OK, Muffti has a very limited point to make here so don’t go all apeshit on him. But when Muffti was posting Hate Site of the Weak he noticed that most had links with titles like ‘the talmud exposed’ or ‘talmud truth’ where a bunch of quotes from the talmud are strung together to show how dangerous Judaism is at root. For example:

Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews, Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a Gentile (“Cuthean”), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep.

Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog (“Even the best of the gentiles should all be killed”).

Yebhamot 11b: “Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age.”

Aboda Sarah 37a: “A gentile girl who is three years old can be violated.”

Thankfully, people take the time to explain and contextualize these things, show them to be allegorical and how to be understood. Maybe this cannot be done for the bits and pieces of the Koran Wilders strings together but the lesson should be clear: a bunch of quotes out of context do not make for an indictment of anything.

About the author



  • So it now suits Muffti to embrace the It’s-All-A-Metaphor school of interpretation? We’ll file this away for the next time he derides it (maybe as soon as later this week, who knows).

  • Muffti doesn’t embrace any such school 😉 1) looking at something in context is NOT the same thing as treating it as a metaphor. 2) Muffti would be happy to find out that the torah is one big metaphor. He jsut then wonders why everyone is so satisfied in thinking they know how to interpret it. 3) what muffti is really saying is that if the metaphor approach is good for the jew-goose, it may well be good for the mussulman-gander.

  • Viewing the matter cynically (which is, I trust, right up Muffti’s alley), this is why metaphorism has great utility. Everyone in the God business, from the Lubavicher rebbe to L. Ron Hubbard, has embarassments like these, and needs some means to assign them less importance or ignore them altogether.

  • Well, Muffti, that’s an interesting take on those religiously driven attacks on the WTC and those trains in Europe. Isn’t that the point of the film? That there are those on the extreme side who consider the Word to be true and holy and who interpret it literally and then act on it? So that if the Word espouses violence against non-believers, then it is desirable to commit violence and if the Word has some anti-Semitic comments in it, then it is fine to uphold those sentiments as truthful?

    If Israel was a theocracy and they waged a genocidal war against “Amalek” then you might have a point about Israel. Ignoring Israel and dealing with individuals, you could even make the claim that a percentage of Jews believe in the Torah or halacha to a degree where it drives their political actions. However, just from a numeric standpoint, not to mention actual experience of attacks by devout Jews upon non-Jews, it appears to me that you can’t compare to what is presented in this film.

    In other words, theoretically your point makes sense but in the real world, it doesn’t square with what we’ve seen.

  • It seems like some liberal knee-jerk reaction to insults thrown at another group that Muffti would try to find some moral equivalence between us and them to make the world seem a more reasonable and fair place for all. Well, it isn’t and history and today’s realities won’t allow your analogy to pass the sniff test. On top of that, I find it highly distasteful that with terrorist apologizing and whitewashing groups aplenty such as CAIR, a Jew at a Jewish blog has to feel obligated to defend a religion with a majority of hostile practitioners who’d be more than happy to see him dead, despite his impassioned defense. Does Muffti or any other Jew really believe that if we are as outspoken in our pleas for fairness and ready to jump to the defense of our enemies to show the world or them that we have objectivity and compassion, that they will suddenly stop hating us and want peace? To them, you are still and will always be a Yehudi and a useful one at that.

    Sorry, but I’m so tired of this “we’re all guilty, bad, or evil” approach. Judaism, for all it’s faults, comes nowhere near Islam in relation to its interpretation and compatibility with civilized, modern life. The context is all in the numbers and the sum of its parts. 1 Jewish terrorist or 3 ugly lines from the Torah do not equal thousands of Islamic terrorists nor hundreds of albeit misinterpreted, but hate inciting lines from the Koran.

    When I was a dumb college kid, I used to consider myself objective in terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but then I saw how us Jews have more people sewing for peace for both parties while our enemies have just a handful and the rest are one sided in their support of their people. Well, for balance, I no longer consider myself objective. I’m not at all. All I care for is justice and peace for Jews and Israelis. Let our enemies and tons of humble objective Jews worry about the Palestinians. They have enough support. We don’t. I know where my loyalties lay and have no doubts about them. This post is exactly the type of thought process I voluntarily and gladly left behind. Like our elders always told us: “Don’t forget you are a Jew, because ‘they’ certainly won’t”.

  • Whoa, Alex, it seems that you didn’t read the disclaimer either. Muffti wasn’t trying to see moral equivalence…or claim that we are guilty, bad or evil…he just thought that there is something odious about taking quotes form a religious book, stringing them together and thinking that you have made a respectable job of making a point about religion. Most religions, including ours, can suffer something similar – the talmud has lines that when taken out of context make us look pretty crappy and have been used routinely to lend support to anti-semitism, to lend support to jewish conspiracy theories.

    With all due respect, it would seem like some right wing knee jerk reaction to read what Muffti wrote as moral equivalence, a condemnation of anything or a defense of anything. Just a critique of an argument style really taht Muffti finds shallow and propagandizing.

  • I understand what you were trying to say Muffti, I just think sometimes some things are left better unsaid, especially when it’s our dirty laundry. Sure, I can point to all sorts of crazy biblical passages and say, “see, our sh!t sticks too!”. I agree with you that sometimes it does, and that’s why I’m an Atheist/(Agnostic when my wife’s around anyway). Then again, Jews have always been good about “taking out own trash” so please proceed.

    The bottom line is that religions and their practitioners should be judged on their actions rather than their words and holy books. Geert tried drawing a correlation between the two which I don’t agree with. I think Islamic terrorism is far more culturally/primitively driven rather than religiously. It’s one thing to have faith and believe some of the bulls!t in any holy book while it’s quite a far jump to take it seriously enough that you would saw through someone’s neck because you believed it to be right and ordained.

    Jews and our customs over time have evolved on a higher moral/civilized plane than the Muslim world. We have always valued logic, reason, education, study, etc., far more than brawn and physical power. And I think Israel floating in a sea of ass-backwardness is a perfect example of that. Far more has been accomplished (for the world) in that tiny space in 60 years than anywhere around it in thousands of years. Am I ethnocentric? You’re damned right I am, and rightly so. So who cares if we have some dirt too. Yes, our sh!t stinks, but only if you are near it. Theirs stinks so much, you can’t get away from it.

  • Well, then, Muffti is glad we agree. At least on atheism (your wife doesn’t make Muffti hide his views :)) Muffti just didn’t like the Geert correlation either – it may be there for all he knows but juxtaposition just prove one knows how to splice footage.

  • Yes. Good point. Other crockumentaries come to mind that illustrate the point that good editing and false correlations can make true believers out of the uninformed:

    – An Inconvenient Truth
    – Every Michael Moore movie

  • For clarity’s sake, however, muffti should say that he massively adn totally disagree with ethnocentrism and the claims about teh muslim’s not respecting logic, education adn reason. Their achievements in math, literature and the like for a long time were the gold standard in each field.

  • “Maybe this cannot be done for the bits and pieces of the Koran Wilders strings together, but the lesson should be clear: a bunch of quotes out of context do not make for an indictment of anything” says Mufti.

    What does Mufti mean by “maybe this cannot be done”?
    Mufti is covering himself, and not being rigorous. He does not KNOW if this can, or canot be done; he has just admitted that. So how can he go any further, and be so all-fired “clear”? He says a lesson “should be clear”. How indeed does he even know the quotes were taken out of context? Has he read the context?

    First Mufti says, “I don’t know,” then in the exact same sentence Mufti says, “I know”. Huh?

    What Mufti seems to mean is, “this makes me feel uncomfortable because it is strongly against something”. No, I haven’t seen the film. I am just reacting to Mufti’s imprecision. He says himself “Mufti just didn’t like”. Well, a degreed Philo professor is supposed to use logic, and Mufti usually does, so this post is odd.

