Here’s an ethical issue and Jewish source response:

Case

Michael, a law abiding citizen, is walking in the city with his girlfriend and proudly wearing a Magen David around his neck.  Suddenly, a large man starts mocking Michael and his girlfriend because they are Jewish.  Speaking right at them, he utters phrases like “Hitler was right,” and “Make the Jews into lampshades.”  Michael has the urge to hit the man, even if he may be hurt in the fight.  He does not want the man to “get away” with such attacks against Jews.  On the other hand, Michael knows that starting a fight is against the law.  He also knows that there is a police station a block and a half away where he could file a complaint.

Answer

Is it justified, as a Jew, to ever physically stop someone from doing something illegal?  When the attack is verbal and anti-Semitic, does that change anything?

[a] Based on a casual glance at the stories in the Torah, we cannot draw any conclusions based on the evidence.  On the one hand, Simeon and Levi, who destroyed the city of Shechem following the kidnapping and rape of their sister Dinah, were strongly castigated by their father, Jacob (Genesis 34:30).  On the other hand, when idol worshippers perpetrated a great sin causing a plague that left 24,000 dead, Pinchas took the law into his own hands and killed them on the spot.  When he did so, he stopped the plague and was praised for his actions (Numbers 25:10-13).  What, then, is the correct reaction?

[b] When it comes to one’s property, there is a disagreement whether one can seize it back when it has been stolen.  The law codes (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 4) follow Rav Nachman’s opinion in the Talmud (Bava Kamma 27b) that one can seize property that has been stolen (especially when retrieval through lawful means is impossible), although Rabbi Yehudah disagrees.  But this case is not similar to our question.

[c] Based on the story of Pinchas, Maimonides codified the times when it is permitted to take the law into one’s own hands (Hilchot Issurei Biah 12:4-5).  There are four specific conditions which must be adhered to in reacting violently to hurt or destroy the guilty party: 1) It must be a public desecration of God’s name (usually before at least ten Jews); 2) It must take place in the heat of the moment, as an immediate reaction to the act, and not premeditated; 3) One may not consult or ask a Jewish legal authority for permission to commit such an act; 4) If the person who acts outside the law is injured or killed, relatives may not take legal action against the other party.  Therefore, returning to our case, it may indeed be proper or permissible to fight or use physical force against the anti-Semite if the above conditions are adhered to.  

[d] However, in general, the Jewish legal principle Dina D’Malchuta Dina covers this situation.  Dina D’Malchuta Dina means “The Law of the Land” is the law.  Unless (a) he would be at risk, or (b) unless that was a direct and significant danger to other people that would override the limits of local law, Michael would not be allowed to respond at that time.  

Joel Grishaver, “You Be the Judge 2”, pgs. 58-59

Used with permission from Joel Grishaver