Within the bounds of normative Halakha, is it permissible to punch a neo-Nazi or other anti-Semitic bigot?
If so, is it permissible to do so without the neo-Nazi first offering a direct, physical threat?
יא) וַיְהִ֣י ׀ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֗ם וַיִּגְדַּ֤ל מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֵּצֵ֣א אֶל־אֶחָ֔יו וַיַּ֖רְא בְּסִבְלֹתָ֑ם וַיַּרְא֙ אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י מַכֶּ֥ה אִישׁ־עִבְרִ֖י מֵאֶחָֽיו׃ (יב) וַיִּ֤פֶן כֹּה֙ וָכֹ֔ה וַיַּ֖רְא כִּ֣י אֵ֣ין אִ֑ישׁ וַיַּךְ֙ אֶת־הַמִּצְרִ֔י וַֽיִּטְמְנֵ֖הוּ בַּחֽוֹל׃
(11) Some time after that, when Moses had grown up, he went out to his kinsfolk and witnessed their labors. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his kinsmen. (12) He turned this way and that and, seeing no one about, he struck down the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.
(יא) מכה איש עברי. מַלְקֵהוּ וְרוֹדֵהוּ. וּבַעְלָהּ שֶׁל שְׁלוֹמִית בַּת דִּבְרִי הָיָה וְנָתַן עֵינָיו בָּהּ, וּבַלַּיְלָה הֶעֱמִידוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִבֵּיתוֹ, וְהוּא חָזַר וְנִכְנַס לַבַּיִת וּבָא עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ, כִּסְבוּרָה שֶׁהוּא בַעְלָהּ, וְחָזַר הָאִישׁ לְבֵיתוֹ וְהִרְגִּישׁ בַּדָּבָר, וּכְשֶׁרָאָה אוֹתוֹ מִצְרִי שֶׁהִרְגִּישׁ בַּדָּבָר, הָיָה מַכֵּהוּ וְרוֹדֵהוּ כָּל הַיּוֹם (שם):
(11) מכה איש עברי SMITING A HEBREW MAN — beating and flogging him. The latter was the husband of Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri (see Leviticus 24:11), and the Egyptian taskmaster had set his fancy upon her. During the night he compelled him (her husband) to rise and made him leave the house. He, however, returned, entered the house and forced his attentions upon the woman, she believing it was her husband. The man returned and became aware of what had happened, and when the Egyptian perceived that he was aware of it he beat him and flogged him the whole day long (Exodus Rabbah 1:28).
Rashi adds information related to the particular wickedness of this Egyptian, clarifying that he used his authority to sexually assault a married Israelite woman and was now beating her husband. Serious crimes, but we have no indication that Moses was aware of that information.
Does this bring us any closer to answering our initial and underlying questions?
(טז) וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃ (יז) צָר֖וֹר אֶת־הַמִּדְיָנִ֑ים וְהִכִּיתֶ֖ם אוֹתָֽם׃ (יח) כִּ֣י צֹרְרִ֥ים הֵם֙ לָכֶ֔ם בְּנִכְלֵיהֶ֛ם אֲשֶׁר־נִכְּל֥וּ לָכֶ֖ם עַל־דְּבַר־פְּע֑וֹר וְעַל־דְּבַ֞ר כָּזְבִּ֨י בַת־נְשִׂ֤יא מִדְיָן֙ אֲחֹתָ֔ם הַמֻּכָּ֥ה בְיוֹם־הַמַּגֵּפָ֖ה עַל־דְּבַר־פְּעֽוֹר׃
(16) The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (17) “Assail the Midianites and defeat them— (18) for they assailed you by the trickery they practiced against you—because of the affair of Peor and because of the affair of their kinswoman Cozbi, daughter of the Midianite chieftain, who was killed at the time of the plague on account of Peor.”
(יז) צרור. כְּמוֹ זָכוֹר, שָׁמוֹר, לְשׁוֹן הֹווֶה — עֲלֵיכֶם לְאַיֵּיב אוֹתָם:
(17) צרור — This grammatical form is similar to זכור and שמור: it expresses the idea of continuous present action — You must [constantly] show enmity toward them.
In what way does this assist us in coming closer to answering our initial questions?
How does Rashi's explanation of the command to refer to "continuous present action" guide us?
Let's consider an another source derived from this text:
(ד) צרור את המדיינים - למה? כי צוררים הם לכם, מיכן אמרו חכמים: בא להרגך השכם להרגו.