  • Not all problems are eliminated when “contextualized.” And correctly noting that Judaism is still more progressive than fundamentalist Islam is damning Judaism with faint praise.

    All ancient religions have had things said in their name that we could and should find problematic. The problem is that our community — like other communities — have reactionary segments that take these things more seriously than is appropriate. I don’t want to point fingers, but there may be overlap with those who also reject scientific method in favor or literalism and the nonsense that all generations were on a “higher level” in every significant way.

  • Middle, when Muffti say s ‘cannot be done’ he meant that for all he knows, the koran is to read exactly as Wilders suggests and it is a book that incites horrible violence. what he was reacting to was random verses being yanked out of a book with a finger point saying ‘see, it’s a religion of crazy barbarians!’

    You shouldn’t like it either. After all, selective quoting from the talmud can do that to us to.

    So where is the failure of logic, oh middleman?

  • oops! sorry, he meant ‘jewish mother’, not middleman. The poitn JM is that what wasn’t clear was whether or not the koran verses could be contextualized, allegorized or whatever else we do with the verses of the talmud we don’t like. What is clear is that a bunch of verses and some pictures don’t show much on their own. NO lack of precision of sequitority, so far as muffti can tell.

  • The lack of sequitority was the assumption that folks who produce excellent math, astronomy and architecture somehow can’t ever do anything bad, because rich technical and esthetic culture just HAS to lead to peaceful behavior. It just HAS to. Insert petulant foot-stamp here. Well, it doesn’t. Sadly. That does not follow, which is what ‘non sequitur’ means. That it should follow is an Athenian Greek idea, a Western idea, and also a Jewish idea. A Western, liberal idea. A great ideal, and sometimes true. But, it doesn’t describe the whole of humanity, or human culture, necessarily, at all. No, I haven’t seen the film.

    Maybe DK, in his irritation about certain levels of passionate Jewish religious belief, will make a comparable film about the Jews, with Talmudic quotes, and pictures of Jews doing bad things as directed to, by the Talmud. Yeah, sure. What would he put in? The horror of having to purchase, house, and wash six sets of dishes? For a large family and lots of guests? The mind reels.

  • Muffti,

    You are totally right when you point out that incendiary text should be contextualized. If I am not mistaken, that is the point that you were making in your post, and nothing more. I would like to use this as a forum to point out that we see the violent actualization of horrifically incendiary text coming much, much, MUCH, more often from adherents of Islam than pretty much anyone else today. I think that was the main point of the film.

  • What an ignorant exercise.

    Islam has a growing movement applying itself to enforcing offensive versus….they’re even waging war to promote them….

    Jews on the other hand have modernized, and done whatever it takes to intellectualize our scriptures so that we can evolve with an ethical society in 2008.

    To even suggest there is a comparable discounts reality for the sake of some psycho babble moral equivalency attempt at discourse.

  • When I posted about Fitna, I wasn’t trying to lend support to its producer, a well known racist. I was just amazed at how quickly he was censored both by the Dutch government and by none other than Network Solutions and how quickly LiveLeak pulled the video from their servers. For now Google is at least being consistent and has not pulled the video from Google Videos or YouTube. However, this does demonstrate that anti-Islamic messages are subject to a different standard than anti-anything else.

    Just sayin’ is all.

  • Middle got it right:
    Fitna DOES contextualize these verses – the “context” being the widespread, world-wide action being taken based on these verses.

    There is no similar widespread rape of non-Jewish 3-year-old girls in Israel. QED.

    It’s somewhat pathetic to see someone as clever as Muffti stuck like this in PC patterns of thought.

  • Oy, for Muffti this post has become a social psychology exercise in how people manage to not really read what you say in the interest of insulting you by projecting everything they dont like upon you.

    Instance 1. JM said:

    The lack of sequitority was the assumption that folks who produce excellent math, astronomy and architecture somehow can’t ever do anything bad, because rich technical and esthetic culture just HAS to lead to peaceful behavior

    Please tell Muffti where he said anything like what you just said he said. He agrees that that is a non-sequitor but to get that out of the above requires what one might call a radical interpretation of the text.

    Instance 2. Ugh said:

    To even suggest there is a comparable discounts reality for the sake of some psycho babble moral equivalency attempt at discourse.

    Ugh, first of all, please go look up the words ‘pscyho’, ‘babble’, and ‘attempt’. Then note that there is no moral equivalency in the above – Muffti’s made no attempt at all to say anything about morals. ALL he said was that it’s nothing short of cheap propoganda to string a bunch of quotes together from a book.

    Connecting Islam and violence etc. can be done. Well. Pulling verses out of a book to make people look bad is easy: Muffti’s point is that you can do it jews just as easily and people DO do it to jews to encourage anti-semitism actively all the time.

    B-D and Middle, this sort of contextualizing is done all the time in ways that you find much less respectable and you know it. When Michael Moore does it, interviewing sick people and taking them to cuba, it gets called propaganda. Muffti wasn’t criticizing a moral drawn from the film, he was criticizing a lazy style of argument that goes for shock rather than honest intellectual work.

    Not surprisingly, people don’t mind this kind of thing when they think the moral being drawn is true and iimportant. That’s about the time the overlooking of flaws begins. Muffti isn’t sure what pattern of thought that represents but it’s a little pathetic…

    Halfsours, yeshar koach for being this posts best reader of the post.

  • It might not come as a surprise to Muffti that the US scored pretty low at the PISA initial survey on reading comprehension. (Particularly amusing is that the students partaking mostly were top-notch private schoolers, yet their average results were similar to those of low-key and special-ed students that mostly were tested in the German part of the survey.)

  • When we refer to Islam or Judaism or Christianity, we refer in part to how people behave. Islam is more than the Koran: it’s what Muslims do in the world, purportedly in the name of their faith as they understand it. Ditto Jews and Christians. That seems to be the moral here.

    It’s not so much about contextualizing, because faiths like Judaism and Islam (unlike, e.g., Catholicism) lack a structure which issues authoritative interpretations of religious texts binding on all believers. As a result, what some Jews or Muslims will view as contextualizing, others will see as a blasphemous departure from literally-understood truths.

  • Well hell’s bells, I didn’t know I had a reading comprehension problem.

    You wanted to make the following points:

    1. At hate sites, you found attacks on Jews with the premise being that taking quotes from the Talmud can tarnish us all with the brush of subscribing to an ugly and repulsive, not to mention barbaric and outmoded set of beliefs.

    2. Placing these Talmudic quotes within a context helps to explain their allegorical nature.

    3. Thus, we learn that picking and choosing quotes from religious texts doesn’t really have any meaning or “truth” to it.

    4. Ergo, this film by Wilders does not make a point because we don’t know the context of the quotes from the Koran and applying them to Muslims in the way the Talmudic quotes are applied against Jews becomes a meaningless exercise.

    Is that accurate or did I miss something?

  • Who cares what it says in the Koran at all? The point is, as Larry David said in Curb Your Enthusiasm while talking to his Muslim PI, “Yes, but there’s a whole lot of Meshuganeh Muslims running around out there, are there not?”

    Whether it says this or that in the Koran is useless to dwell on. It says all sorts of wacky sh!t in all religious texts and somehow, most religious people learn to live in a practical world, including “most” Muslims. What matters is the actions of those who constantly identify themselves as Muslims and then continue to commit atrocities in the name of their religion. And more importantly, the silence that comes out of the Muslim World after that act.

    Wilders proved his point before anyone ever saw the film, that any criticism of Islam is unacceptable, that calling Islam violent will be met with violence, and that the West has double-standards on free speech when it comes to speech about Islam. “If you cal me violent, I’ll kill you” is the message of the day.

    And honestly, the weak, prisy, Westerners who tried to suppress Wilders’ freedom of speech are far more evil than the brainwashed Muslims who were instructed to riot after the release of a movie that most probably didn’t see.

