with the Commentary of Medhatithi 77 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 83 из 350Следующая ⇒

(verses 3.64-66)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.64.

VERSE 3.66

Section VI - Rules Regarding Marriage

मन्त्रतस्तु समृद्धानि कुलान्यल्पधनान्यपि ।
कुलसङ्ख्यां च गच्छन्ति कर्षन्ति च महद् यशः ॥६६॥

mantratastu samṛddhāni kulānyalpadhanānyapi |
kulasaṅkhyāṃ ca gacchanti karṣanti ca mahad yaśaḥ ||66||

(Note: the following is an alternate translation by George Bühler)

But families that are rich in the knowledge of the Veda, though possessing little wealth, are numbered among the great, and acquire great fame. — (66)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

[Verses 57 to 66 have been omitted by Medhātithi.]

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Verses 57 — 66 are omitted by Medhātithi. [Query — are they interpolations?] “These are very probably a later addition. The corresponding section in the Mahābhārata, 13.46 stops right here also.” — Hopkins. They are all quoted in Vivādaratnākara and in Parāśaramādhava.

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 590), as describing the conditions leading to the elevation of a family.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 3.64-66)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.64.

VERSE 3.67 [Duties of the Householder]

Section VII - Duties of the Householder

वैवाहिकेऽग्नौ कुर्वीत गृह्यं कर्म यथाविधि ।
पञ्चयज्ञविधानं च पक्तिं चान्वाहिकीं गृही ॥६७॥

vaivāhike'gnau kurvīta gṛhyaṃ karma yathāvidhi |
pañcayajñavidhānaṃ ca paktiṃ cānvāhikīṃ gṛhī ||67||

In the marriage-fire the householder should perform the ‘gṛhya’ rites; as also the rite of the ‘five sacrifices’ and the daily cooking. — (67)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The section on Marriage is finished.

In the fire in which the marriage-rites have been performed, one should perform the ‘Gṛhya rites,’ — i.e., rites that have been prescribed by the authors of Gṛhyasūtras as to be performed with the help of fire; e.g., the Aṣṭakā śrāddha, the Pārvaṇaśrāddha, Libations, and so forth.

‘Five sacrifices’ — to be described later on; — ‘the rite,’ the performance of these — (should be done) in that same fire.

“Though the text speaks of the ‘five sacrifices’ without any specification, yet (among them) the Vaiśvadeva-offering alone is to be made in the fire; in the offering of the water-libations, etc., there is no need for the fire. Why then should the text speak of the ‘rite of five sacrfices’ as to be performed in the fire?”

Some people explain that, though the locative ending is one only, yet it may be regarded as diverse in reference to the diversity in the objects; hence, in the present context, the term ‘five sacrifices’ has been used in the sense of a part only of the five sacrifices.’

Or (another explanation is that), the phrase, ‘in the f ire,’ is not to be construed with the ‘rite of the five sacrifices,’ — the Vaiśvadeva-offering, which is made into fire, being already included in the preceding phrase (‘gṛhya rite ’). The construction in this case would be — ‘the Householder should perform the rite of the five sacrifices, and in the Marriage-fire he should perform the gṛhya or domestic rites, as also the daily cooking.’

The term ‘gṛha,’ house,’ denotes wife; hence what is meant is that the ‘householder,’ i.e., one, who has married a wife, should perform the rites, in association with one’s wife.

Some writers on the Gṛhyasūtras have declared that at marriage, fire should be produced by the friction of two sticks; while, according to others, one may bring burning fire from anywhere he likes and make his offerings into that.

The injunction that the domestic rites shall be performed in the marriage-fire implies that the fire kindled at marriage shall be kept up.

On this point some people make the following observations: — The maintaining of the marriage-fire should be necessary for the Śūdra also; as for him. also the performance of the ‘Pākayajña’ has been ordained; nor does the present text specify any particular caste; all that is found is the general term ‘householder,’ and the Śūdra also is a ‘householder,’ the marrying of a wife being prescribed for him also. This is what has beeu declared elsewhere (in Yājñavalkya, Ācāra, 97) — ‘The householder should everyday perform the smārta rites in the marriage-tire.’”

