and to kindle your desire to beat me, even though you remain incapable (1).

A person abandons a thing for only one of two reasons: either because he lacks the ability to do it, or because he lacks the will to do it. Whenever he both fully wills a matter and possesses complete ability, its occurrence is inevitable. Someone who is able to defeat another may wish to do so merely out of the ego’s love of displaying power and superiority, or he may wish to do so in order to obtain money. When the two motives are combined, his determination becomes all the stronger, as has been explained earlier.

Thus the one who puts up the prize is effectively saying: “I will prove that you are incapable, for I am offering money that will rouse your desire in your heart, on top of the soul’s natural love for such contests. Yet despite the intensity of your eagerness, you are still unable to overcome me; I am more capable than you at this task.”

This, unquestionably, is his purpose; he does not mean to hand over the prize to whoever defeats him and takes his money—for no rational person intends that. Rather (2) his aim is to keep the other at bay, repel him, and show him helpless.

For this reason it is permissible for one of the two competitors to stake money with that intent; it is even more permissible—by greater and stronger reason—for both of them to do so, because the realization of that objective (3) when they both contribute is stronger than when only one of them does.

They also said: Moreover, if taking the money when both parties contribute were forbidden gambling,