    We’re not f#cked from Muslim expansionism, the collective intelligence and force that would be needed to achieve that is definitely lacking. What we’re f#cked from is Westerners, Christians, Jews, and Atheists, that are waiting to roll over and die, mostly from fear, and mostly from idiotic PCness they picked up while acting like little b*tches in college while learning “tolerance”. And tolerance to the left, means tolerating intolerance to the point that you can’t tolerate yourself. I’m with the guy I linked to.

  • you have to come to office hours to find that out.

    Btw, alex, who has tried to suppress Wilder’s freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is a right you have against hte government. has his government banned his movie?

  • Grand Muffti has revealed that:

    1. He was wrong when he claimed that some of us didn’t comprehend his post

    2. He doesn’t like to be wrong

    3. He doesn’t like giving A grades to students who get his point but disagree with it

    4. The Middle’s comments stand as before because he clearly understood Muffti’s point but had a different take on things

    5. The Muffti is a shit disturber

  • Welcome, Middle, it wasn’t too long, so don’t let people bother you about that. English is a foreign language to me, and I still coped. 🙂

    Could I possibly have seen you on Sunday?
    Antwerpen 616

  • GM,

    No. Worse. They’re trying to lock him up for free speech:

    Besides, I didn’t say censor, I said suppress. If Geert paid the same company that hosts tons of terrorist sites across the world, Network Solutions, to host his site, and then they voluntarily took it down, that’s suppression, and hypocrisy by the way.

    I’m surprised you were more upset by him and his movie than the ridiculous and disproportionate response to it by the Muslim World and weak-kneed Westerners who only believe in free speech as long as it targets only Jews, Christians, and anyone else besides Muslims.

  • Whoa, Alex, thanks! Muffti didn’t know they were considering prosecuting him. That is ridiculous.

    And some cred where cred is due – Jewlicious is hosting that movie. We’re all about freedom of expression.

    Muffti believes in free speech as it targets anyone. Muffti isn’t very upset by Geert nor his movie. He was just making a point!

  • quote:
    Muffti just wanted to challenge you to do better!
    – – – – – – – – – – –
    Boy does THAT bring back bad memories… now where did I put that lecturer evaluation form?

  • I just want to point out that almost all the qoutes form the “talmud” are lies — they aren’t there. In fact, from the short list of “quotes” used in this post, only the second one actually exists (although not in the talmud and surely not in the source cited since no such source exists) and is taken out of context. All the others were never said anywhere. I think we can all appreciate what a world of difference there is between making stuff up and taking statements that were actually made out of context.

  • I can’t believe it took 44 posts for that to get said. I am no scholar, but I knew it intuitively. GM, you are not looking good! Please have some very strong espresso, and get off campus for at least two weeks. Jerusalem air? Profright Israel? A trip to Germany? Skydiving? Outward Bound? Jew-ward Bound? Something? Chazak and all that.

  • What would Muffti be doing in Germany?

    Read the second paragraph: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_57.html

    And even this: http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/three.html
    “Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: A male child who has relations with a female adult causes her to be like one who was injured with a stick… Rava said: This is what was meant – an adult male who has relations with a female child has not done anything because less than this [three years old] is like sticking a finger into an eyeball.”
    Even though it’s not about condoning pedophilia, it’s about determining the dowry for a child that has lost its virginity due to sexual molestation – which doesn’t count as such if the child is young enough. Sorry, but by any means, that is weird.

  • No worries, froylein. Muffti will tell you that it’s all a metaphor or simile or figure of speech, or an allegory (commonplace in penal codes everywhere), or can be understood by virtue of a context of which he isn’t aware but which has been outlined on Wikipedia or someplace, and that words have no intrinsic significance anyway, or haven’t you read your Derrida?

  • Tom, I’m more concerned about the kitschy glorification, so to speak, that seems to have replaced serious Jewish histography and theology even among allegedly academic scholars. A neo-Enlightment might be well-needed.

  • Somebody ought to acknowledge the delicacy of Tom Morrissey’s remark of a few days ago, something about ‘we have problems too, oh boy’. Nobody has. Also, it’s more constructive to go out and discover something, whether physical or metaphysical, than to just say the other guy’s science project won’t hold water, or something.

  • I’m always happy to share my problems, Jewish Mother, especially if it’s not costing me a buck-fifty an hour.




    Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64a

    Soncino 1961 Edition, page 437

    Following the Mishnah is a discussion among the sages. One of the Talmud Sages, Rabbi Ashi, comments as follows:

    GEMARA. R. Ashi propounded: What if one caused his blind or sleeping son to pass through, (3) or if he caused his grandson by his son or daughter to pass through? — One at least of these you may solve. For it has been taught: [Any men … that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall he put to death … And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people;] because he hath given of his seed unto Molech. Why is this stated? — Because it is said, there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire. From this I know it only of his son or daughter. Whence do I know that it applies to his son’s son or daughter’s son too? From the verse, [And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man] when he giveth of his seed unto Molech [and kill him not: Then I will … cut him off.]

    — Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64b

    Soncino 1961 Edition, page 439

    Rabbi Dr. Freedman, one of the translators of the Soncino Tractate Sanhedrin, clarifies the passage. In a footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman confirms that the Talmud Sages use “seed” to denote living children,
    in the same sense as the Biblical translators understand the term in the above Biblical quotes. In this footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman paraphrases the question from Rabbi Ashi:

    3. Is ‘thou shalt not cause to pass’ applicable only to a son who can naturally pass through himself, but not to a blind or sleeping son, who must be led or carried, or does it apply to all?

    Rabbi Dr. Freedman

    Other footnotes within the same context clarify the fine point of distinction being drawn in the Mishnah and subsequent debates among the sages:

    5. Lev. XVIII, 21. This proves that the offence consists of two parts; (I) formal delivery to the priests, and (2) causing the seed to pass through the fire.

    Rabbi Dr. Freedman (2)

    5. As two separate offences, proving that giving one’s seed to Molech is not idolatry. The differences [sic] is, that if one sacrificed to Molech, or caused his son to pass through the fire to some other deity, he is
    not punished.

    Rabbi Dr. Freedman (3)

    Following the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 64a and 64b contain a rousing debate between the Sages concerning:

    * the circumstances under which worshipping an idol is idolatry,

    * which idols may be worshipped without indulging in idolatry,

    * which parts of child sacrifice in what combination are punishable, and

    * how children may be sacrificed without violating Leviticus.


    Screenwriter and director, Billy Wilder, has had an enormous impact on the public, as substantiated by his numerous Oscars and other film awards. Responsible for famous films like Hold Back the Dawn, Five Graves to Cairo, Double Indemnity, The Lost Weekend, Sunset Boulevard, Stalag 17, Sabrina and The Apartment, Wilder’s cinema successes were granted him as he was just another pawn who was utilized with evil acumen to help abolish society’s established code of ethics. His own authorized biographer who worked closely with him, Maurice Zolotow, wrote:

    “Of course, I did not know what I was getting into when I had started this. It became, as all such journeys have become, a journey to find out the secret springs of this most devious and perverse of Hollywood’s personalities.”

    Wilder loved to transport the viewer into the depravity of his own heart and did this by tricking the censors who sought to enforce the old Hollywood Production Code of Hollywood’s “Golden Age.” Wilder recalls, “We had to operate cunningly to outwit the censors and this made us write more subtly.” What subtleties did he scatter throughout his films? Perversion. In his movie, The Major and the Minor, Wilder admits that the motif was child sexuality, stating:

    “Ray Milland falls in love with Ginger as a twelve year old child. We had here the first American movie about pedophilia. The Major is sexually aroused by her. He can’t help himself. I was worried that audiences would be shocked by this story, but it seems that they were not.”