Our answer to the above is as follows: — What has been declared is that ‘Gṛhya rites are to be performed in the marriage-fire;’ but there is no special rite named ‘gṛhya;’ hence the name ‘gṛhya’ should be taken as indirectly indicating the rites prescribed by writers on Gṛhyasūtras; and these writers have prescribed the rites for the three higher castes only, and not for the Śūdra. In fact, in the Gṛhyasūtras we find a summing up in the words — ‘The sacrificial rites have been described, we are now going to describe the Gṛhya rites;’ and the purpose for which these words have beeu added is to imply that ‘those persons only are entitled to the performance of the Gṛhya rites who are entitled to that of the sacrificial ones;’ and it is not meant, as it has been explained by others, that the latter constitute the duty of others also. If this had been meant, then it would not have been asserted that — ‘the times for Prāduṣkaraṇa and Homa are analogous to those of the Agnihotra.’ Nor, again, is it right to take the term ‘gṛhya’ to mean ‘pertaining to the home’ (domestic); for the term ‘home’ (gṛha) could only mean either ‘house’ or ‘wife;’ now, as a matter of fact, for no rite has the ‘house’ been specifically prescribed as the location, in view of which the rite could be prescribed for the householder in terms of the ‘house,’ Then, again, such rites also as are performed for the sanctification of one’s house — such for instance, as the testing of the building-site, and so forth — have been prescribed for the three higher castes only, and not for the Śūdra. If, on the other hand, the term ‘home’ means the ‘wife,’ then the act meant having been already implied by the term ‘householder,’ the name ‘gṛhya’ would be superfluous.

As for the statement in the other Smṛti (Yājavalkya, Ācāra 97) — ‘The householder should every-day perform Smārta rites in the Marriage-fire, or in the fire set up at the time of partition, and the Śrauta rites in the sacrificial fires,’ — here also, since it has not been specifically stated what the ‘smārta rites’ are, the statement must be taken as qualified by some other statement; specially because, as a matter of fact, all smārta rites cannot be performed in fire; nor is there anything to indicate that the term refers to Homa (offerings into fire) only; nor, again, is it necessary that all Homa -offerings shall be made into fire.

From all this the term ‘gṛhya’ has to be explained as standing for the rites prescribed by the authors of Gṛhyasūtras. Both these smṛti- texts (the present one, and Yājñavalkya I, 97) only refer to what has been prescribed by the authors of Gṛhyasūtras. So that how could there be any setting up of the fire by a Śūdra?

Further, Yājñavalkya’s text lays down the additional fact that ‘Śrauta rites are to be performed in the sacrificial fire;’ and this must be taken as pertaining to the three higher castes only. Under the circumstances, if the former statement (regarding smārta rites) were taken as pertaining to all the four castes, and the latter (regarding the śrauta rites) to three castes only, then this would involve the incongruity of one and the same set of words having two different imports. And, so long as a uniform import can be found, there can be no justification for admitting such a diversity.

‘Daily’ — that which is done day after day; e.g., the cooking that is done every day for one’s own food; — this also is to be done in the same fire. — (67)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Medhātithi (P. 217, l. 27) — ‘Etadevānyatra paṭhitam’. — The verse is quoted from Yājñavalkya (1.97), where Mitākṣarā explains the phrase ‘smārtam karma’ as ‘the Vaiśvadeva and other religious rites prescribed in the Smṛtis’, as also ‘the ordinary worldly acts of cooking and the like’, while Aparārka explains it simply as ‘acts laid down in the Smṛtis’.

This verse is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 301); — and in Śāntimayūkha (p. 4).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Gautama (5.7-9). — ‘The installation of Fire begins either with marriage or with succession to property; in that are the Gṛhya-rites to be performed; as also the sacrifices to Gods, Pitṛs and Men, and also Vedic Study.’

Yājñavalkya (1. 97). — ‘The Householder should every day perform the Smārta-rites in the marriage-tire, or in the fire installed at the time of succession to property; and the Śrauta rites are to he performed in the Śrauta Fire.’

