{
Update: I'd like to thank Ploni Almoni for his insightful comments. I was wrong on several counts in my initial assessment, since I was lazy and did not look at the gemara inside. I still think that I am correct in the main, and that circuses are not modern circuses. I categorized circuses as places of gladiatorial combat. Indeed, they are primarily places of horse racing, but they offered other forms of entertainment offered as well, including gladiatorial combat involving men and beasts. I also offer an analysis of the gemara from an academic point of view. This (what I consider) careful reading of the gemara was prompted by Ploni's challenges, such that I felt I should treat it in some detail. I finally come to a (totally theoretical, not to be taken halacha limaaseh) conclusion. Please read the comments.
}
From the very end of the second perek of masechet Shabbat, on Shabbat daf 36a-b (Soncino translation):
For R. Hisda said: The following three things reversed their designations after the destruction of the Temple: [i] trumpet [changed to] shofar, and shofar to trumpet. What is the practical bearing thereof? in respect of the shofar [blown] on New Year. [ii] 'Arabah [willow] [changed to] zafzafah and zafzafah to 'Arabah. What is the practical bearing thereof? — In respect of the lulab [iii] Pathora [changed to] pathorta and pathorta to Pathora. What is the practical bearing thereof? — In respect of buying and selling. Abaye observed: We too can state: Hoblila [changed to] be kasse and be kasse to hoblila. What is the practical bearing thereof? In respect of a needle which is found in the thickness of the beth hakosoth, which if [found] on one side, it [the animal] is fit [for food]; if through both sides, it [the animal] is terefah. R. Ashi said, We too will state: Babylon [changed to] Borsif and Borsif to BabylonTerminology is important, and terminology changes over time. Which is why R' Gil at Hirhurim, and others who wonder at this, make a tremendous mistake when equating modern circuses with ancient ones.
Rabbi Gil Student cites Avodah Zarah 18b (Soncino translation):
Our Rabbis taught: One should not go to theaters or circuses because entertainments are arranged there in honor of the idols. This is the opinion of R. Meir. But the Sages say: Where such entertainments are given there is the prohibition of being suspected of idolatrous worship, and where such entertainment is not given the prohibition is because of being in 'the seat of the scornful.'
And then applies it without comment to modern circuses. However, this was not the ancient definition of circus, just as the definition of zafzafah changed.
In fact, there is a Midrash Rabba on Vayikra, parasha 13, that I saw several months ago that spoke of the reward for the righteous in the world to come. For not attending the
{Update: I originally remembered this as circuses, but as Ploni pointed out, it just mentions Kanigin. However, this is a good sample of the type of brutal entertainments the Romans enjoyed, and which, we shall see in a moment, was present as well at ancient circuses, accompanying the chariot races.}
When Chazal referred to
But you need not turn to the midrash for this definition. Go to dictionary.com for the word "circus," and note that they cite the American Heritage Dictionary, which gives the following note:
Word History: The modern circus owes its name, but fortunately not its regular program of events, to the amusements of ancient times. The Latin word circus, which comes from the Greek word kirkos, “circle, ring,” referred to a circular or oval area enclosed by rows of seats for spectators. In the center ring, so to speak, was held a variety of events, including chariot races and gladiatorial combats, spectacles in which bloodshed and brutality were not uncommon. The first use of circus recorded in English, in a work by Chaucer written around 1380, probably refers to the Circus Maximus in Rome. Our modern circus, which dates to the end of the 18th century, was originally an equestrian spectacle as well, but the trick riders were soon joined in the ring by such performers as ropedancers, acrobats, and jugglers. Even though the circular shape of the arena and the equestrian nature of some of the performances are carried over from its Roman namesake, the modern circus has little connection with its brutal namesake of long ago.
Update: Do not miss the discussion in the comments, and my eventual explanation of the gemara! And please comment!
Update: Anonymous, in a comment, pointed me toward Tertullian's On Spectacles. It is worthwhile reading in order to really understand the gemara - what it means when it refers to idolatry in terms of the (perhaps dramatic) theater and the chariot races at the circus, what is meant by gladiatory contest, and other spectacles involved.
Other gems from On Spectacles: First, Tertullian speaks of an amphitheather, which according to dictionary.com (from American Heritage Dictionary):
[Middle English amphitheatre, from Latin amphithe
trum, from Greek amphithetron : amphi-, amphi- + thetron, theater; see theater.]refers to "An arena where contests and spectacles are held," and this is how Tertullian uses it. So when I mentioned in the comments that we do not necessarily know what is meant by "theater," this might be what they refer to.
Particularly check out chapter 3, where he gives a similar drash on the first pasuk in Tehillim, labelling it as a drash, as a level on top of pshat, even as he gets the "pshat" entirely wrong. Short citation: