Ted Pike
From BluWiki
If Ted Pike Doesn't Hate Jews...
...then why does he lie about Jewish Law?
Consider the disinformation he distributes in his movie The Other Israel.
(1) Just shy of three minutes into the film, we get our first immensely inaccurate and provably false statement: "The Jewish Encyclopedia, in its article on Judaism, says that modern Judaism and the Judaism of the Old Testament are very different. It says that after Nebuchadezzar conquered Judah in the sixth century BC and led the Jews to distant Babylon, the Jews were faced with challenges to their faith they had never before experienced." While this is true, Pike was probably relying on the relative difficulty in accessing a copy of the Jewish Encyclopedia. Now, however, the Encyclopedia's copyright has expired and it is available on the Internet in several places, notably here:
http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Jewish_Encyclopedia%2C_1906
Go the article on Judaism, found here:
http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/JUDAISM_%28Jewish_Encyclopedia%29
and do a word search on "Nebuchadnezzar." You won't find his name there. Neither is the Babylonian Captivity mentioned.
(2) At 3:30 or thereabouts, we are told that the Soferim, or Scribes arose during the Babylonian Captivity, and that these Scribes became the "Scribes and Pharisees" of the New Testament. Unfortunately, yet again, the Jewish Encyclopedia begs to differ, with the advent of the Soferim placed at the time of the biblical Ezra (who lived in the fifth century BC, and Simeon the Just, who died around 300 BC, three centuries before Jesus was born.
While it is made clear in the Jewish Encyclopedia that the Soferim's interpretation of Torah became the same one to which the Pharisees adhered, it also says this: "No true estimate of the character of the Pharisees can be obtained from the New Testament writings, which take a polemical attitude toward them (see New Testament), nor from Josephus, who, writing for Roman readers and in view of the Messianic expectations of the Pharisees, represents the latter as a philosophical sect" (entry on PHARISEES).
(3) Four minutes into the film, it is claimed that the Sanhedrin received the Oral Law, but that Moses did not. However, Pirkey Avot, one of the earliest of the Talmudic tractates, directly refutes this point of view: "Moses received the Law on Sinai and delivered it to Joshua; Joshua in turn handed it down to the Elders (not to the seventy Elders of Moses' time but to the later Elders who have ruled Israel, and each of them delivered it to his successor); from the Elders it descended to the prophets (beginning with Eli and Samuel), and each of them delivered it to his successors until it reached the men of the Great Assembly. The last, named originated three maxims: 'Be not hasty in judgment; Bring up many disciples; and, Erect safe guards for the Law.'" Quoted from:
http:/www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t05/abo05.htm
(4) At seven minutes into his film, Pike claims that the Talmud provides the authority to a Pharisee "to kill anyone, just as long as he did so indirectly." The citation given is to Sanhedrin 77a, which reads, in part, "If one bound his neighbour and he died of starvation, he is not liable to execution." However, just because the person in this case is not "liable to execution" does not mean that he gets off without any punishment whatsoever. See, for example, Sanhedrin 86a-86b, where the rabbis debate whether a kidnapper deserves death or flogging. Tractate Sanhedrin may be consulted here:
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/index.html
(5) Just a few seconds later, we are told that the Talmud provides "generous loopholes for adultery," and Sanhedrin 52b is cited: "The penalty for adultery does not include sex with a minor, the wife of a minor, or the wife of a heathen." First, we are not receiving a direct quote; rather, the Talmud at Sanhedrin 52b reads thus: "Our Rabbis taught: [And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death -- Leviticus 20:10]. 'The man' excludes a minor; 'that committeth adultery with another man's wife' excludes the wife of a minor; 'even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife' excludes the wife of a heathen." However, the previous paragraph gives a detailed description of the punishment for adultery -- strangulation. But again, there is no indication that an adulterer in any of these cases gets off with no punishment: "You say, by strangulation; but perhaps one of the other deaths decreed by the Torah is meant here? � I will answer you: Whenever the Torah decrees an unspecified death penalty, you may not interpret it stringently but leniently." Indeed, it was often said by the Pharisees that a Sanhedrin that passed down a death penalty once in seventy years was too bloody.