"Assail the Midianites -" Why? Because they assailed you, from this the Sages stated: "One who comes to kill you, arise [earlier] and kill him [first]."
What is the doctrine that the Sages are teaching us here?
In what way(s) does it bring us closer to answering our initial questions?
(יז) זָכ֕וֹר אֵ֛ת אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂ֥ה לְךָ֖ עֲמָלֵ֑ק בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶ֥ם מִמִּצְרָֽיִם׃ (יח) אֲשֶׁ֨ר קָֽרְךָ֜ בַּדֶּ֗רֶךְ וַיְזַנֵּ֤ב בְּךָ֙ כָּל־הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִ֣ים אַֽחַרֶ֔יךָ וְאַתָּ֖ה עָיֵ֣ף וְיָגֵ֑עַ וְלֹ֥א יָרֵ֖א אֱלֹקִֽים׃ (יט) וְהָיָ֡ה בְּהָנִ֣יחַ ה' אֱלֹקֶ֣יךָ ׀ לְ֠ךָ מִכָּל־אֹ֨יְבֶ֜יךָ מִסָּבִ֗יב בָּאָ֙רֶץ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יְהוָֽה־אֱ֠לֹקֶיךָ נֹתֵ֨ן לְךָ֤ נַחֲלָה֙ לְרִשְׁתָּ֔הּ תִּמְחֶה֙ אֶת־זֵ֣כֶר עֲמָלֵ֔ק מִתַּ֖חַת הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם לֹ֖א תִּשְׁכָּֽח׃ (פ)
(17) Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt— (18) how, undeterred by fear of God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear. (19) Therefore, when the LORD your God grants you safety from all your enemies around you, in the land that the LORD your God is giving you as a hereditary portion, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!
(יח) אשר קרך בדרך. לשון מקרה דבר אחר לשון קרי וטמאה, שהיה מטמאן במשכב זכור. דבר אחר לשון קור וחום, צננך והפשירך מרתיחתך, שהיו כל האמות יראים להלחם בכם ובא זה והתחיל והראה מקום לאחרים. משל לאמבטי רותחת שאין כל בריה יכולה לירד בתוכה, בא בן בליעל אחד קפץ וירד לתוכה. אף על פי שנכוה, הקרה אותה בפני אחרים:
(18) ...An additional possibility: This is the language of cool and heat, cooled you and stopped you from boiling. All the nations of the world were afraid to fight you [Israel] and this one came and started and showed the way to others. It is likened to a legend of a boiling bath that no creature could enter. A scoundrel came and jumped in. Even though he was scalded, he cooled it down for others.
(יח) כל הנחשלים אחריך. חסרי כח מחמת חטאם, שהיה הענן פולטן:
(18) כל הנחשלים אחריך [AND HE SMOTE THE HINDMOST OF THEE] EVEN THOSE THAT WERE FEEBLE BEHIND THEE — i.e., those who were enfeebled because of their sins and whom the clouds had expelled from the protection they afforded (Tanchuma).
(יח) ולא ירא. עמלק, אלקים, מלהרע לך:
(18) ולא ירא AND HE FEARED NOT — Amalek feared not אלהים GOD so as to refrain from harming you.
(יט) תמחה את זכר עמלק. מאיש ועד אשה מעולל ועד יונק משור ועד שה (שמואל א' טו, ג) שלא יהא שם עמלק נזכר אפלו על הבהמה, לומר בהמה זו משל עמלק היתה:
(19) תמחה את זכר עמלק THOU SHALT WIPE AWAY THE REMEMBRANCE OF AMALEK, — both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep (a quotation from I Samuel 15:3, stating how the Amalekites were to be destroyed), so that the name of Amalek should never again be mentioned even in connection with a beast, in that one could say: “This beast belonged to Amalek” (Pesachim Zut.).
The Maharal of Prague, Rabbi Judah Loew, wrote in the Or Hadash that the commandment to destroy Amalek refers to all of those who embrace the ideology of Amalek and seek to destroy Israel. How does changing the scope of the Commandment from the nation of Amalek to an ideology change the scope of our inquiry?
(7) And seek the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you and pray to the LORD in its behalf; for in its prosperity you shall prosper.
As Jews, we are required to be good citizens and contribute to the public good of the societies in which we live.
How does this final text address the questions we opened with?
