On the permissibility of circuses - take 2

There is an important sugya at the end of the second perek of masechet Shabbat, on Shabbat daf 36a-b:

דא"ר חסדא הני תלת מילי אישתני שמייהו מכי חרב בית המקדש
חצוצרתא שופרא שופרא חצוצרתא
למאי נפקא מינה לשופר של ראש השנה
ערבה צפצפה צפצפה ערבה
למאי נ"מ ללולב
פתורה פתורתא פתורתא פתורה
למאי נ"מ למקח וממכר
אמר אביי אף אנו נאמר הובלילא בי כסי בי כסי הובלילא
למאי נפקא מינה למחט שנמצאת בעובי בית הכוסות דמצד אחד כשירה ומשני צדדים טריפה
אמר רב אשי אף אנו נאמר בבל בורסיף בורסיף בבל
למאי נפקא מינה לגיטי נשים:

In English (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 Babylon.

It is thus important to understand the terminology of the gemara as it was intended at the time it was used. This is a potential pitfall, as Latin and Greek may be found at the base of many English words, and one might assume that they mean exactly the same thing that they mean today. I believe this is true of the Gemara in Avodah Zarah 18b, which refers to circuses and theaters. People today think of a circus as a place to see clowns, jugglers, and performing elephants. And people today think of a theater as a place where movies are shown. In fact, this is not exactly the primary meaning of these words, as used in the gemara.

The gemara:

תנו רבנן אין הולכין לטרטיאות ולקרקסיאות מפני שמזבלין שם זיבול <לעבודת> {לעבודה זרה} דברי ר' מאיר
וחכמים אומרים מקום שמזבלין אסור מפני חשד <עבודת> {עבודה זרה} ומקום שאין מזבלין שם אסור מפני מושב לצים

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 (Tehillim 1:1) 'the seat of the scornful.'

In terms of a circus, it is useful to see the entry for the word in the American Heritage Dictionary, and particularly the Word History:

cir•cus

n.

1. 1. A public entertainment consisting typically of a variety of performances by acrobats, clowns, and trained animals.
   2. A traveling company that performs such entertainments.
   3. A circular arena, surrounded by tiers of seats and often covered by a tent, in which such shows are performed.
2. A roofless oval enclosure surrounded by tiers of seats that was used in antiquity for public spectacles.
3. Chiefly British. An open circular place where several streets intersect.
4. Informal. Something suggestive of a circus, as in frenetic activity or noisy disorder: “The city is a circus of the senses” (William H. Gass).

---

[Middle English, round arena, from Latin, circus, circle. See circle.]

---

circus•y adj.

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.

That is, it had a different basic connotation in Roman times. In Roman times, they had "spectacles including chariot races and gladiatorial combats."

What about theater? Under theater, there are two entries to look up. First, theater:

the•a•ter or the•a•tre 
n.

1. A building, room, or outdoor structure for the presentation of plays, films, or other dramatic performances.
2. A room with tiers of seats used for lectures or demonstrations: an operating theater at a medical school.
3. 1. Dramatic literature or its performance; drama: the theater of Shakespeare and Marlowe.
   2. The milieu of actors and playwrights.
4. 1. The quality or effectiveness of a theatrical production: good theater; awful theater.
   2. Dramatic material or the use of such material: “His summation was a great piece of courtroom theater” (Ron Rosenbaum).
5. The audience assembled for a dramatic performance.
6. A place that is the setting for dramatic events.
7. A large geographic area in which military operations are coordinated: the European theater during World War II.

---

[Middle English theatre, from Old French, from Latin thetrum, from Greek thetron, from thesthai, to watch, from the, a viewing.]

Word History: Theories about the development of the theater in the West generally begin with Greek drama; this is etymologically appropriate as well as historically correct, since the words theory and theater are related through their Greek sources. The Greek ancestor of theater is thetron, “a place for seeing, especially for dramatic representation, theater.” Thetron is derived from the verb thesthai, “to gaze at, contemplate, view as spectators, especially in the theater,” from the, “a viewing.” The Greek ancestor of theory is theri, which meant among other things “the sending of theroi (state ambassadors sent to consult oracles or attend games),” “the act of being a spectator at the theater or games,” “viewing,” “contemplation by the mind,” and “theory or speculation.” The source of theri is theros, “an envoy sent to consult an oracle, spectator,” a compound of the, “viewing,” and -oros, “seeing.” It is thus fitting to elaborate theories about culture while seeing a play in a theater.

and second, amphitheater:

am•phi•the•a•ter

1. An oval or round structure having tiers of seats rising gradually outward from a central open space or arena.
2. An arena where contests and spectacles are held.
3. A level area surrounded by upward sloping ground.
4. An upper, sloping gallery with seats for spectators, as in a theater or operating room.

---

[Middle English amphitheatre, from Latin amphithetrum, from Greek amphithetron : amphi-, amphi- + thetron, theater; see theater.]

---

amphi•the•atric (-trk) or amphi•the•atri•cal adj.
amphi•the•atri•cal•ly adv.

Thus, is is possible that "theater" refers to an amphitheater, which is also where people gather to watch spectacles involving gladiatorial combat.

Indeed, in Tertullian's On Spectacles, which is a Christian condemnation of the same thing Chazal are condemning here, talks about both circuses and amphitheaters, which he sometimes refers to as plain theaters (because the sense of it, after all, is a viewing). Of course, he also talks about dramatic theaters and condemns them.

Consider the following choice quotes. I apologize if anyone dislikes my use of Christian sources, but I think one needs to use contemporary source material to make sense of what Chazal are aiming at.

First, the following quote:

Now, to be sure, nowhere do we find it laid down with the same precision as 'Thou shalt not kill,' 'Thou shalt not worship an idol,' 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' 'Thou shalt not commit fraud'--nowhere do we find it thus clearly declared: 'Thou shalt not go to the circus,' 'Thou shalt not go to the theater ,' 'Thou shalt not watch a contest or show of gladiators.'

Here is a citation of circuses and theaters in close proximity, just as it occurs in the brayta. The context of "a contest or show of gladiators" leads me to believe he addresses here such theaters - amphitheaters, though it is also possible later he does in deed address dramatic theater.

A reference to the amphitheater:

Are we now to wait for a scriptural repudiation of the amphitheater , also? If we can claim that cruelty, impiety, and brutality are permitted us, let us by all means go to the amphi-theater. If we are what people say we are, let us take delight in human blood.

At the very end:

Things of greater delight, I believe, than circus, both kinds of theater, and any stadium.

And a reference to stadiums, in which apparently the apparently held this circus:

To add a supplementary remark concerning the place: as you may expect from a place where the arts of the Muses, of Minerva, of Apollo, and even of Mars meet in common, with contest and sound of trumpet they endeavor to equal the circus in the stadium, which is no doubt a temple, too--I mean of the very idol whose festival is celebrated there.

And finally, a reference to races and combat in the stadiums:

Now, if you maintain that the stadium is mentioned in the Scriptures, I will admit at once that you have a point. But as for what is done in the stadium, you cannot deny that it is unfit for you to see--punches and kicks and blows and all the reckless use of the fist and every disfiguration of the human face, that is, of God's image.

Never can you approve the foolish racing and throwing feats and the more foolish jumping contests ; never can you be pleased with either harmful or foolish exhibitions of strength nor with the cultivation of an unnatural body, outdoing the craftsmanship of God; you will hate men bred to amuse the idleness of Greece.

I will leave off citing Tertullian, for now, and turn to the gemara.
The gemara, again:

תנו רבנן אין הולכין לטרטיאות ולקרקסיאות מפני שמזבלין שם זיבול <לעבודת> {לעבודה זרה} דברי ר' מאיר
וחכמים אומרים מקום שמזבלין אסור מפני חשד <עבודת> {עבודה זרה} ומקום שאין מזבלין שם אסור מפני מושב לצים

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 (Tehillim 1:1) 'the seat of the scornful.'

Recall that we have defined circus as this place of chariot races and also of gladiatorial combat, and theaters as amphitheaters.

