All the images found in villages are prohibited, etc. The beginning of the chapter 'All the Images' (Avodah Zarah 40b): All the images are prohibited because they are worshiped once a year, these are the words of Rabbi Meir." And the Sages say it is not prohibited unless it holds a staff, or a bird, or a ball. And in the Gemara (there), Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: 'We learned this regarding those that stand at the entrance of the city. And even though from Rashi's words it appears that he said this only according to Rabbi Meir, but according to the Rabbis, whether they stand at the entrance of the city or not, everything depends on whether it holds a staff, or a bird, or a ball, our teacher (the Tur) understands that this is also said according to the Rabbis. And this also appears from the words of the Rambam, of blessed memory, in chapter 7 (halakah 6) of the Laws of Idolatry. And regarding what our teacher distinguished between villages and cities, there Rabba said: 'The disagreement is in cities, but in villages, all agree they are prohibited,' meaning, it is assumed that in villages they are made for worship because the villagers do not make them for decoration. And regarding what we learned, that it is not prohibited unless it holds a staff, or a bird, or a ball, it is stated in the Gemara (41a): It was taught: They added to them a sword, a crown, and a ring, and the Gemara explains that it is obvious that when it holds one of these items, it is worshiped. The Ryf and the Rosh did not write these additional items, and it is possible that because they are not common in this time, they omitted them. But our teacher, who wrote one of them, it is perplexing as to why he omitted the others. But the Rambam wrote all of them in chapter 7 of the Laws of Idolatry. And know that it is stated in the Gemara (17b [s/b 40b]) on the Mishnah: 'If they are worshiped once a year, what is the reasoning of the Rabbis? Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: 'In Rabbi Meir's place, they would worship it once a year, and Rabbi Meir, who was concerned about the minority, decreed that in other places as well, due to that place. But the Rabbis, who were not concerned about the minority, did not decree for other places due to that place. Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: 'We learned this concerning the statues of kings.' And the Ran wrote that it seems Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Shmuel came to explain the Mishnah, so that we do not say Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis argue whether we decree for other places due to that place or not, but rather they argue in that very place, concerning the statues of kings and those in cities, as Rava concludes. And certainly, they are not made for worship but only for decoration. But Rabbi Meir was concerned about the minority of people in that place who might accept it as an idol, and that is why he said they are worshiped once a year, meaning, since he was concerned about the minority, there is concern that perhaps one person made a mistake once a year. And the Rabbis, who were not concerned about the minority, permit it. The Rif and the Rosh omitted the explanation of Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, and they wrote the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Shmuel, who established it regarding statues of kings. And it seems their reasoning is because it is possible to learn from it that the Rabbis prohibit in cities when it holds a staff, etc., and in villages even if it holds nothing, for even in the case of statues of kings they prohibited. And the Rambam omitted the case of statues of kings, and it seems that he did not need to mention it, because since he does not differentiate between one form and another, but rather bases everything on whether it stands at the entrance of the city and holds a staff, etc., it automatically includes statues of kings. And this also seems to be the opinion of our teacher (the Tur), who did not mention statues of kings. But Rabbeinu Yerucham wrote: 'All images that are statues of kings and are at the entrance of the city are permitted, as long as it is not known if they were worshiped, for if they were worshiped, they are considered an idol.' And he explains that a statue is made when the king dies and they make his image at the entrance of the city. This is clear in the chapter 'All the Images.' According to Tosafot, even if they hold something significant, it is prohibited for benefit. The Rambam wrote that another statue is not prohibited even if it holds something, but if a statue of a king holds something, it is prohibited; if not, it is permitted since they are only made for decoration. And this also appears from the Rif. And these are the words of the Rambam: 'Images made by Gentiles for decoration are permitted for benefit, and images made for idolatry are prohibited. How so? All the images found in villages are prohibited for benefit because they are presumed to be made for idolatry. And those found in the city, if they stand at the entrance of the city and the image holds a staff, or a bird, or a ball, or a sword, or a crown, or a ring, it is presumed to be for idolatry and is prohibited for benefit; if not, it is presumed to be for decoration and is permitted. And it appears that Rabbeinu Yerucham holds that even though he did not specifically mention statues of kings, and that standing at the entrance of the city—this generally refers to statues of kings, and in these cases, he differentiates between whether they hold something or not, but if it is not a statue of a king, it is permitted in all cases. And this is what he said: 'Images made by Gentiles for decoration are permitted for benefit (and if it is known that they are worshiped, even those despised are prohibited for benefit),' without making any distinction.And from the words of our teacher (the Tur), who wrote later: 'And the images of other constellations, etc., unless there is proof that they were made for idolatry, such as an image standing at the entrance of the city, etc.,' it appears that the Mishnah 'All the Images' specifically refers to a human form and not other forms. And I do not know where he got this from, unless it is said that since we establish it regarding statues of kings, this is what he understood. And it also appears that from the language of 'statue' (anadrati), he understood it to mean a complete form with all its limbs, and therefore, at the end of the section, he wrote that a head without a body or a body without a head has no prohibition, neither in finding it nor in making it.

