In that case, would it be accurate to state that the Pharisees were what we call fanatics, or extremists, since they proned a strict application of the Mosaic Law? Forgive me if this sounds insulting, but could we parallel them to the Taliban for the Muslims?
Actually, very much the opposite. The Perushim (Pharisees) were the first generations of the Rabbis of the Talmud. They were manifestly not in favor of a literal and strict application of Mosaic Law, because their entire enterprise was built upon the formalization and setting down of the Oral Torah, the extension of the concept that Torah has infinite levels and layers of meaning, and the premise that God gave to the Jewish People the authority to interpret and reinterpret the Torah. Their interpretations were often radically different from a literal reading of the Written Torah, and quite frequently, their understanding of the intent of the Written Torah calls for much less harsh procedures and penalties than a literal and strict reading of the text might imply. For example, as Tarheeler pointed out, they were the ones who taught that the
lex talionis (an eye for an eye, etc.) was not intended ever to be taken literally, but always reflected compensation by means of legal damages awarded; or that the death penalty could only be applied in cases where a minimum of two eyewitnesses had verbally warned the perpetrator that his actions would result in capital punishment, and the perpetrator had acknowledged the warning prior to committing the act-- plus a capital verdict had to be the result of
precisely one fewer than the full sitting court of rabbinic judges (twenty-three was the minimum number of judges in a capital case, and if no verdict was immediately apparent, they added judges two by two until a maximum total of seventy-one judges)-- if two or more judges refused to find the defendant guilty, he was set free, and if the verdict was unanimous, they presumed that the court had been corrupted, because no one could not have at least one person sympathize with their cause unless the panel of judges had been tampered with.
So actually, although they were far more concern with expanding the details and minutiae of the law than were Israelite Jews, they were far more lenient and flexible in its application than anything approaching a "Taliban-style" radical movement.
If any of the major non-Rabbinic movements at that time were closer to radical literalism, it would have been the Tzedokim (Saduccees), who rejected the Oral Torah, and interpreted the Written Torah much more strictly than did the Perushim. Although even they were probably not as radical and violent as the Taliban.
Another question: when Leviticus talks about "lying with another man as with a woman", does it mean homosexuality or just anal sex?
Well, that is subject to interpretation. If you ask most Orthodox Jews today, they will tell you it means homosexuality entirely. If you ask Conservative Jews, a few will tell you in means homosexuality entirely, more will tell you it means just anal sex, and some will tell you it could not mean either. It has been suggested that perhaps it only meant male on male rape, or homosexual acts in the context of idolatrous rituals, or the acquisition of one man by another by means of intercourse (wives, concubines, and female slaves were sometimes acquired by intercourse in those days). Some Jewish gay scholars have proposed that it perhaps reflects only a difference of emotional context. Any and all of which are potentially acceptable readings of the verse.
The Conservative movement is still wrestling with the interpretation of that verse in halakhah (Jewish Law), though their interpretations are steadily becoming more lenient and gay-friendly. The Orthodox communities are divided, with the center and right wing majority interpreting the verse very strictly, with unfortunate results for gay Jews; but a small minority in the Modern Orthodox movement are wrestling with the verse and trying to balance what they perceive as Orthodox interpretation with the elimination of homophobia and the acceptance of gay Jews.