Now, one may object that one should not consider a circus and theater as a place of gladiatorial combat, for if you look earlier in the gemara, you see the term stadium used. Two responses to this objection immediately spring to mind. Firstly, Tertullian refers to all of these in his condemnation - in terms of stadium - "punches and kicks and blows and all the reckless use of the fist and every disfiguration of the human face," in terms of amphitheater, "if we can claim that cruelty, impiety, and brutality are permitted us, let us by all means go to the amphi-theater."

Secondly, the Aruch regards stadium as the generic term and circus and (amphi)theater as the specific terms. To cite Artscroll's explanation of Itztadin (stadium), on Avoda Zara 18b1, foornote 11:

A place where bulls are incited to gore men (Rashi). The Mishna in Bava Kamma 39a speaks of "a bull of the stadium," which Rashi to our Mishna (16a ד"ה איצטדייא) explains as "a bull that gores and kills people, and this is an entertainment of theirs."

The Romans built two types of stadiums: the circus and the amphitheater. "Stadium" here apparently refers to the amphitheater, a round or oval building with a central arena surrounded by banks of seats for spectators. Gladiatorial combats to the death were held in the amphitheaters, pitting animals against animals, men against animals, and men against men (See Aruch ע' אצטנין). The gladiators were usually drawn from among captives of war, criminal prisoners, or slaves. Occassionally amphitheaters were used for performances of pantomimes and acrobatics.

Indeed, it is possible that Tertullian also uses stadium as the generic term.

Now, Rabbi Meir had said that one should not go to theaters and circuses because they arrange entertainments there in honor of idolatry. To see what he means, we can once again turn to Tertullian, who speaks about this in some detail.

In Chapter 8 of "On Spectacles":

In accordance with my plan, I shall deal next with the places. The circus is primarily consecrated to the Sun. His temple stands in the middle of it, and his image shines forth from the pediment of the temple. For they did not think it proper to worship beneath a roof a god whom they see above them in the open.

Those who maintain that the first circus show was exhibited by Circe in honor of the Sun, her father, as they will have it, conclude also that the name is derived from her. Plainly, the sorceress undoubtedly transacted the business in behalf of those whose priestess she was, namely, the demons and evil spirits. How many evidences of idol worship do you recognize accordingly in the decoration of the place?

Every ornament of the circus is a temple by itself. The eggs are regarded as sacred to Castor and Pollux by people who do not feel ashamed to believe the story of their origin from the egg made fertile by the swan, Jupiter. The dolphins spout water in honor of Neptune; the columns bear aloft images of Seia, so called from "sementatio" ('sowing'); of Messia, so called as deity of "messis" ('reaping'); and of Tutulina, so called as 'tutelary spirit' of the crops.

In front of these are seen three altars for the triple gods: the Great, the Potent, the Prevailing. They think these deities are Samothracean.

The huge obelisk, as Hermateles maintains, has been set up in honor of the Sun. Its inscription which, like its origin, is Egyptian, contains a superstition. The gathering of the demons would be dull without their Great Mother, so she presides there over the ditch.
Consus, as we have mentioned, keeps in hiding underground at the Murcian Goals. The latter are also the work of an idol. For Murcia, as they will have it, is a goddess of love to whom they have dedicated a temple in that part (of the valley).

and in Chapter 9:

Next let us consider the arts displayed in the circus games. In times past, equestrian skill was simply a matter riding on horseback, and certainly no guilt was involved the ordinary use of the horse. But when this skill was pressed into the service of the games, it was changed from a gift God into an instrument of the demons.

Accordingly, this kind of exhibition is regarded as sacred to Castor and Pollux to whom horses were allotted by Mercury, as Stesichorus tells us. Also, Neptune is an equestrian deity, since the Greeks call him "Hippios" ('Lord of Steeds').

Moreover, concerning the chariot, the four-horse team was consecrated to the Sun; the two-horse team, to the Moon. But we also read: "Erichthonius first dared to yoke four steeds to the car And to ride upon its wheels with victorious swiftness." This Erichthonius, a son of Minerva and Vulcan, fruit of lust, in truth, that fell to earth, is a demon-monster, or, rather, the Devil himself, not a mere snake.

...

The chariots having been produced by such inventors, it was only fitting that they clad their drivers in the colors of idolatry. For at first there were only two colors: white and red. White was sacred to Winter because of the whiteness of its snow; red, to Summer because of the redness of its sun. But afterwards, when both love of pleasure and superstition had grown apace, some dedicated the red to Mars, others the white to the Zephyrs, the green to Mother Earth or Spring, the blue to Sky and Sea or Autumn.

and in Chapter 12, in terms of gladiatorial combat:

For in time long past, in accordance with the belief that the souls of the-dead are propitiated by human blood, they used to purchase captives or slaves of inferior ability and to sacrifice them at funerals.

Afterwards, they preferred to disguise this ungodly usage by making it a pleasure. So, after the persons thus procured had been trained--for the sole purpose of learning how to be killed!-- in the use of such arms as they then had and as best as they could wield, they then exposed them to death at the tombs on the day appointed for sacrifices in honor of the dead. Thus they found consolation for death in murder.

Such is the origin of the gladiatorial contest. But gradually their refinement progressed in the same proportion as their cruelty. For the pleasure of these beasts in human shape was not satisfied unless human bodies were torn to pieces also by wild beasts. What was then a sacrifice offered for the appeasement of the dead was no doubt considered a rite in honor of the dead. This sort of thing is, therefore, idolatry, because idolatry, too, is a kind of rite in honor of the dead: the one and the other is a service rendered to dead persons.

And in Chapter 5, about the games (ludii), though much more tenuous:

And though Varro derives "ludii" from "ludus," that is, from "lusus" ('the play'), as they used to call also the Luperci "ludii," because, as "ludendo" ('in play') indicates, they ran to and fro, this play of the youths belongs in his view to festal days, temples, and religious ceremonies. But it is, after all, not the name that matters; the real issue is idolatry. For, since the games also went under the general name of Liberalia, they clearly proclaimed the honor of Father Liber. They were first held in honor of Liber by the country folk because of the blessing which they say he bestowed upon them by making known to them the delicious taste of wine.But there is more than what I cited. Read it all.

The Sages agree to Rabbi Meir about the idolatrous aspect, but maintain that even in the absence of the idolatrous aspect, there is an issue of 'the seat of the scornful.'

What is the seat of the scornful? This is a reference to Tehillim 1:1:

 א  אַשְׁרֵי הָאִישׁ--    אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָלַךְ, בַּעֲצַת רְשָׁעִים;
וּבְדֶרֶךְ חַטָּאִים, לֹא עָמָד,    וּבְמוֹשַׁב לֵצִים, לֹא יָשָׁב. 

Happy is the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the wicked, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of the scornful.

Tehillim is Biblical poetry, and a feature of Biblical poetry is poetic repetition. Thus, first "walking in the counsel of the wicked," then "stood in the path of sinners," and finally "sat in the seat of the scornful." One the peshat level, these three classes of people - reshaim, chataim, leitzim - are probably related. Thus, leitzim probably does not mean merely idle people, but as it is typically translated, scornful people. Thus, for example, Metzudat Tzion explains that leitzim is from the language of melitza, for one who mocks men or the righteous path, it is his way to choose his words carefully so that it enters the person's heart. Malbim does render it those who sit on street corners (yoshevei qeranot), which is a different meaning of leitzim. But the basic message of this pasuk, on the peshat level, is that there are various groups of evildoers, and one should not associate with them, or keep their company. Why? Because this may lead a person to sin. (The next verse, that he desires and studies Torah, could be as an alternative to keeping any of the aforementioned company, or else as a separate statement that "Only [=ki im] Hashem's Torah is his desire...)

I would posit that this is how the Sages in this brayta makes use of the pasuk. They take the plain sense meaning, and apply it to circuses and theaters. The spectacles in general had many aspects not to like, particularly the gladiatorial combat, but others as well, and it is exactly these evildoers who would spend their time enjoying such pleasures. In general, then, attending the circus or amphitheater is keeping the company of such men, and enjoying the activities they enjoy. Happy is the man who does not do so!