    This goes to show that if a story is entertaining and “cute,” it can bypass the normal reaction to such filth and translate into apathetic disregard on the slippery slope of corruption. Where did this movie minister of perversion receive his material? Wilder was given his creative material by another supernatural force. In addition to stating that he is “demonically possessed and slightly crazed,” Zolotow reports of Wilder:
    “He could not stop his creative machinery from functioning. He was enslaved by his art…One sometimes felt as if one were moved by powerful invisible forces. I forgot to tell you that Wilder never starts a new screenplay without typing two words on the first page: Cum Deo (‘With God’). He has a pantheistic feeling about the universe.”

    Demon possession leads many from the truths of God to the pantheistic lies of the New Age movement because Satan uses those who will serve him most faithfully in preparing humanity to embrace him as the god of this world. Wilder’s responses upon completion of his show make it readily apparent which god he aligned himself with. Scientologist screenwriter of the Sound of Music, Ernest Lehman, recalls:

    “He looked at the heavens and screeched F— you!” It was…a victory cry, as if he were calling out to God and saying,

    ‘I completed this picture despite everything you did to make me surrender.'”

    Dr. Lycurgus Starkey rightly announced on the NBC network: “His movies have overturned all the sexual mores, glorified promiscuity, glamorized prostitution and elevated adultery to a virtue.” Dr. Starkey was prophetically right in predicting the social effect and outcome of Wilder’s films that we currently face in our day. The atheist author of communism, Karl Marx, explains the reasons why this is so:

    “The ideas of the ruling class are, in every age, the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is the dominant material force in society is at the same time its dominant intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time over the means of mental production.”

    The gross immorality in Hollywood that makes its way on the screen and thus influences the masses reflects the lives of those who operate within it. An intimate friend of the late Steve McQueen related:

    “He’d kill for a part in a movie…he’d suck anyone’s [expletive]…he’d get f—– or f— anyone who’d get him a part in a show…then he’d wish-he’d pray- that person would have a heart attack or a stroke and die, and then there would be no way for anyone to know how McQueen had got the part.”

    This disgusting ambition is what keeps the infamous casting couch warm and desirous hopeful actors willing. Hollywood insider, Phyllis Diller, clarifies this fact:

    “The casting couch is the name of the game in Hollywood. I know there are stars, especially women, who have made a career from sexual favors.”

    Would you invite a person whom you knew to be ethically bankrupt and an absolute moral degenerate into your home to influentially instruct your wife, your husband, and your children or loved ones? These are the very ones that America invites into their home every night via the television to submissively share their lives with.

    Faye Dunaway said that the ghost of Joan Crawford is haunting her. Actress Jean Seberg believed that her “devils” kept her from ever being free. She stated:

    “The devils will stop that sort of stuff in a second. They ride right here. (Touching her collar bone with her fingers) Sitting here and here. There’s one on each side…these are both unfriendly influences. They tell me to run my car into other cars, or drive off a cliff.”

    A friend later reflected on her life and pin pointed the cause as the “acting classes at Columbia Studios…[which] had the power to influence Jean’s devils.” Like countless others in the Hollywood movie star system, this lead to psychiatric hospitals and suicide. Actor Sal Mineo was in regular contact with psychics and spoke of the “vibrations” of James Dean’s spirit that haunted him, stating, “I’ve got to get him off my back because I don’t want to join him down there.” Mineo was murdered under mysterious circumstances. Is fame worth the extorted fees that Satan demands of his servants of the silver screen?
    As Alan Alda declared:


    Was the great and revered rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Maimonides) a racist?
    The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion refers to Moses Maimonides, a.k.a. Rambam, as “the symbol of the pure and orthodox faith.” His Guide of the Perplexed is considered the greatest work of Jewish religious philosophy:

    1. “[T]he Negroes found in the remote South, and those who resemble them from among them that are with us in these climes. The status of those is like that of irrational animals. To my mind they do not have the rank of men, but have among the beings a rank lower than the rank of man but higher than the rank of apes. For they have the external shape and lineaments of a man and a faculty of discernment that is superior to that of the apes.”

    Several Jewish scholars have translated the “Guide,” interpreting the above passage as referring to Black Africans:

    1. Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), The Guide of the Perplexed, translated and edited by Shlomo Pines; with an introductory essay by Leo Strauss (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), Chapter 51, pp. 618-19. Moses Maimonides, The Guide to the Perplexed, trans. and ed. Shlomo Pines (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1963), 2:618-19. Other translations use the term “cushites” or “blacks” in place of “Negroes.” See M. Friedlander’s translation (1904; reprint, New York: Dover, 1956), 384.

    2. Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), The Guide of the Perplexed; an abridged edition with introduction and commentary by Julius Guttmann; translated from the Arabic; Dalalat al-ha’irin; English; selections by Chaim Rabin; new introduction by Daniel H. Frank (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1995), p. 185.

    3. Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), The Guide of the Perplexed, translated from the original and annotated by M. Friedländer (New York: Hebrew Pub. Co., 1881), pp. 279-80. Here the word “Kushites” is used.
    One might also see Essays on Maimonides; An Octocentennial Volume, edited by Salo Wittmayer Baron (New York: Columbia University Press, 1941). Baron is quite explicit about the attitudes of Maimonides on slavery. On page 239, for instance, he writes, “For Maimuni [Maimonides] a slave is not fully human in matters of sex…”

    [Shalom Welcome to my website. I am Rabbi Solomon Cohen and I am happy to be your host. Please feel free to browse around the different topics that I will be discussing here by clicking on the individual tabs at the top of the page. This site is currently a work in progress and it is my hope to continue adding to it in the coming days Kol Tuv, Rabbi Solomon Cohen]

    Aaron Lopez Settling in Newport, Rhode Island, where his brother had located a decade earlier. Like his uncle and future father-in-law, Aaron established himself as a whale-oil merchant and a manufacturer of spermaceti candles. In 1761, Aaron, Jacob Rodriguez Rivera, and seven other merchants formed a trust to control the price and distribution of whale oil. That same year he and Jacob Rodriguez Rivera, purchased a brigantine sailing ship named Grayhound which sailed to Africa in 1763, bringing back a cargo of 134 Africans who were sold as slaves to fellow Jew, Isaac de Costa, in South Carolina. Four captains made thirteen of the voyages to Africa, bringing back some 1,275 black slaves. Between 1761 and 1774, Aaron Lopez underwrote 21 slave ships and by the beginning of the Revolutionary War, he owned or controlled 30 vessels. Lopez soon amassed a vast fortune through shipping, the slave trade, candle making, distilling rum, producing chocolate, textiles, clothing, shoes, hats, bottles and barrels. By the early 1770s, Lopez had become the wealthiest person in Newport and his tax assessment was twice that of any other resident.


    John Wilkes Booth John Wilkes Booth (May 10, 1838 – April 26, 1865) a famous American stage actor was a member of the prominent 19th century Booth theatrical family from Maryland. According to the autobiography of his sister Asia Booth, their father, Junius Brutus Booth, was “born in 1796 to a highly educated clan of Jewish lawyers and silversmiths.” The Booth family were originally Sephardic Jewish wine merchants from Portugal who ran a business exporting wine through the ports of northern England as far back as 1569. John Wilkes Booth’s paternal great-great-great-grandfather was Ricardo Botha, who born in 1675 and settled in England, he changed his name from Botha to Booth. His grandson, John Booth, Jr., (1723-1787), was a silversmith established in London, England. He married Elizabeth Wilkes (1720-1801); John’s sons John and Philip founded a London distillery in 1740 and began selling Booth’s dry gin, eventually becoming the largest gin distillery in the UK; while his son Richard (John Wilkes Booth’s grandfather) was an attorney. Richard’s son, Junius Brutus Booth (1796-1852), was a well-known Shakespearean actor in England and America. In his 1865 biography of John Wilkes Booth, George Alfred Townsend writes of Junius Brutus Booth: “The elder Booth in every land was a sojourner, as all his fathers were of Hebrew descent, and by a line of actors, he united in himself that.strong Jewish physiognomy which, in its nobler phases, makes all that is dark and beautiful, and the combined vagrancy of all men of genius and all men of the stage. Fitful, powerful,- passionate, his life was a succession of vices and triumphs.” Following Lincoln’s assassination, Booth fled on horseback to southern Maryland, eventually making his way to a farm in rural northern Virginia 12 days later, where he was tracked down. Booth’s companion gave himself up, but Booth refused and was shot by a Union soldier after the barn in which he was hiding was set ablaze. Eight other conspirators or suspects were tried and convicted, and four were hanged shortly thereafter.