Viṣṇu (59.1-3). — ‘The Householder shall perform the Pākayajñas in the Marriage-Fire; also the Agnihotra, both morning and evening; he shall also pour libations to the Gods.’

Baudhāyana (2.2.75). — ‘The installation of Fire begins with marriage; in that should the rites be performed till such time as the regular Laying of the Fire.’

Śātātapa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 393). — ‘The Vaiśvadeva offering may be made either in the ordinary fire or in the Vedic fire.’

Aṅgiras (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 393). — ‘Homa is prescribed as to be done in that fire in which one cooks his food.’

Vyāsa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 393). — ‘All the Pākayajñas are to he offered in the Marriage Fire.’

Kāmandaka (2.25-26). — ‘The duties of a Householder are to perform the Agnihotra, to live by the prescribed professions and to avoid sexual intercourse on the Parvas. The duties of those who have married and settled down are — to worship gods, pitṛs and guests, to show mercy to the poor and the distressed and to live according to Śruti and Smṛti.’

VERSE 3.68

Section VII - Duties of the Householder

पञ्च सूना गृहस्थस्य चुल्ली पेषण्युपस्करः ।
कण्डनी चौदकुम्भश्च बध्यते यास्तु वाहयन् ॥६८॥

pañca sūnā gṛhasthasya cullī peṣaṇyupaskaraḥ |
kaṇḍanī caudakumbhaśca badhyate yāstu vāhayan ||68||

For the householder there are five slaughter-houses: the hearth, the grinding-stone, household implements, mortar and pestle and water-jar; — by using which he becomes stricken. — (68)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse serves to indicate the occasion for the prescribing of the ‘five sacrifices.’

‘Slaughter-houses’ — i.e., it is as if they were slaughterhouses. Places where animals are killed for the purpose of their flesh being sold, or those where meat is sold, become sources of sin, by being used for the purpose of obtaining meat; similarly, the hearth and other things also, being sources of sin, come to resemble the ‘slaughter-house.’

As a matter of fact, there is no direct scriptural prohibition bearing specifically upon the ‘hearth’ and other things; nor is there any general prohibition regarding them. It is not impossible for men to have a desire for the heat (provided by the hearth). We do not find any such acts as are accomplished by means of the hearth, etc., which could be prohibited by other texts. Nor can the prohibition be inferred from what is stated in the present text itself; for the simple reason that it is clearly understood as to be construed along with the next verse (which is an injunction, not a prohibition); so that, if the present text were taken as a prohibition, this would involve a syntactical split; and further (the use of the Hearth, etc., being prohibited by this verse) the occasion for the performance of the ‘Five Sacrifices’ would be afforded only when the acts that are done by means of the Hearth, etc., would be done by means of other things. Nor, again, have the peculiar characteristics (of such acts) have been described anywhere, the presence whereof would indicate the similarity of certain acts (to the acts accomplished by means of Hearth, etc.) and their consequent prohibition. And a further result of this being taken as the prohibition of the Hearth, etc., and as such having no connection with the injunction of the sacrifices, would be that the sacrifices would be performed by such men as would eat food cooked by others (and thus avoid the use of the Hearth), or would use water directly from the river and other reservoirs (thus avoiding the use of the water-jar). Then, again, if a prohibition of the Hearth, etc., were intended, then directly prohibitive words would have been used in the text; why should it have been left to be inferred? Direct assertion is always more forcible, if the prohibitive implication were admitted for the purpose of indicating the expiatory rites to be performed in connection with the acts, — then the right thing would have been to include it under Discourse XI (where expiatory rites are dealt with). Further, such a prohibition might lead to the abandoning of the particular acts; but the use of the Hearth cannot be avoided; hence there can be no prohibition of them; and there being no prohibition, wherefore would there be any expiatory rite?

From all this it follows that the ‘Five Great Sacrifices’ are not to be performed for the destroying of sins; bub what is meant by saying that they serve to expiate, — destroy — the sin involved in the using of the Hearth, etc., which cannot be avoided for a single day — is that the daily performance of the sacrifices is absolutely essential and compulsory.