We are next told that in Tractate Kerithoth 11a, sex with children is allowed, with the narrator telling us the Talmud calls such girls "designated bondmaids." To clarify the case of the designated bondmaid, it is helpful to reference Tractate Yevamoth, found here:
http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/index.html
At Yevamoth 55a we read, "Whence [is the prohibition of] the first stage among those who are subject to the penalty of negative commandments to be inferred? � As the All Merciful specified carnally in the case of a designated bondmaid (Leviticus 19:21ff), it may be inferred that among all the others who are subject to the penalty of negative commandments, the first stage by itself constitutes the offence. On the contrary! As the All Merciful specified the first stage in the case of those who are subject to the penalty of kareth (excommunication), it may be inferred that among those who are subject to the penalty of negative commandments consummation only constitutes the offence! � R. Ashi replied: If so, Scripture should have omitted [the reference] in the case of the designated handmaid."
This is difficult but is made more clear by referencing the Biblical verse referred to (Leviticus 19:20-22): "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him" (KJV).
Note that the Torah is referenced here for clarity, as it is throughout all of rabbinical literature. Contrary to Pike's claims, the Torah is the ultimate authority in making rulings where the Oral Law seems contradictory. Note also that the Torah does not say "girl," but "woman." The charge of sex with children is a lie.
The problem of claimed "natural connection" versus perverse connection is more difficult, but is made clear by returning to Tractate Kerithoth. First, however, it is necessary to explain how the Talmud is structured. An earlier compilation of the Oral Law, called the Mishnah, was completed around 200 AD, the Talmud is the Mishnah plus what is called Gemara, or addition. This was completed, as Pike says, around 500 AD. Gemara is commentary on the Mishnah. The part of the Mishnah being discussed at Keithtoth 11a reads as follows: "IN THE CASE OF ALL FORBIDDEN CONNECTIONS, IF ONE PARTNER WAS A MAJOR AND THE OTHER A MINOR, THE LATTER IS EXEMPTED; IF ONE IS AWAKE AND THE OTHER ASLEEP, THE LATTER IS EXEMPTED; FINALLY, IF ONE IS AN INADVERTENT AND THE OTHER A WILFUL TRANSGRESSOR, THE FORMER IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING, THE LATTER TO KARETH (EXCOMMUNICATION)."
Clearly the Mishnah states that the issue is not that sex with a minor is not a sin, but rather that the minor cannot be held liable. The first two cases in the Gemara states that both parties in sex between a minor bondmaid and an adult Jew or sex with an awake and asleep partner are exempt from punishment but not that it is not a sin.
The third case is the one that Pike "quotes." It is far lengthier than we are given reason to think:
A Tanna recited before R. Shesheth: They have placed on an equal footing a consummated connection with a mere sexual contact, an intentional connection with an unintentional, a natural connection with a perverse one, and one performed while awake with one performed in sleep. He retorted: How is this meant? If it refers to a designated bondmaid, how does a consummated connection equal a mere sexual contact? In fact, a consummated connection is in the case of a designated bondmaid subject to the law, but a mere sexual contact is not. Similarly the statement that intentional connection equals unintentional [is wrong], for one is guilty only in the case of intentional connection but not otherwise. Similarly the statement that natural connection equals perverse [is wrong], for with the designated bondmaid one is guilty only in the case of natural connection but not in the case of perverse connection, because it is written 'carnally'. And then what is the meaning of the statement that a wakeful person equals a sleeping person? If on the other hand this dictum refers to other forbidden connections, how does it state consummated connection equals a mere sexual contact; the comparison, should be in the reverse direction! Said the former: Shall I cancel the dictum? - He replied: No, this is meant: A consummated perverse connection with a designated bondmaid equals a natural sexual contact, when one is exempted because it is written, 'carnally'; intentional perverse connection with a bondmaid equals unintentional connection, when one is exempted, because it is written, 'carnally'; perverse connection with a bondmaid while awake equals connection while asleep, when one is exempted because it is written, 'carnally'. We thus find that intentional sexual contact in the case of a bondmaid equals unintentional connection in the case of other forbidden relations; that natural contact in sleep in the case of the bondmaid equals connection in sleep in the case of other forbidden relations; that perverse connection with the bondmaid while awake equals connection in sleep in the case of other forbidden relations.