    The official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud published in 1935 was “Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices” by such eminent Talmudic scholars as Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches, Rabbi Dr. Israel W. Slotki, M.A., Litt.D., The Reverend Dr. A. Cohen, M.A.’, Ph.D., Maurice Simon, M.A., and the Very Reverend The Chief Rabbi Dr. J.H. Hertz wrote the “Foreword” for the Soncino Edition of the Talmud. The Very Reverend Rabbi Hertz was at the time the Chief Rabbi of England.

    The world’s leading authorities on the Talmud confirm that the official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud translated into English follows the original texts with great exactness. It is almost a word-for-word translation of the original texts. In his famous classic “The History of the Talmud,” Michael Rodkinson, the leading authority on the Talmud, in collaboration with the celebrated Reverend Dr. Isaac M. Wise states:

    “THE TALMUD IS ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE WORLD. During the twenty centuries of its existence…IT SURVIVED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and not only has the power of its foes FAILED TO DESTROY EVEN A SINGLE LINE, but it has not even been able materially to weaken its influence for any length of time. IT STILL DOMINATES THE MINDS OF A WHOLE PEOPLE, WHO VENERATE ITS CONTENTS AS DIVINE TRUTH…”

    SANHEDRIN, 55b-55a: “What is meant by this? – Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that (2) What is the basis of their dispute? – Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt (upon the actual offender); whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty (in that respect) (3). But Samuel maintains: Scriptures writes, (And thou shalt not lie with mankind) as with the lyings of a woman (4). It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; (55a) (he) who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally: or a woman who causes herself to be bestiality abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5).”

    This “divine truth” which “a whole people venerate” of which “not a single letter of it is missing” and today “is flourishing to such a degree as cannot be found in its history” is illustrated by the additional verbatim quotations which follow:

    SANHEDRIN, 69b “Our rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son (a minor), and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, -Beth Shammai says, he thereby renders her unfit for the priesthood (1). Beth Hillel declares her fit…All agree that the connection of a boy nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not (2); their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old.

    KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. “Rabba said, It means (5) this: When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (6), it is as if one puts the finger in the eye (7), but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown up woman, he makes her as `a girl who is injured by a piece of wood’ “.
    (footnotes) “(5). Lit., `says’. (6) Lit., `here’, that is, less than three years old. (7) Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.”

    KETHUBOTH, 11a-11b. “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 (1). Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood(a dildo).”
    (footnotes) “(1) Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood.”

    ABODAH ZARAH, 36b-37a. “R. Naham b. Isaac said: They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it would cause defilement by seminal emission (2) so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with it…From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? From the age of nine years and one day. (37a) for inasmuch as he is then capable of the sexual act he likewise defiles by emission. Rabina said: It is therefore to be concluded that a heathen girl (communicates defilement) from the age of three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of the sexual act she likewise defiles by a flux.

    SOTAH, 26b. “R. Papa said: It excludes an animal, because there is not adultery in connection with an animal (4). Raba of Parazika (5) asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there is no adultery in connection with an animal? Because it is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog etc.; (6) and it has been taught: The hire of a dog (7) and the wages of a harlot (8) are permissible, as it is said, Even both of these (9) – the two (specified texts are abominations) but not four (10)…As lying with mankind. (12) But, said Raba, it excludes the case where he warned her against contact of the bodies (13). Abaye said to him, That is merely an obscene act (and not adultery), and did the All-Merciful prohibit (a wife to her husband) for an obscene act?”

    SANHEDRIN, 55b: “A maiden three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her; (if a niddah) she defiles him who has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon (a person afflicted with gonorrhea).”

    (footnotes) “(2) His wife derives no pleasure from this, and hence there is no cleaving. (3) A variant reading of this passage is: Is there anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a heathen. Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew. (4) By taking the two in conjunction, the latter as illustrating the former, we learn that the guilt of violating the injunction `to his wife but not to his neighbor’s wife’ is incurred only for natural but not for unnatural intercourse.”

    Of the “sacred” Talmudic teachings of the “Sages,” preserved since 500 A.D. and taught more widely today than ever before in Talmud-Torah schools in the U.S.A., perhaps nothing better illustrates “fools” with “reprobate minds” than the teaching in the Talmud book of Yebamoth that spittle on the top of the bed curtain proves that a wife has been guilty of adultery, as only lying down face upwards could she have spit up on it. Spitting several feet straight up! The Talmud states: “When a peddler leaves a house and the woman within is fastening her sinnar [breech-cloth] … . If spittle is found on the upper part of the curtained bed she must, said Rabbi, go.” Footnote: “Even if there were no witnesses that misconduct took place.” Further footnote: “Only the woman lying face upwards could have spat on the spot. Intercourse may, therefore, be suspected.”
    John Stone

    Did you know the Jewish Talmud and Orthodox bible commentary claim Adam screwed all the animals and was unsatisfied? That is why Eve was created — so Adam could get off!

    Yes, this is found in the Jewish Talmud and in the Jewish biblical commentary by their esteemed Hebrew commentator, Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki). This commentary is found in Orthodox Hebrew Bibles.
    The commentary is about Genesis 2:23 which reads;
    “And man said, “This time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called ishah (woman) because this one was taken from ish (man).”
    Rashi comments on “THIS TIME” saying:
    “This teaches us that Adam came to all the animals and the beasts [in search of a mate], but he was not satisfied until he found Eve. — [Talmud Yev. 63a]


    The Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary; Judaica Press Tanach with Rashi CD $79.20
    The Judaica Press Complete Tanach is the authoritative Judaica Press [translation] version translation, edited by the esteemed translator and scholar, Rabbi A.J. Rosenberg


    BABYLONIAN TALMUD, Kethuboth 11b.

    “When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing …like putting a finger in the eye”

    BABYLONIAN TALMUD, Menahoth 43b-44a.

    “A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave”.

    Cases of Clergy Abuse

    Case of Shlomo Aviner (Rosh Yeshiva, Ateret Cohanim Yeshiva, Rabbi of Beit El, Israel)

    Case of Rabbi Lewis Brenner (Convicted of child molestation. The original charges included 14 counts of sodomy, sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. He agreed to plead guilty to one count of sodomy in the third degree, a Class E felony, in exchange for a sentence of five years’ probation.)

    Case of Rabbi Ephraim Bryks (Accusations about sexual inappropriate behavior with children started surfacing in the 1980’s. Rabbi Bryks is currently a member of the Vaad Harabonim of Queens. The Vaad is a Rabbinical committee that makes important decisions within an orthodox community.)

    Case of Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach (Accused of several cases of child molestation, and sexual assault of young women)

    Case Rabbi Perry Ian Cohen – Montreal and Toronto Canada (Accused of sexual abuse of a seventeen year old. Fired for sexual impropriety with congregants)

    Case of Rabbi Yitzchak Cohen (Accused of sexually harassing students at Bar-Ilan University)

    Case of Rabbi Ephraim Goldberg – Boca Raton, Flordia (Pled guilty to one misdemeanor count of exposure of sexual organs in a washroom at a Palm Beach Mall.)

    Case of Rabbi/Cantor Sidney Goldenberg (Convicted of molesting children. The first complaints came in 1971. He was finally convicted in 1997.)

    Case of Cantor Joel Gordon (Convicted of having keeping a house of prostitution and involvement in a prostitution ring.)