To reinforce this, I once again turn to Tertullian, who understands this verse as prohibiting spectacles,

Now, to be sure, nowhere do we find it laid down with the same precision as 'Thou shalt not kill,' 'Thou shalt not worship an idol,' 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' 'Thou shalt not commit fraud'--nowhere do we find it thus clearly declared: 'Thou shalt not go to the circus,' 'Thou shalt not go to the theater,' 'Thou shalt not watch a contest or show of gladiators.'

But we do find that to this special case there can be applied that first verse of David, where he says: 'Happy is the man who has not gone to the gathering of the ungodly, nor stood in the ways of sinners, nor sat in the chair of pestilence.'

For, even though David seems to have praised that well-known just man, because he took no part in the gathering and meeting of the Jews deliberating on the killing of the Lord, divine Scripture admits always a broader interpretation wherever a passage, after its actual sense has been exhausted, serves to strengthen discipline. So, in this case, too, the verse of David is not inapplicable to the prohibition of spectacles.

For, if then he called a mere handful of Jews 'a gathering of the ungodly,' how much more such a vast crowd of heathen people? Are the heathens less ungodly, less sinners, less the enemies of Christ that the Jews were then?

Thus, he understands it as keeping bad company, and joining in a gathering of evildoers, which, once again, is the plain meaning of the text. (Obviously, I disagree with what Tertullian labels the "actual sense" regarding the killing of Jesus.)

Thus, the Sages in the brayta are disallowing the spectacles in general, which happened in the circuses and amphitheaters, because one 'keeps the company of the scornful,' that is, gathers in an assembly of wicked people.

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, the Amora, offers two drashot on this pasuk. The first one is how the first step of walking in the counsel of the wicked takes one to stand in the way of sinners, and how standing in the way of sinners causes one to sit with scorners, etc..

The second drasha is relevant to spectacles. While in the brayta the Sages simply labelled the entire enterprise in circuses and theaters a moshav leitzim, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi is going to take the pasuk, and the spectacles, apart, and show how each part of the pasuk  refers to a different part of the spectacles. To this end, he is going to offer a midrashic explanation of the pasuk:

 

 דרש ר' שמעון בן פזי
 אשרי האיש אשר לא הלך {בעצת רשעים זה שלא הלך} לטרטיאות ולקרקסיאות של <עובדי כוכבים> {גוים
ובדרך חטאים לא עמד זה שלא עמד בקנגיון
ובמושב לצים לא ישב שלא ישב בתחבולות
שמא יאמר אדם הואיל ולא הלכתי
לטרטיאות ולקרקסיאות ולא עמדתי בקנגיון אלך ואתגרה בשינה
ת"ל ובתורתו יהגה יומם ולילה

(Soncino's translation) :
R. Simeon b. Pazi expounded [that verse as follows]:
'Happy is the man that hath not walked' — i.e., to theatres and circuses of idolaters
'nor stood in the way of sinners' — that is he who does not attend contests of wild beasts;
'nor sat in the seat of the scornful' — that is he who does not participate in [evil] plannings.
And lest one say, 'Since I do not go to theatres or circuses nor attend contests of wild animals, I will go and indulge in sleep.'
Scripture therefore continues, 'And in His Law doth He meditate day and night.'

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi takes advantage of the fact that the common parlance is "going" (holech) to theaters and circuses (such that it appears in this form in the brayta as well), and thus terms as "walking in the counsel of evildoers." (Note this is no longer the same usage of the pasuk as in the brayta, for in the brayta they termed it a moshav leitzim, not atzat reshaim.)

He applies derech chataim lo amad to refer to another aspect of the spectacles, the kanigin, the contests of wild beasts. We see in Vayikra Rabba parasha 13 that Hashem will reward the righteous for not attending the kanigin with the spectacle of animal combat between the Leviathan and the Behemoth. While this likely is meant figuratively, it shows what kanigin means. It is probably not a hunt using dogs, as Rashi suggests, firstly because we see what kanigin means from Vayikra Rabba, and secondly, this animal combat is indeed part of the spectacle that is present at circuses and amphitheaters.