<end quote>
First, a Tanna is a rabbi from the Mishnah, who argues against the idea of placing on the same level sexual intercourse non-penetrative sexual contact. (He does not mention the case of minor, notably.) He clarifies the case of the bondmaid (remember, not a minor) by saying that intercourse with her is forbidden (see above, as per the Torah) but other sexual contact is not. As for the "exemptions" spoken of, once again, they are exemptions from punishment and *not* an endorsement of the act itself.
At no point did the rabbis of the Talmud rule that "perverse connection" was "outside the jurisdiction of the law." This is another lie.
(6) Our narrator has gone on for some time telling us about Jesus's conflict with the Pharisees being based on their lax morality. However, if we read the New Testament, we find something rather different (KJV): "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not" (Matthew 23:1-3). Jesus is saying that the Pharisees are the descendants of Moses as interpreters of the law and therefore must be obeyed. However, he says, follow what they say but not what they do, because of what they do. Jesus's conflict with the Pharisees was not philosophical or religious -- it was based on their adherence to what they preached. Jesus hated hypocrisy, but he didn't hate the idea of an Oral Law.
(7) At 8:30, our narrator tells us that the Pharisees were "deeply influenced" by sexual perversity in Babylon. This is half-true: They were influenced by the sexual perversity of the Babylonians, but not to the effect that they adopted these perversities. Rather, they passed laws in Judaism against these perversities. Here Pike follows with the most vile of his libels: He says that rabbis may have sex with three-year-old girls. First, our narrator directs us to Yevamoth 60b: "It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest." And, indeed, the Talmud does say this. However, this is not an endorsement of child sex. Rather, it is addressing a question raised in the written Torah, specifically at Leviticus 21:13-14 (KJV): "And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife."
The concern is not that a three-year-old girl would not in normal circumstances be a virgin -- she would be. This case is one of a convert -- a proselyte. Since heathen culture (including pre-Christian Rome) tolerated and even endorsed sex with children, the issue is whether a child violated in such a manner would still be fit to marry a priest. The answer given is "yes."
We are told this idea is corroborated at Ketuboth 11b, where Raba says, "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this, it is as if one puts the finger into the eye."
Reading such a line with the idea of maligning Jews and Judaism, it certainly would seem that Raba is endorsing pedophilia, but he is not. In fact, our narrator, in pointing our the relevant footnote in the Soncino edition -- "I.e., tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years." The whole point of the discussion excerpted by Pike is whether a girl who has been violated before a certain age still qualifies as a virgin when she is married off. In ancient cultures, as indeed in some modern cultures, a high price was put on virginity in a bride, so while this discussion seems strange, in the context of the sixth century, it is not when discussing Ketuboth, or marriage contracts.
Then we are told that sexual activity with young boys "is not considered as a sexual act." However, Pike has cleverly stripped the context, and not told us that the information is also contained in a footnote. The Talmud actually reads, "Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown-up woman makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood." Note, for one thing, that this section does not deal *at all* with sex between men and boys, i.e., pederasty. Furthermore, again, the issue is not that sex in such an arrangement is condoned, but rather whether this woman in this theoretical case is still technically a virgin. Note also that a "boy" in rabbinic law is any male child younger than thirteen years old. So the situation could be as relatively benign as two twelve-year-old chldren having sex (not uncommon in ancient times, given the short life spans), as the twelve-year-old boy would still be considered a child, but the twelve-year-old girl, according to rabbinic law, is a woman once she reaches the age of twelve.