    Case of Rabbi Israel Grunwald (Accused of molesting a 15 year old on a 1995 plane flight from Australia to LA. The charge against him were dropped after agreeing to perform 500 hours of community service and to seek counseling. Grunwald was the chief rabbi of an Hungarian Hasidic congregation in Brooklyn, known as the Pupas).

    Case of The State of Israel Vs. Sex Offender (Convicted of repeated rape and forced molestation of his graddaughter.)

    Case of Yehudah Friedlander – Rabbi ‘s Assistant (Accused of molesting a 15 year old on a 1995 plane flight from Australia to LA. Friedlander was the assistant to the chief rabbi of an Hungarian Hasidic congregation in Brooklyn, known as the Pupas)

    Case of the Rabbi at Hillel Torah, Chicago, IL (A teacher at the Chicago school was accused of child molestation. His name was not released. The school did everything correctly in attempting to keep the children safe once accusations were made.)

    Case of Rabbi Solomon Hafner (Accused of sexually abusing a developmentally disabled boy)

    Case of Rabbi (Alan J.) Shneur Horowitz (Convicted and sentenced to 10 – 20 years in prison for sodomizing a nine-year-old psychiatric patient. Allegedly, he has assaulted a string of children from California to Israel to New York in the past twenty years. Alan J. Horowitz is an Orthodox rabbi, magna cum laude, M.D., Ph.D. A graduate of Duke University, and was a writer for NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association).

    Case of Jacob Frank and the Frankist Movement (Accused of cultic type practices and sexual offenses)

    Case of Rabbi Israel Kestenbaum (Accused of child pornography on the internet)

    Case of Rabbi Robert Kirschner (Accused of sexually exploited or harassing three congregants and a synagogue employee)

    Case of Rabbi Ze’ev Kopolevitch (Convicted of molesting students at Rosh Yeshiva, Netiv Meir yeshiva high school)

    Case of Rabbi Baruch Lanner (Convicted – child molestation.)

    Case of Rabbi Jerrold Martin Levy (Convicted of two counts of soliciting sex through the Internet and two counts of child pornography. He was sentenced to six years and sex in prison. He was caught in the “Candyman” year-long sting operation by the US government.)

    Case of Rabbi Pinchas Lew (Accused of exposed himself to a woman.)

    Case of Rabbi/Psychologist Mordecai Magencey (lost his license to practice in the State of Missouri because of his sexual misconduct with his patients.)

    Case of Rabbi Richard Marcovitz (Convicted of indecent or lewd acts with a child, and sexual battery)

    Case of Rabbi Juda Mintz (Convicted – internet sting on child pornography)

    Rabbi Yona Metzger (Accused of sexually misconduct with four men)

    Case of Rabbi Avrohom Mondrowitz (Accused of two counts of sex abuse with boys at a special education school in New York)

    Case of Cantor Howard Nevison (Accused of molesting his nephew)

    Case of Rabbi Michael Ozair (Accused of sexual molestation of a then-14-year-old girl)

    Case of Cantor Stanley Rosenfeld (Convicted of molesting a 12-year-old boy he was tutoring.)

    Case of Rabbi Charles Shalman (Accused of sexual misconduct toward female congregational members)

    Case of Cantor Robert Shapiro (Accused of three counts of rape and four counts of indecent assault and battery to a mentally retarded woman)

    Case of Cantor Michael Segelstein (Accused of attempted rape; Chabad – Las Vegas, Nevada)

    Case of Rabbi Ze’ev Sultanovitch (Accused of sexually molesting a number of adult yeshiva students at the Merkaz Harav Yeshiva)

    Case of Rabbi Melvin Teitelbaum (Accused of three counts of sex crimes against two boys under the age of 14, and one count of assault with intent to commit rape against one boy’s mother. The charges were dropped for lack of evidenced)

    Case of Rabbi Isadore Trachtman (Accused of cultic type practices and sexual offenses)

    Case of Rabbi Hirsch Travis (Rabbi in Monsey, accused of posing as a Brooklyn doctor specializing in infertility problems, and allegedly sexually abusing and assaulting a patient.)

    Case of Rabbi Matis Weinberg (Accused of cultic type practices and sexual offenses)

    Case of Rabbi Yaakov Weiner (Accused of molesting boy at Camp Mogen Avraham, New York)

    Case of Rabbi Don Well

    Case of Cantor Phillip Wittlin (Convicted of molesting two girls)

    Case of Rabbi Mordechai Yomtov (Convicted of sexual abuse and committing lewd acts against three boys)

    Case of Rabbi Sheldon Zimmerman (Violated guidelines concerning “sexual ethics and sexual boundaries,” )

    Case of Rabbi Max Zucker (Accused by three women of improperly touching)

    And Other Trusted Officals (Parents, Teachers, Camp Counselors, etc.)

    Case of Arie Adler and Marisa Rimland, NY (Arie Adler was accused of molesting his daughter. Marisa Rimland murdered her daughter, and then committed suicide).

    Case of Simcha Adler – Ohel Counselor, NY (Plea-bargained charges of sodomy, sexual abuse and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child down to attempted sodomy.)

    Case of Eugene Loub Aronin – School Counselor, TX (Convicted in 1984 of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy)

    Case of B’Nai Torah Congegation – Hillel Community Day School janitor, Boca Raton, FL (Accused of child molestation)

    Case of Chaim Ciment (Accused and charged with first-degree sexual abuse, after allegations were made that he fondled a 17 year old girl in an elevator).

    Case of James A. Cohen – Jewish Youth Group Leader (Convicted child molester, sentenced to 9 years for assaulting 4 boys)

    Case of Larry Cohen – Soccer Coach, Lake Oswego, OR (Accused of molesting two individuals.)

    Case of Lawrence Cohen – School Teacher, NJ (Convicted and sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for transmitting child pornography through his home computer).

    Case of Phillip “Eli” Cohen, London, England (Accused of 13 charges of indecently assaulting a boy and four offences of indecently assaulting a girl)

    Case of Stuart Cooperman, MD – Pediatrican, Merrick, New York (Accused of molesting six female patience).

    Case of Delaware Family (Father accused of alleged child molestation)

    Case of Mordechai (Morton) Ehrman – Simcha’s Play Group, Brooklyn, NY (Accused of molesting dozens of students).

    Case of Hbrandon Lee Flagner (Convicted of the kidnapping and aggravated murder of Tiffany Jennifer Papesh a 8-year-old girl. Flagner also claimed to have molested hundreds of girls during his life. While in prison, Flagner convert to Judaism by an Chasidic rabbi.)

    Case of Arnold and Jesse Friedman (Capturing the Friedmans) (Convicted sex offender)

    Case of Richard “Steve” Goldberg (Allegedly engaging in sex acts with several girls under 10 in California. He is on the FBI’s ten most wanted fugitives list)

    Case of Ross Goldstein (Convicting of sodomy in the first degree (three counts) and use of a child in a sexual performance. He was Sentenced to four concurrent indeterminated terms of 2 to 6 years imprisonment. Also see: Case of Arnold and Jesse Friedman)

    Case of Several Child Sex Offenders in Har Nof 0 Jerusalem, Israel (Outlines several cases of alleged child sex offenders in the charedi town of Har Nof)

    Case of David B. Harrington – School Principal / Big Brother, Rockville, MD (Convicted sex offender. Cases from the 1960’s – 1980’s.)

    Case of State of Israel Vs. a Sex Offender (Convicted – 68 year old Israeli religious man pled guilty to repeated molestation of his granddaughter, was sentenced to 19 years in jail.

    Case of Eric Hindin – Jewish Big Brother Volunteer, Newton, MA (Convicted of 35 counts of child rape. He was sentenced to 20-22 years in prison).

    Case of Judge Ronald Kline, CA (Accused of possessing child pornography and for allegedly molesting a neighborhood boy 25 years ago).