He applies moshav leitzim to participating in evil plannings. This is somewhat strange. How is this part of the spectacles? I would not agree to Soncino's translation, but will adopt that of Artscroll, who translates:

"and sat not at a session of jesters" - this refers to one who never sat at antics.

In footnote 50, they explain:

תחבולה (singular of תחבולות), a trick or a strategem, more generally connotes an effect achieved through cunning and artifice. Here R' Shimon presumably alludes to such acrobatics and sleights of hand as those listed in the brayta above.

We have not yet discussed "the brayta above," as we are approaching the gemara out of order, but will turn to it in due time.

At any rate, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi is now translating leitzim not as "scoffers," which is what it means in the plain sense, but rather as "jesters." Sorcerers, tightrope walkers, buffoons, etc., are all types of entertainers/jesters, and these, not the audience, are the leitzim. Thus, sitting in attendance of them may be termed a moshav leitzim. (The fact that it these may be termed jesters, and leitzim may be taken as jesters, makes it clear that this is an element of his derasha. He is not taking leitzim to be those who sit idle, but rather, those who jest.)

Thus, we have identifies another element of the spectacles that takes place in the circuses and amphitheaters.

This does not mean that Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi disagrees with the brayta above. Rather, he agrees with the brayta that circuses and amphitheaters, where the spectacles take place, are forbidden. Indeed, he probably even agrees that they may be termed moshav leitzim as a crowd of evildoers. However, he is presenting a derasha, in a lecture, for the purpose of demonstrating how every element of the spectacles in the circus and amphitheater is referenced, and forbidden, in the very verse.

Finally, he brings in the next verse into his derasha, by stating:

And lest one say, 'Since I do not go to theatres or circuses nor attend contests of wild animals, I will go and indulge in sleep.'
Scripture therefore continues, 'And in His Law doth He meditate day and night.'

This is all part of the style of the derasha.

Indeed, Tertullian does the same thing as Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi - after declaring in general that circuses and amphitheaters, contests, and shows of gladiators are a moshav leitzim because it is the keeping of bad company, the company of scorners, he writes:

Moreover, the other details also fit in well. For at the spectacles there is both sitting 'in the chair' (in cathedra) and standing 'in the way' (in via). For 'ways' (viae) they term both the gangways that run round the girding walls and the aisles that slope down the incline and divide the seats of the populace; in like manner is the very place for chairs in the curving gallery called 'chair' (cathedra).

Now let us move earlier in the gemara, to the brayta mentioned earlier.

 תנו רבנן ההולך לאיצטדינין ולכרקום וראה שם את הנחשים ואת החברין בוקיון ומוקיון ומוליון ולוליון בלורין סלגורין הרי זה מושב לצים ועליהם הכתוב אומר (תהילים א) אשרי האיש אשר לא הלך וגו' כי אם בתורת ה' חפצו הא למדת שדברים הללו מביאין את האדם לידי ביטול תורה

Soncino renders:

The Sages taught: Thosewho visit stadiums or a camp and witness there [the performance] ofsorcerers and enchanters, or of bukion and mukion, lulion and mulion,blurin or salgurin — lo, this is 'the seat of the scornful,' andagainst those [who visit them] Scripture says, Happy is the man thathath not walked in the counsel of the wicked … nor sat in the seat ofthe scornful, but his delight is in the law of the Lord. From here youcan infer that those things cause one to neglect the Torah.

Now, bukion and mukion, lulion and mulion, blurin or salgurin are all types of buffoons and performers - that is, jesters. Now, there are other braytot that prohibit visiting a stadium or a camp. One, which prohibited circuses and amphitheaters, we just saw. But there is another we will see later. What then is the purpose of this brayta.

I would posit that at issue are the "kosher" activities. In general, we know that there is gladiatorial combat at these places, and perhaps idolatry - various reasons not to attend. Further, according to Rashi, this is a Roman seige, so perhaps one should not go these. But what if one watches just the "kosher entertainments," such as lulion and mulion? Perhaps this should be permitted. Thus, the brayta comes to tell us that it is not so.