(8) At ten minutes into the film, we are told that the Pharisees were racial bigots. Pike now appears to tell us that the Jewish Encyclopedia is the best way to judge how Pharisaic Judaism views Gentiles. We are told that in the Jewish Encyclopedia that "Gentiles [the rabbis] classed not as men but as barbarians." And this is indeed a direct quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Again, quoting directly, the narrator says that the rabbis believed that Gentiles could not be considered "neighbors" and that Gentiles were "forever beneath the Jew." But not that in this last "quote," the Jewish Encyclopedia is not referenced. That's because that material does not appear therein.
http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/GENTILE_%28Jewish_Encyclopedia%29
You can look for yourself.
When we are next told that Gentile nations were "outlawed," we are not told that this is in fact a direct quote from the Bible (KJV): "He stood, and shook the earth; he looked, and made the nations tremble. The ancient mountains crumbled and the age-old hills collapsed" (Habakkuk 3:6). We are then told that their property automatically reverted to the Gentile. But this key passage is left out: "The barbarian Gentiles who could not be prevailed upon to observe law and order were not to be benefited by the Jewish civil laws, framed to regulate a stable and orderly society, and based on reciprocity" (under "Rabbinical Modification of Laws," Number 2). This is a massive omission.
Still on the issue of Gentiles, we are told, "The Torah outlawed the issue of a Gentile as that of a beast." Again, this is directly quoted from the Jewish Encyclopedia, but it's a quote of a quote. The original does not come from the Jewish Encyclopedia, but from a commentary on Ezekiel. More importantly, we are not told that the whole section has to do with the rape of a Jewish woman by an idolater. Next up is this quote: "if a Gentile sue an Israelite, the verdict is for the defendant; if the Israelite is the plaintiff, he obtains full damages." Again, this is indeed a direct quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia, but the context is missing, i.e., that we are still talking about "barbarian Gentiles," or those who refuse to observe Jewish civil law." This, by the way, does not indicate that outside of the Land of Israel in a country being run by Torah that these laws would apply to Gentiles; rather, as in the case of most Jewish law, the case is purely hypothetical, as no one in 500 AD believed a Torah-run Jewish nation would re-emerge in Palestine anytime soon.
Then Pike has the narrator inform us that the Talmud requires death for anyone studying it. While this is indeed the opinion of Rabbi Johanan (but not about the person being taught -- rather about the person doing the teaching), in the very same paragraph, but omitted by Pike, is this: "And yet if a Gentile study the Law for the purpose of observing the moral laws of Noah, R. Me�r says he is as good as a high priest, and quotes: "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments, which if a man do, he shall live in them" (Lev. xviii. 5). The text does not specify an Israelite or a Levite or a priest, but simply "a man"�even a Gentile ('Ab. Zarah 26a)."
The "moral laws of Noah" are seven: (1) To believe in God; (2) To not blaspheme God's name; (3) Not to kill; (4) Not to steal; (5) Not to commit sexual perversion; (6) Not to be cruel to animals; and (7) To establish courts of justice in their own lands. So anything you've heard about subjecting Gentiles under Noachide law should be considered in this context.
When Pike moves next to the saying of Simon ben Yochai that "The best among the Gentiles deserves to be killed," he again omits important material from the excerpt from the Jewish Encyclopedia. First, the Encyclopedia tells us that the quote is "often quoted by anti-Semites" and then goes on to say, "This utterance has been felt by Jews to be due to an exaggerated antipathy on the part of a fanatic whose life experiences may furnish an explanation for his animosity." More importantly, Simon bar Yochai's opinion is placed directly below the section on Rabbi Akiva, who the Encyclopedia tells us, "declared the command to love one's neighbor as oneself (Lev. xix. 18) to be the fundamental proposition of religion" and who definitive ruled that "Robbery of which a Gentile is the victim is robbery."