    Case of the Kosher Butcher in Chicago (Accused of molesting children for over 30 years)

    Case of Lawrence Nevison – (Convicted of molesting his nephew. He is the brother of Cantor Howard Nevison)

    Case of Stuart Nevison – (Convicted of molesting his cousin. He is the brother of Cantor Howard Nevison)

    The Case of the Students of Ner Israel Yeshiva in the 1950’s (Students accused of sexually molesting a younger student)

    Case of the New York Society for the Deaf’s Home (Accused of treating disabled patients “like animals,” beaten, drugged and robbed of their government checks).

    Case of Ozzie Orbach, M.D. (Accused of molesting his daughter)

    Case of the Rogers Park JCC, Chicago Illinois (This was the first case of alleged mass molestation recorded in Illinois to involve accusations of sexual abuse by a group of adults, consists of 246 allegations that staff members abused children enrolled at the center, according to the Illinois Department of children and Family Services).

    Case of Jonathan Rosenthal – Community Police Liason, London, England (Acquitted of sexually assaulting a few children, after a jury used ancient common law right, deciding evidence wasn’t strong enough.)

    Case of Adam Theodore Rubin – Teacher, Coach and Girl Scout Coordinator (Accused of using a computer to solicit sex with a minor, possession of a controlled dangerous substance and possession of drug paraphernalia).

    Case of Georges Schteinberg – Teacher, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Accused of possession of child pornography. Charges dropped when Schteinberg fled the country).

    Case of Aryeh Scher – Israeli vice-consul, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Accused of possession of child pornography. Charges dropped when Scher fled the country).

    Case of David Schwartz – Camp Counselor, Culver City, CA (Convicted and sentenced to one year in residential treatment and five years’ probation for molesting a 4-year-old boy in his care at summer camp. A six-year prison sentence was suspended).

    Case of Jerrold Schwartz – Scoutmaster, NY (Convicted and sentanced to 8 years in prison for multiple counts of sodomizing his former scout ).

    Case of Irwin Silverman – Chief Counsel to U.S. secretary of interior 1933-53 (Accused of molesting his daughter Sue William Silverman. )

    Case of Paul Slifer – Teacher (Accused of sexually assaulting a several students, and impersonating a doctor. )

    Case of Ari Sorkin – Synagogue Youth Worker, Elkins Park, PA (Accused of molesting a 16 yr. old girl)

    Case of Tel Aviv Arts School, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Case of Dr. Saul and Judith Wasserman (Accused of molesting their daughter)

    Case of David Douglas Webber – Mashgiach (Kashrut Supervisor), Canada (Convicted and sentenced to six years for possessing child pornography and molesting seven boys over the past eight years).

  • FailedMessiah.com
    Covering Orthodox Judaism Since 2004

    © 2004 – 2015


    Here is a summary of the Brooklyn haredi community’s attempts to deal with alleged serial child molester Rabbi Yehuda Kolko. Haredi leaders were unable to deal with Rabbi Kolko and, at the same time, refused to turn him over to police. The end result was almost 40 years of child molestation.

    Gerrer_rebbe_yakov_aryeh_alter_2 Posts on alleged haredi child rapist Avrohom Mondrowitz are here. Mondrowitz fled the US for Israel at the urging of haredi leaders as he was being indicted for raping young boys. He lived safely in Jerusalem for over 20 years, under the protection of the Ger hasidic community and its rebbes, the latest of whom, Rabbi Ya’akov Aryeh Alter, is pictured at right.

    At this writing, there are over almost 700 hundred posts on religious criminals on this index page. It is quite large and may take a few minutes to completely load. The posts are chronological, newest at the top of the page, oldest at the bottom.

    For those wondering why I focus so heavily on Orthodox crime, please read this.

    What I Believe

    Originally published October 24, 2006:

    What I Believe

    I received an email from a man I greatly admire, although I often disagree with him. David Klinghoffer wrote with a suggestion, which I’ll paraphrase: “Why not write a post on what you actually believe rather than simply bitching about every rabbi in the world?” Fair enough. This post will explain my “theology,” so to speak. But there will be plenty of bitching involved, because what I complain about has so shaped my worldview that I cannot make my case without mentioning it.

    I’m evolving. If you’d asked me three years ago, I would have spouted rhetoric largely indistinguishable from Avi Shafran, but with some carping about nepotism, cronyism and the missed opportunities generated by same added in. But that was then. I’ve seen enough since then to realize that my initial revulsion at the business of the haredi world, suppressed so long ago, was well justified. And I’ve seen that non-haredi Orthodoxy is no better.

    I’ve also learned that many if not the vast majority of “facts” presented by the likes of Aish HaTorah, Agudah and Chabad are false, nothing more than slick, often cult-like PR.

    Jewish belief is based on a mesora, on tradition handed down from father to son, teacher to pupil, from Mount Sinai until today. But a mesora is based on trust, on the honesty and credibility of the fathers and teachers who pass it down.

    The lies of the kiruv movement and the lies and misbehaviour of the so-called gedolim, the deification of a false Brooklyn prophet, and all those criminal convictions, indictments, investigations, abuse cover-ups and the like have real impact – they destroy the mesora, break the links in the chain, so to speak, that once bound us. If today’s rabbis lie to us, why not Rashi? Why Not Moses?

    And, indeed, if the findings of archaeology, genetics, astronomy, and so many other scientific disciplines are to be believed – and they should be, in part because they independently confirm each other’s work – our forbearers did quite a lot of lying. Either that, or they spoke in the language and style of their day, using myths to teach spiritual truths, never intending those myths to be taken as literal truth, And this, David, is what I believe.

    Those myths contain some of humankind’s earliest memories, often in fragmentary form, of what came before civilization after the great ice age ended and humans discovered agriculture, built the first cities and began to live for the first time in groups larger than an extended family or band. They tried to make sense of their world and to communicate in a non-literate society important information to their children and grandchildren in ways it would be remembered without writing – through myth.

    Our unique contribution to these early myths was to emphasize the power of God over the powers of the demigods, stars and other natural forces. It was to bring God into this world. Most cultures viewed the Creator or Sky God as being too remote, unknowable and unreachable to be dealt with – hence the pantheons of the ancients. Jews returned God to this world where we are commanded to make a home for him, both in our hearts and in our actions. We are also commanded to carry this message to the nations of the world.

    But we do neither, instead obsessing over ridiculous minutia in halakha and defining ourselves down in the process. Worse yet are the lies and corruption, the stealing and fraud, the Abramoffs and the Lanners, the Balkanys and the Kolkos, rabbis Lau, Amar and Metzger, Elyashiv and the seemingly endless list of other black hatted and black garbed fools we call leaders.

    So there you have it. I no longer believe in the mesora as preached in Orthodoxy. I follow halakha for the most part due to simple inertia. I find little religious inspiration in Judaism. Yet I still believe in God the Creator who many billions of years ago made room for specks of dust like us and started the process that brought us – and brings us – into being.

    Think of the words of the marvellous Eric Bazilian song made famous by Joan Osborne:

    What if God was one of us / just a slob like one of us / just a stranger on the bus / trying to make his way home…

    God is in exile because we put Him there. He’s with those poor children as their rabbi fondles their penises and as other rabbis lie to cover it up. He sits in the fraudulent beit dins and in the special assemblies called to fake non-existent lunch programs. He was there with Abramoff as he stole from poor Indians and gave to rich Jews and He was there when rabbis looked the other way. We, all of us, those who stole and those who lied, those who abused and those who covered up, and those who just closed their eyes and would not see – have turned God into a lonely old man riding a bus, a liar, irrelevant, lost.

    I can’t bring God home, but I can stop covering for and associating with those who abuse Him.

    That is what I believe. (emphasis added)

    Judaism, Christianity and Islam are mental illnesses which lead to neuroses and psychoses in the followers. Some turn their existent anger outward, some inward, but it is never good. It stifles creativity, cognitive expansion and relationships.

    The Talmud is Judaism’s holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the JEWISH Bible in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition):

    “My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (JEWISH Bible).”

    Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, in Judaism on Trial, quotes Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph:

    “Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible…God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own…anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture.”