‘Becomes stricken’ — the first consonant is v; and the meaning is that ‘he is stricken by sin, and is ruined in regard to his body and belongings, etc.; — or, (if we read ba) the meaning may be that ‘be becomes connected with (tainted with) sin the root (in ‘badhyate’) denoting overpowering.

‘Using’ — i.e., employing for one’s purpose. When a man employs the hearth and other things for such purposes as present themselves, he is said to ‘use’ them.

Hearth. — place of cooking; the oven, etc.

‘Grinding-stone’ — the stone-slab, and the grinding piece.

‘Household implement’ — such things as the pot, kettle and such other household requisites.

‘Pestle and mortar’ — by which corn is thumped.

‘Water-jar’ — the pot containing water. — (68)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Upaskaraḥ’ — ‘The pot, the kettle and other household implements’ (Medhātithi); — ‘a pot, a broom and the rest’ (Kullūka); — ‘a broom and the rest’ (Rāghavānanda); — all these take the word in the collective sense, including all ‘household implements’; — Nārāyaṇa alone takes it in the purely singular sense of ‘the broom’ only.

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (p. 533) as laying down the sources of ‘the sin of the slaughter house’; — it adds the following explanations: — ‘Sūnā’ means occasions for killing’; — ‘cullī’ is the cooking place’; — ‘Peṣaṇī’ ‘grinding stone’; — ‘upaskaraḥ’ ‘the broom and the rest’; — ‘Kaṇḍanī,’ ‘mortar and pestle’; — by making use of these the man incurs sin.

Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 389) quotes the verse and adds the following explanations: — ‘Sūnā’ is ‘occasion for the killing of living beings’; — ‘Upaskaraḥ’ is ‘the broom, the pot, the stick and the rest’; ‘bādhyate’ (which is its reading for ‘badhyate’) means ‘is stricken — i.e., by sin accruing from the killing of animals’; — ‘vāhayan’ means ‘making use of,’ ‘operating.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (59.19). — ‘Mortar and pestle, Grinding stone, Hearth, Water-jar, Household Implements; — these are the five slaughter-houses for the Householder.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 389). — ‘We are going to describe the Sūnās or slaughterings — by which is meant that which destroys living beings; these are of five kinds: The first slaughtering is done by people hurriedly entering water, by swimming, splashing, throwing about of water, catching of impurities, and moving in water; (2) the second they do by hurriedly walking in darkness or in dim light, or by trampling (upon insects); (3) the third they do by striking, collecting, capturing, grinding, tearing and so forth; (4) the fourth they do by attacking, rubbing, pounding and so forth; (5) the fifth by tiring, heating, sweating, frying, cooking and so forth. These are the five slaughterings, t he source of sin, which people do day by day.’

VERSE 3.69

Section VII - Duties of the Householder

तासां क्रमेण सर्वासां निष्कृत्यर्थं महर्षिभिः ।
पञ्च कॢप्ता महायज्ञाः प्रत्यहं गृहमेधिनाम् ॥६९॥

tāsāṃ krameṇa sarvāsāṃ niṣkṛtyarthaṃ maharṣibhiḥ |
pañca kḷptā mahāyajñāḥ pratyahaṃ gṛhamedhinām ||69||

For the purpose of expiating all these in their course, the five great sacrifices have been ordained by the great sages, for householders (to be performed) daily. — (69)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Of these’ — of the Hearth and the other ‘slaughter-houses.’

‘For the purpose of expiating’ — i.e., for the purpose of removing the evils proceeding from them.

‘Course’ — The ‘course’ meant are — smearing of the Hearth, scraping of the grinding-stone, and so forth.

‘Have been ordained by the great sages;’ — have been declared as to be performed; — ‘the live great sacrifices,’ ‘for householders’ — i.e., for persons who have entered the householder’s state — the term ‘grhamedha’ stands for the Householder’s state.

‘Daily’ — as no particular period has been specified, we gather that they are to be performed throughout life; and it is thus that their compulsory character becomes estsblished.