To this end, it interprets moshav leitzim in the manner of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi - that is, that one should not watch jesters.

What is the stadium, and what is the karkom? In terms of karkom, there is a dispute between Rashi and Ran. Both know that karkom is offered as the Targum to Dvarim 20:20 for the word matzor, siege. Thus, Rashi holds that it is an encirclement, a siegework, of the Roman, where they just happened to make these entertainments. Ran takes the primary meaning as a building make like a matzor, encirclement, where they engage in such entertainments. In this instance, I think Ran is more correct. I proffer the following: Just as a circus means a circular structure in Latin, so does karkom mean a circular structure in Hebrew/Aramaic. This is simply another type of stadium. Indeed, perhaps we might say that stadium here equals an amphitheater and a karkom equals a Roman circus. Alternatively, it is yet another structure in which they conducted activities similar to that of an amphitheater, circus, and stadium. It would seem, though, that there at least no human/human combat in the karkom (this based on a later brayta).

The stadium, elsewhere, is a place specifically of animal and human combat, but perhaps it means something different here. From the continuation of the gemara, in which they contrast with Rabbi Natan who states that attending a stadium is permitted because one may save someone, it seems that this is indeed a place of gladiatorial combat.

Now, there are two ways of parsing this brayta. The first is: One who attends a stadium (in order to watch the gladiatorial combats), and furthermore, One who attends a karkom to see the sorcerers and enchanters, or of bukion and mukion, lulion and mulion, blurin or salgurin - this is a moshav leitzim. That is, stadium is separate.

Stylistically, I believe (and Artscroll goes along with me - see the end of footnote 18) that the correct parsing is different: One who attends either a stadium or karkom, and sees there (in the stadium or karkom) sorcerers and enchanters, or of bukion and mukion, lulion and mulion, blurin or salgurin - this is a moshav leitzim.

However, I think that the stama degemara, in its contrast with a brayta involving Rabbi Natan, takes it as attending a stadium for gladiatorial combats, or else they would not have to say it is a Tanaaitic dispute, or for that matter find a contradiction with the next brayta.

Once again, we are speaking about attending these entertainments which are part of the more general phenomenon of spectacles, and so Chazal want to prohibit every aspect, not just the most violent, and turn to the same re-interpretation of moshav leitzim that Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi offered - that it means jesters.

Further, the brayta ends:

Scripture says, Happy is the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the wicked … nor sat in the seat of the scornful, but his delight is in the law of the Lord. From here you can infer that those things cause one to neglect the Torah.

It is decidedly not because these things cause neglect of Torah that the "kosher" amusements are called moshav leitzim. Rather, they are called moshav leitzim in the derasha because the jesters, the leitzim, are performing. Once we have assigned even the kosher amusements to this pasuk, as an afterthought, and derivative, we know from the continuation into the next verse that these things cause one to neglect Torah.

It furthermore seems from the brayta that these things will cause one to neglect Torah, but that problem is not what causes it to be labelled as a moshav. (Meanwhile, regarding the Mishna in Pirkei Avot that talks about two people who sit and there is not amongs them words of Torah, being a moshav leitzim - that needs to be treated separately, in terms of what that means. However, that is not the derasha of moshav leitzim here.)

The gemara now contrasts this with another brayta:

 ורמינהי [הולכין] לאיצטדינין מותר מפני שצווח ומציל ולכרקום מותר מפני ישוב מדינה ובלבד שלא יתחשב עמהם ואם נתחשב עמהם אסור
קשיא איצטדינין אאיצטדינין קשיא כרקום אכרקום
בשלמא כרקום אכרקום ל"ק כאן במתחשב עמהן כאן בשאין מתחשב עמהן
אלא איצטדינין אאיצטדינין קשיא
תנאי היא [דתניא] אין הולכין לאיצטדינין מפני מושב לצים ור' נתן מתיר מפני שני דברים אחד מפני שצווח ומציל ואחד מפני שמעיד עדות אשה להשיאה

It is permitted to go to stadiums, because by shouting one may save [the victim]. One is also permitted to go to a camp for the purpose of maintaining order in the country, providing he does not conspire [with the Romans], but for the purpose of conspiring it is forbidden.