    The Talmud (and not the JEWISH Scriptures) is the legal/canonical text which obligates those who follow the Jewish religion. It is from the Talmud that laws, regulations, and world views are drawn. In practice, the everyday life of the modern religious person is drawn and influenced by the Talmud.

    In the late 19th century, most European Jews were a people of the book. But their book wasn’t the JEWISH Bible. It was the BABYLONIAN TALMUD. To this day, the Talmud remains Judaism’s highest moral, ethical and legal authority.


    Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia—permitting molestation of baby girls even younger than three! He proclaimed,

    “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.” 1

    Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as “halakah,” or binding Jewish law. 2

    Has ben Yohai, child rape advocate, been disowned by modern Jews? Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron, Israel, tens of thousands of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.

    References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamoth and are enthusiastically endorsed by the Talmud’s definitive legal work, Treatise Sanhedrin.


    The rabbis of the Talmud are notorious for their legal hair-splitting, and quibbling debates. But they share rare agreement about their right to molest three year old girls. In contrast to many hotly debated issues, hardly a hint of dissent rises against the prevailing opinion (expressed in many clear passages) that pedophilia is not only normal but scriptural as well! It’s as if the rabbis have found an exalted truth whose majesty silences debate.

    Because the Talmudic authorities who sanction pedophilia are so renowned, and because pedophilia as “halakah” is so explicitly emphasized, not even the translators of the Soncino edition of the Talmud (1936) dared insert a footnote suggesting the slightest criticism. They only comment: “Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.” 3

    In fact, footnote 5 to Sanhedrin 60b rejects the right of a Talmudic rabbi to disagree with ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia:

    “How could they [the rabbis], contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon ben Yohai, which has scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?” 4


    It was in Babylon after the exile under Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC that Judaism’s leading sages probably began to indulge in pedophilia. Babylon was the staggeringly immoral capitol of the ancient world. For 1600 years, the world’s largest population of Jews flourished within it.

    As an example of their evil, Babylonian priests said a man’s religious duty included regular sex with temple prostitutes. Bestiality was widely tolerated. So Babylonians hardly cared whether a rabbi married a three year old girl.

    But with expulsion of the Jews in the 11th century AD, mostly to European lands, Gentile tolerance of Jewish pedophilia abruptly ended.

    Still, a shocking contradiction lingers: If Jews want to revere the transcendent wisdom and moral guidance of the Pharisees and their Talmud, they must accept the right of their greatest ancient sages to violate children. To this hour, no synod of Judaism has repudiated their vile practice.


    What exactly did these sages say?

    The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy of nine years was not a “man”. Thus they exempted him from God’s Mosaic Law:

    “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Leviticus. 18:22)

    One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes,

    “All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not.” 5

    Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can’t “throw guilt” on the active offender, morally or legally. 6

    Presumably, the majority of little Jewish boys get raped before they are nine by Rabbis. They get caught doing this constantly.

    And so do the Zionist Roman Catholic priests

    A woman could molest a young boy without questions of morality even being raised:

    “…the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act.” 7

    The JEWISH Talmud also says,

    “A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother’s wife acquires her (as wife).” 8

    Clearly, the JEWISH Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.


    In contrast to Simeon ben Yohai’s dictum that sex with a little girl is permitted under the age of three years, the general teaching of the Talmud is that the rabbi must wait until a day after her third birthday. She could be taken in marriage simply by the act of rape.

    R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. (Sanhedrin. 55b)

    A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation. . . .(Yeb. 57b)

    A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanhedrin. 69a, 69b, also discussed in Yebamoth. 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, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas (who was priest, the footnote says) surely was with them. (Yebamoth. 60b)

    [The Talmud says such three year and a day old girls are] . . . fit for cohabitation. . . But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation. (Footnote to Yebamoth. 60b)

    The example of Phineas, a priest, himself marrying an underage virgin of three years is considered by the Talmud as proof that such infants are “fit for cohabitation.”

    The Talmud teaches that an adult woman’s molestation of a nine year old boy is “not a sexual act” and cannot “throw guilt” upon her because the little boy is not truly a “man.” 9

    But they use opposite logic to sanction rape of little girls aged three years and one day: Such infants they count as “women,” sexually mature and fully responsible to comply with the requirements of marriage.

    The Talmud footnotes 3 and 4 to Sanhedrin 55a clearly tell us when the rabbis considered a boy and girl sexually mature and thus ready for marriage.

    “At nine years a male attains sexual matureness… The sexual matureness of woman is reached at the age of three.”


    The Pharisees were hardly ignorant of the trauma felt by molested children. To complicate redress, the Talmud says a rape victim must wait until she was of age before there would be any possibility of restitution. She must prove that she lived and would live as a devoted Jewess, and she must protest the loss of her virginity on the very hour she comes of age.

    “As soon as she was of age one hour and did not protest she cannot protest anymore.” 10

    The Talmud defends these strict measures as necessary to forestall the possibility of a Gentile child bride rebelling against Judaism and spending the damages awarded to her as a heathen – an unthinkable blasphemy! But the rights of the little girl were really of no great consequence, for,

    “When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (three years and a day) it is as if one put the finger into the eye.” The footnote says that as “tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” 11

    In most cases, the Talmud affirms the innocence of male and female victims of pedophilia. Defenders of the Talmud claim this proves the Talmud’s amazing moral advancement and benevolence toward children; they say it contrasts favorably with “primitive” societies where the child would have been stoned along with the adult perpetrator.

    Actually, the rabbis, from self-protection, were intent on proving the innocence of both parties involved in pedophilia: the child, but more importantly, the pedophile. They stripped a little boy of his right to “throw guilt” on his assailant and demanded complicity in sex from a little girl. By thus providing no significant moral or legal recourse for the child, the Talmud clearly reveals whose side it is on: the raping rabbi.


    Child rape was practiced in the highest circles of Judaism. This is illustrated from Yebamoth. 60b:

    There was a certain town in the land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an inquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.

    The footnote says that she was “married to a priest” and the rabbi simply permitted her to live with her husband, thus upholding “halakah” as well as the dictum of Simeon ben Yohai,

    “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest.” 12

    These child brides were expected to submit willingly to sex. Yebamoth. 12b confirms that under eleven years and one day a little girl is not permitted to use a contraceptive but

    “must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”

    In Sanhedrin 76b a blessing is given to the man who marries off his children before they reach the age of puberty, with a contrasting curse on anyone who waits longer. In fact, failure to have married off one’s daughter by the time she is 12-1/2, the Talmud says, is as bad as one who “returns a lost article to a Cuthean” (Gentile) – a deed for which “the Lord will not spare him.” 13 This passage says:

    “… it is meritorious to marry off one’s children whilst minors.”

    The mind reels at the damage to the untold numbers of girls who were sexually abused within Judaism during the heyday of pedophilia. Such child abuse, definitely practiced in the second century, continued, at least in Babylon, for another 900 years.


    Perusing the Talmud, one is overwhelmed with the recurrent preoccupation with sex, especially by the most eminent rabbis. Dozens of illustrations could be presented to illustrate the delight of the Pharisees to discuss sex and quibble over its minutest details.

    The rabbis endorsing child sex undoubtedly practiced what they preached. Yet to this hour, their words are revered. Simeon ben Yohai is honoured by Orthodox Jews as one of the very greatest sages and spiritual lights the world has ever known. A member of the earliest “Tannaim,” rabbis most influential in creating the Talmud, he carries more authority to observant Jews than Moses.


    1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402.
    2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403.
    3 Sanhedrin 76a.
    4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.
    5 Sanhedrin 69b.
    6 Sanhedrin 55a.
    7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.
    8 Sanhedrin 55b.
    9 Sanhedrin 55a.
    10 Kethuboth 11a.
    11 Kethuboth 11b.
    12 Yebamoth 60b.
    13 Sanhedrin 76b.

Leave a Comment