‘Great sacrifices’ — this is the name of the rites to be performed. — (69)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Vīramitrodaya (Āhnika, p. 389) quotes this along with the preceding verse.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (59.20). — ‘For the expiation of these, one should offer the sacrifices to Veda, Gods, Bhūtas, Pitṛs and Men.’

Hārīta (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 389). — ‘The Religious Students shake off the sins of three slaughterings by attending upon the Fire and upon the Teacher, and by Vedic Study; the Householders and the Recluses shake off the five by means of the five Pākayajñas; the Renunciates shake off two by pure knowledge and by Meditation; there, is no shaking off of the slaughtering caused by the teeth.’

Saṃvarta (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 387). — ‘During the fifth part of the day, he shall make offerings to Gods, Pitṛs, Men and Insects.’

Saṃvarta. (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 388). — ‘Day after day the twice-born shall perform the five great sacrifices; he shall never omit them.’

Vyāsa (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 388). — ‘Even in times of dire distress, he shall not omit the Pākayajñas.’

Jābāli (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 388). — ‘Daily he should perform the worshipping of Gods and Pitṛs, and offerings should be made to Men also.’

Devala (Vīramitrodaya-Āhnika, p. 388). — ‘Having set up the Fire, he shall honour Gods, Pitṛs, Sages, Guests and other strangers who come to him.’

VERSE 3.70

Section VII - Duties of the Householder

अध्यापनं ब्रह्मयज्ञः पितृयज्ञस्तु तर्पणम् ।
होमो दैवो बलिर्भौतो नृयज्ञोऽतिथिपूजनम् ॥७०॥

adhyāpanaṃ brahmayajñaḥ pitṛyajñastu tarpaṇam |
homo daivo balirbhauto nṛyajño'tithipūjanam ||70||

Teaching is the ‘offering to Brahma;’ the Tarpaṇa is the ‘offering to Pitṛs;’ the Homa is ‘offering to Gods;’ the Bali is ‘offering to elementals;’ and the honouring of Guests is ‘offering to men.’ — (70)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse contains the injunction of the exact form of the Five Sacrifices.

The term ‘teaching’ here includes ‘learning’ also: as will be explained in verse 74 below. The mere act of ‘reciting’ does not require any pupils. In the Vedic text describing the ‘debts’ of man, it has been stated in general terms that ‘by means of Vedic study one pays off one’s debts to the sages.’ For these reasons, both ‘teaching’ and ‘learning,’ according to circumstances, constitute ‘the offering to Brahma.’

‘Tarpaṇa’ — the offering of ‘food or water,’ as described below, in 82.

‘Homa’ — the offering into fire made to the deities to be described later on.

‘Bali’ — i.e., offering made into receptacles other than fire, such as the wooden mortar and the like. This is the ‘offering to elementals;’ — i.e., the offering made in honour of the elementals. This is only the name of a particular rite.

The making of offerings has been prescribed under the name of ‘bhūta,’ ‘lemental,’ in the text — ‘offerings made to elementals stalking during the day, etc., etc.;’ and through association, the whole set of rites is expressed by the term ‘offering to elementals.’ Just as among the ‘Cāturmāsya’ sacrifices, though the Āmikṣā is the only one substance that is offered to the Viśvedevas, yet the entire set of rites has been spoken of us ‘Vaiśvadeva’ in the injunction, ‘one should offer the Vaiśvadeva sacrifice.’ The term ‘bali’ is applied to such Homas as are offered into receptacles other than fire; and they explain that ‘bali is offering to the gods.’

The ‘honouring’ — i.e., receiving — ‘of guests’ constitutes the ‘offering to men.’

“How can Vedic study be a ‘sacrifice?’ In it there are no offerings made to gods; nor has any deity been mentioned in connection with it; all that is done in it is that the letters of the Veda, without any sense, are recited; and it has been said in connection with the repeating of Vedic texts that some people say the words have no meaning.”

