Q&A: Accidental Killer: Gladiators
Accidental Killer: Gladiators
Question
If the prohibition of murder did not include “be killed rather than transgress” (or even if it does), then in the case of two gladiators fighting for their lives under threats from the king, does the winner have the status of an accidental killer?
Answer
Regarding a murderer acting under coercion, Maimonides and Tosafot disagree whether his status is that of someone coerced and therefore exempt from punishment (Maimonides), or not (Tosafot). But in the case of gladiators, in my opinion it is different, because usually “be killed rather than transgress” is said when they threaten Reuven that he must kill Shimon. But with gladiators, the threat is that if they do not fight, both of them will be killed. In such a situation, it is certainly preferable from both of their perspectives to fight, since at least one will survive. I wrote such an argument in my article about Siamese twins in Techumin. You can search for it on the site.
Discussion on Answer
So therefore he also does not have the status of an accidental killer (because the other agreed to be killed)?
A. Good question—I hadn’t thought of that. You’re suggesting that from the standpoint of desecration of God’s name, gladiators too would be prohibited.
I’m not sure, because here it is not a matter of targeting them because they are Jews, but of using captives who happen to be Jews. But maybe you’re right.
B. In my opinion, we draw lots against his will.
C. They don’t have the option of another kind of lottery, because their captors specifically want a duel. As for pretending, if that is an option, it needs discussion.
D. Interesting question. I tend to think the imperative is overridden.
A. Why is this different from gentiles who besieged a city and said, “Give us so-and-so”? In other words, why, in the case of gentiles surrounding two gladiators, is there no desecration of God’s name in their publicly giving in to extortion? Is it because here the gentile is acting for his own enjoyment?
B. What is your view regarding adult Siamese twins when one refuses the lottery? Do we draw lots against his will, or do both die (or he dies)? Maybe you wrote this explicitly and I just don’t remember.
C. I understand that in your view gladiators are allowed to accept a lottery in the form of a duel. But what if one demands a regular drawing of lots—would the second be obligated to agree, and the loser would pretend to fight and let his fellow kill him? Or, since there is no reliable third party here, if he does not trust his fellow to honor the loss in the lottery, is he not required to agree to the lottery?
D. Seemingly, unlike Siamese twins, here there is room to discuss it from the perspective of the categorical imperative: everyone should refrain from fighting in the arena, and then in the end no one else will die. But perhaps that imperative is overridden because of saving a life.