NUM310 Is there, then, any instance in the Torah where a violent reaction to an anti-Semitic reaction is praised? Yes. In the story of the Midianite woman who committed sexual intercourse with the Prince of the tribe of Simon, Pinchas, the son of the High Priest, "took the law into his own hands" and killed them both, thereby stopping the plague (which had killed 24,000 people) (Numbers 25:6-9). Based on God's own words, Pinchas did the right thing and was rewarded handsomely for this courageous act (Numbers 25:10-13). Was this indeed the right thing to do, to take the law into one's own hands and kill two people? Although the Torah praises Pinchas's reaction, the Talmud (Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 48b) seems to condemn this type of reaction, saying that Pinchas was about to be excommunicated for what he did, and it was only the divine intervention in this unique case that saved Pinchas. In all other cases, however, this type of reaction would be punishable. This opinion disagrees with the generally accepted positive reaction to Pinchas's act. Although the initial act is not anti-Semitism per se, it was a desecration of God's name in public, a situation not unlike many anti-Semitic attacks. Thus, if the attack is public, may a person react violently? According to Maimonides (Maimonides, Hilchot Issurei Biah 12:4-5) it seems that if there is indeed public desecration of God's name, a violent reaction would be acceptable under three conditions: (1) the reaction to the attack must take place in the heat of passion, while the act is being committed, and not later, after cold reflection; (2) if permission to respond is asked of the authorities (even during the attack), the person will be denied permission by the authorities and he may not respond; (3) if the original attacker kills the Jew responding, the attacker is not guilty of murder. We see, therefore, that under certain conditions, one may be able to respond. This does not conclusively answer, however, which reaction is the most preferable.