True; the term ‘sacrifice,’ as also the term ‘great,’ are used (in this connection) only figuratively, and they are meant to indicate high praise. To the ‘honouring of guests,’ also the name ‘sacrifice’ is applied only figuratively. Though it is possible for the Guest to be regarded as a ‘deity,’ yet in the original injunction of the act, the injunctive verbs used are ‘should feed,’ ‘should honour,’ and not ‘should sacrifice’ to guests. Just as we find in the expression ‘puruṣarājāya karma vā’ (where the act done in honour of the king of men is also called ‘sacrifice.’)

These ‘Five Sacrifices’ are not to be performed simultaneously; because the occasion for all is not the same; in fact, a distinct occasion has been mentioned in relation to each. If the occasion for all were one and the same, then, even when three or four of them would be done, it would be as good as not done, till all the five were done. Just as in the case of the Darśapūrṇamāsa sacrifice, (which?) consists of the three sacrifices of the Āgneya, the Agnīṣomīya and the Upāṃśu, the performance of only one or two of these does not discharge the complete liability; and just as among the Domestic Rites themselves, the ‘Vaiśvadeva offering,’ which extends up to the ‘Sviṣṭakṛt’ offering, is not regarded as complete, so long as there is a break in the offering to any single deity. In fact, each of the five sacrifices has a distinct occasion mentioned in relation to itself: — e.g. (1) ‘one should be constantly addicted to Vedic study’ (verse 75), (2) ‘one should be constantly addicted to making offerings to the gods’ (verse 75), and so forth; and the prescribed occasion being distinct for each, each is performed separately by itself; (3) as regards ‘honouring of the guest,’ the injunction for this appears quite distinctly (in 105), where the act is described as ‘conducive to prosperity and fame.’

Further, of these five ‘sacrifices,’ the performance of four depends upon the man himself; while that of ‘honouring the guest’ is conditional upon the arrival of the guest. The guest is not to be invited; as in that case he would not he a ‘guest’ (in the proper sense of the term); as we shall explain later on that a person is a ‘guest’ only when he comes of his own accord (unexpectedly). Thus, then, from among the five, if one performs any one only and omits the rest, — one might incur the sin of omitting to do what one should do; but what he has done does not become as good as not done. It is for this reason that when a man has not set up his own fire, though he is not, on that account, entitled to the Vaiśvadeva Homa, yet it is incumbent upon him to perform ‘Vedic Study,’ ‘Tarpaṇa’ and the rest. As for the setting up of one’s own fire, other Smṛtis permit of this being done at other times also; it is not necessary to set it up along with marriage itself. Says the Smṛti — ‘the setting up of the Fire begins either with marriage or with succession.’

“The option of setting up the Fire at the time of succession may he regarded as applicable only to one who has not married at all.”

This would he so if the setting up of the Fire were an end in itself. As a matter of fact, however, the ‘setting up’ is for the purpose of obtaining the Fire, and the Fire is for the purpose of performing rites; rites, again, have been laid down as to be performed by one only when he is associated with his wife, and not alone by himself. It is true that some Gṛhya -writers have asserted that one should perform śrāddhas. after having kindled the Parameṣṭhiprāṇa Fire; but this also pertains to the man as associated with his wife; and this same also would be the time for his ‘succession’ also. Nor is the performance of śrāddhas impossible for one who has not set up the Fire; as it has been prescribed even for one who has not even been ‘initiated’, in whose case the use of the ‘sradhā’ alone has been excepted; and yet there is no setting up of the. fire for him; as it is only one who is ‘learned’ (in the Veda) that is entitled to it, and he is still without that learning (before Initiation). As for the performance of the Śrāddha (though this also presupposes knowledge of Vedic mantras), yet it has to be done by the uninitiated boy to the best of his ablity, in obedience to a direct injunction; this case being analogous to the performing of a sacrifice by the Niṣāda (Śūdra) in accordance with a direct injunction. Iu the event, however, of fire having been set up by his uncle or other relations, in view of a ‘learned’ performer being available, the uninitiated (and hence unlearned) boy is not entitled to the performance of śrāddhas. If the setting up of fire be found to be prescribed in the same context as śrāddhas, then one could set up the tire as an accessory to the śrādd ha, after the completion of which it would he abandoned.

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США