There is thus a contradiction between [the laws relating to] stadiums as well as between [those relating to] camps! There may indeed be no contradiction between those relating to camps, because the one may refer to where he conspires with them, and the other to where he does not; but the laws relating to stadiums are surely contradictory! — They represent the differing opinions of [two] Tannaim. For it has been taught: One should not go to stadiums because [they are] 'the seat of the scornful', but R. Nathan permits it for two reasons: first, because by shouting one may save [the victim], secondly, because one might be able to give evidence [of death] for the wife [of a victim] and so enable her to remarry.

Thus, in terms of stadiums, they dispense with the contradiction by saying that the brayta that permits is like Rabbi Nathan, and that which forbids, forbids because of moshav leitzim.

(I have my own solution which would be acceptable even according to Rabbi Nathan - since he will not have opportunity to save someone when seeing the "kosher" amusements, moshav leitzim is not overridden. However, as I said earlier, it is possible that the gemara understands stadium as standing on its own. Let us leave this for now, and continue on according to the gemara.)

In terms of karkom, Rashi now makes much more sense than the Ran. A siegeworks is where one might go to conspire [with the Romans], but a circular arena built for amusement?! Why would one think one conspires there?

I will address this shortly, but it seems that according to Rashi, one may go to a karkom so long as he does not go there to conspire. Thus, in the first brayta, going to the seigeworks and seeing the amusements was only forbidden because one was going to conspire. In the second one, since one did not go their to conspire, it was permitted.

I would just point out that according to this, at a modern circus, which offers "kosher" amusements, people do not attend to conspire with Romans or even in general. And it seems that the stadiums being discussed are places where gladiatorial combat is held, and in the first brayta, it is forbidden (probably because of the peshat meaning of moshav leitzim, the company of evildoers), while in the second brayta, this stricture is overridden because of the possibility of saving someone. Modern circuses do not have this gladiatorial combat. It would then seem clear that a modern circus should be permitted.

I will now offer an answer according to the Ran, who translated karkom as a circular structure built like seigeworks for the purpose of amusement. As I asked before, "Why would one think one conspires there?"

I believe the answer is that the work נתחשב should not be translated as "conspire." Rather, it means perform feats of skill. As I noted before, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi referred to תחבולה. Soncino rendered this as an evil planning - that is, the act of consipiring. Artscroll meanwhile, translated this as "trick or strategem - feats of skill." That is, the performances mentioned in the brayta about the sorcerers and enchanters, or of bukion and mukion, lulion and mulion, blurin or salgurin performing in the karkom.

Recall that the brayta forbidding bukion and mukion etc. had done so by labelling this a "company of jesters," a moshav leitzim, in a midrashic take on the pasuk. The gemara now states that to truly be reckoned in the company of jesters, one needs to be a jester/entertainer himself. Thus, in the first brayta, which forbad it, he is participating in the activities himself. In the second brayta, which permits - that permits so long as he is not one of the entertainers.

According to this, a modern circus, like a karkom with "kosher" activities, is permitted, since one goes there to be a spectator, as opposed to being an entertainer.

Closing Remarks:
Chazal intended to forbid the Roman spectacles, because it was a very un-Jewish thing to do, and was not a kosher environment, but more like a moshav leitzim. They found sources to forbid even kosher aspects of these entertainments, because of their association with the spectacles in general (though according to my interpretation, according to the Ran, it seems that in one instance it was actually permissible).

Today, we have modern circuses which offer simply the kosher elements. They are not associated with the general Roman spectacle, which involves many unkosher activities and elements, including bloodshed for fun. The typical crowd that attend a modern circus is not a Roman heathen wanting to see bloodsport, but rather a family that wants to see clowns and dancing tigers. I would not assume that Chazal would forbid this. Further, above, it seems that the gemara may even explicitly allow it - according to Rashi, since no one is conspiring with the Romans, and according to my interpretation according to the Ran, because one is attending as a spectator instead of as a performer.