Most importantly in the lengthy "treatment" of the Jewish Encyclopedia is Pike's omission of the section entitled "Attitude of Modern Judaism": "Modern Judaism, as inculcated in the catechisms and explained in the declarations of the various rabbinical conferences, and as interpreted in the sermons of modern rabbis, is founded on the recognition of the unity of the human race; the law of righteousness and truth being supreme over all men, without distinction of race or creed, and its fulfilment being possible for all. Righteousness is not conditioned by birth. The Gentiles may attain unto as perfect a righteousness as the Jews. Hence the old Jewish doctrine, 'The righteous among the Gentiles are sharers [in the felicity] of the world to come' (Tosef., Sanh. xiii.), is reaffirmed by the modern Synagogue. 'Neighbor,' in the command, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor like thyself' (Lev. xix.), signifies every human being." It is further stated that because of the acceptance by the majority of Gentiles of Christianity and Islam, "the heathen and pagan of the civilized or semi-civilized world has become almost extinct, and the restrictions placed on the ancient Gentile are not applicable to the Gentile of the present day."
(9) At about 13:30, the film moves into a treatment of the Talmudic depiction of Jesus. We get unsourced allegations about what the Talmud says about Mary, and then we get accurate quotes from the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Jesus of Nazareth, found here:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=254&letter=J
namely, that much of the Jewish traditional literature on Jesus was meant to belittle him and that he was considered to be one of the worst three enemes of Judaism -- notably, the reason for this latter claim is not given. Jesus was viewed as an enemy of Judaism in the Talmudic period because a large number of the early Christians were of Jewish origin. Thus, from the standpoint of Jewish orthodoxy, any Jew who accepted Christianity was a heretic. That the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as a state religion in 313 did not improve Judaism's assessment of Christianity and Jesus, particularly given the 200 year series of wars fought between Rome and the Jews in Palestine before the Bar Kochba revolt.
But then Pike does something underhanded again. We are told that Jesus is said in the Talmud to have suffered from four methods of execution -- "stoning, burning, decapitating, and strangling" -- but the article is no longer the article on Jesus -- it is the article on Balaam, the figure from the Book of Numbers, found here:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=161&letter=B
Pike has changed sources without telling us, presuming that Balaam and Jesus are the same person. But directly quoting from the Jewish Encyclopedia, it is very clear that Balaam is *not* Jesus: "In the process of killing Balaam (Num. xxxi. 8), all four legal methods of execution�stoning, burning, decapitating, and strangling�were employed (Sanh. l.c.)." Notice the reference to Numbers 31:8 (KJV): "And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword." Then are given more unsourced quotes that may or may not relate to Jesus.
(10) Fifteen minutes into the film, we get another quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia's article on Gentiles. The quote is badly expurgated. Here it is in full:
Resh Lakish (d. 278) said, "A Gentile observing the Sabbath deserves death" (Sanh. 58b). This refers to a Gentile who accepted the seven laws of the Noachide, inasmuch as "the Sabbath is a sign between God and Israel alone," and it was probably directed against the Christian Jews, who disregarded the Mosaic laws and yet at that time kept up the observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Rabbina, who lived about 150 years after the Christians had changed the day of rest to Sunday, could not quite understand the principle underlying Resh Lakish's law, and, commenting upon it, added: "not even on Mondays [is the Gentile allowed to rest]"; intimating that the mandate given to the Noachide that "day and night shall not cease" (="have no rest ") should be taken in a literal sense.
<end quote>
This is far different from how Pike would like us to understand this text. Next we are told more about Judaism's attitude toward Christians, here referencing the Jewish Encyclopedia article on the word "Min," found here:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=627&letter=M
Pike's first omission is that the word "min" refers only to Christians; as the first paragraph of the Encyclopedia entry indicates, it refers to all heretics, and from a strictly objective point of view, any Jew that became a Christian would be deemed a heretic, just as any Catholic who became a Protestant would be considered so also. When we are told that the New Testament was considered to be "more dangerous to the unity of Judaism than those of the pagans," we are not told, earlier in the same paragraph that "During the first century of Christianity the Rabbis lived on friendly terms with the minim." Neither are we told the full context in which Christian writings became disdained by some Talmudic rabbis: "These friendly feelings, however, gradually gave way to violent hatred, as the minim separated themselves from all connection with the Jews and propagated writings which the Rabbis considered more dangerous to the unity of Judaism than those of the pagans." Why were these writings considered dangerous? Consider that it was considered the role of Christianity to convert all peoples -- including Jews. Also consider, even though there was no New Testament when these statements by rabbinic Jews were made (the canon was not settled until the fourth century AD, and Rabbi Tarfon lived in Palestine before 135 AD), there are such statements in the New Testament as Matthew 27:25, which places eternal damnation on the Jews for the crucifixion: "Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children" (KJV).
Then the narrator informs us that the article on "Min" in the Jewish Encyclopedia that the word "usually indicates the Judeo-Christians [Jewish converts to Christianity]." Again, this is cherry-picked from the actual text:
As expressly stated by R. Nahman (Hul. 13b), the term "min" is applied only to a Jewish sectary, not to a non-Jew. It is variously used in the Talmud and the Midrash for the Samaritan, the Sadducee, the Gnostic, the Judeo-Christian, and other sectaries, according to the epoch to which the passage belongs. Yerushalmi states that there were, at the time of the destruction of the Temple, no less than twenty-four kinds of minim (Yer. Sanh. x. 5). Thus the min who (the Midrash states) derided Alexander the Great for rising before the Jewish high priest Simon the Just (Lev. R. xiii.) was undoubtedly a Samaritan. The minim referred to in Berakot ix., on whose account the custom was established of closing the benedictions with the words "from eternity to eternity" in order to emphasize the existence of more than one world, were undoubtedly Sadducees, who, as known, denied the existence of another world. In passages referring to the Christian period, "minim" usually indicates the Judeo-Christians, the Gnostics, and the Nazarenes, who often conversed with the Rabbis on the unity of God, creation, resurrection, and similar subjects (comp. Sanh. 39b). In some passages, indeed, it is used even for "Christian"; but it is possible that in such cases it is a substitution for the word "Nozeri," which was the usual term for 'Christian.'
<end quote>
(11) Sixteen minutes into the film, we are given a brazen example of lying. With the text right in front of our eyes, the narrator reads from the Jewish Encyclopedia entry on "Min" and replaces the word "min" with "Christian," even though it has been conclusively shown that not all minim were Christians -- in fact most were not. In fact, the very same paragraph opens with a change in one of the daily Jewish prayers to include a curse on all minim: "The cause of this change in the text was, probably, the accusation brought by the Church Fathers against the Jews of cursing all the Christians under the name of the Nazarenes."
This is conveniently left out by Pike.
(12) At 16:30, Pike reappears on screen. He claims that because of the bigotry of the Jews, they were expelled from Babylon in the 11th century. Not only is this not true and a "fact" not able to be located in any text at hand, but Jews continued to live in that region, which since the 8th century had been called Iraq, right up until the 1950s, when anti-Jewish violence related to the State of Israel led most Jews to flee. Centers of Jewish learning *were* transferred to Europe, but this was at the choice of Jews who were reacting to isolated incidents of anti-Jewish violence. Then, when asserting that Jews had to stop practicing perversion upon leaving Babylon, our narrator seems woefully unaware that the land was under Islamic shariya law by that point, which meant any "Babylonian perversion" had already been rooted out.
(13) Around 17:30, we are introduced to Maimonides, whom Pike tells us was excommunicated on the charge of "making new laws." Actually, Maimonides was never excommunicated, though his books were banned for a short time after his death. By the time of the Spanish Inquisition, Maimonides was regarded as the greatest authority on Jewish Law since the biblical Moses. Then, most surprising of all, we are told that modern-day Jews don't abide by the "allowances" for perversion that appear in the Talmud -- but twenty years later, Ted Pike is still going on about supposed Talmudic perversions.
Ted Pike: Jew-hater or "Christian"? You be the judge.
