barrie’s arguement is very weak and his opinion not qualified.”
And he had written: “
. . . Body images (resolution limit 0.5cm) should not be mistaken with blood images (resolution limit 0.5mm). Many Shroud researchers (including Barrie Scwortz) makes repeatedly the same confusion. He also totally ignore the thread count per square centimetres. The only snag with Barrie Schwortz’s faulty opinions is that thousands of his website viewers are all too ready to believe him.
Does anyone wonder if Barrie is qualified, if Barrie hasn’t studied this problem for years, if Barrie had not worked closely with Don Lynn at JPL who understood the resolution limits and thread counts better than anyone? Check out Barrie’s Resume. Barrie is so respected for his accuracy, and his website is so thoroughly read, that he can’t get away with “faulty opinions” for more than a day or two.
These are strong opinions from Hamon – ad hominem charges. They are not qualified that I can see.