The one who finds broken pieces of statues that have been discarded or within broken pieces of copper or even broken pieces of an idol itself, they are permitted. However, if one finds the shape of a hand or the shape of a foot, etc. Mishnah there (Avodah Zarah 41a): One who finds broken pieces of statues, they are permitted. If he finds the shape of a hand or the shape of a foot, they are forbidden because they were worshiped in such forms. And in the Gemara, Shmuel said, even broken pieces of idols. This means even broken pieces of idols that we saw being worshipped when they were whole are permitted. Because once they are broken, they are no longer worshiped. But didn’t the Mishnah teach “fragments of statues”? Here it is even referring to broken pieces of idols. The reason it mentions “broken pieces of statues” is to introduce the later clause, “If he finds the shape of a hand or the shape of a foot, statues, where we are unsure if they were worshiped, we must be concerned about an important fragment, such as the shape of a hand. And in the Gemara, it says, “If he finds the shape of a hand or the shape of a foot, they are forbidden because they were worshiped in such forms.” But why, if they are broken pieces? Shmuel explained that it refers to those standing on their base. And Rashi explained “on their base” means on their pedestal, the place specifically designated for them, because once they are placed there, it is certain that they were worshiped. The Tosafot questioned this, as the term “found” suggests in the marketplace or in a field. Therefore, Rabbeinu Tam explained that it refers to pieces that have a wide seat on which they sit alone and do not appear as broken pieces, but rather as if they were initially made that way. This is the end of his words. The words of the Rosh appear to be in agreement with Rabbeinu Tam’s explanation.

The Rambam wrote: Whoever finds the hand of an idol, or its foot, or one of its limbs cast aside, it is forbidden for benefit: In chapter 7 of the laws of idolatry, And this is his language; Statues found cast aside in markets or within porches, these are permitted, and it is unnecessary to say [the same for] broken pieces of statues. But one who finds the hand of an idol, or its foot, or one of its limbs cast aside, this is forbidden for benefit. Since it is known with certainty that this limb is from the form that was worshipped, it remains in its forbidden state until it is known that the idolaters nullified it. And what our master wrote, that it seems to him that it is established in the Gemara as standing on its base. It can be said that the Rambam interprets that Shmuel, who establishes it this way, held like Reish Lakish, who said that an idol which broke on its own is permitted. And we hold like Rabbi Yochanan, who disagrees and forbids it, therefore Shmuel's opinion is not accepted. And this is what he wrote in chapter 8: an idol that broke on its own, its fragments are forbidden for benefit until they are nullified. Therefore, whoever finds fragments of an idol, they are forbidden for benefit, lest the idolaters did not nullify them. But the Rif and the Rosh, although they ruled like Rabbi Yochanan who said that an idol that broke on its own is forbidden, ruled according to Shmuel, who said that even fragments of an idol are permitted. And the Ran wrote that the reason is because it can be said that Shmuel properly holds like Rabbi Yochanan, who said that an idol that broke on its own is forbidden. And the reason he permits fragments of an idol is because he does not suspect that it broke on its own, since presumably an idol does not break on its own because idolaters guard it well. And therefore fragments of an idol are permitted, because even though if it certainly broke on its own, its fragments are forbidden, like Rabbi Yochanan said, we do not suspect it broke on its own because it is not common. Rather, we say that the idolater became angry at it and broke it, and therefore it is permitted, as he nullified it. And Rashi also wrote this at the end of the chapter, regarding the dispute between Rav and Shmuel about an idol that broke on its own, whether it is necessary to nullify each splinter or not. And what the Rambam wrote, that statues found cast aside are permitted, even though it implies that the Mishnah only permits broken pieces of statues, I have written his reasoning in the explanation of Sefer HaMada, and I do not have the time to elaborate.

One who finds vessels and they have the image of the sun or the moon or a dragon, etc. It is taught in the Mishnah in Chapter 3 of Avodah Zarah (page 42a): One who finds vessels with the image of the sun the moon a dragon, he should throw them into the Dead Sea. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says that those that are considered honorable are prohibited and those that are considered disposable are permitted. And the decisors have ruled according to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel because we hold that wherever Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel teaches in our Mishnah, the halacha is according to him. And the Mordechai wrote that a dragon is a type of serpent flying in the heavens and its name is the great Teli and it rules over the constellations, and therefore it is considered important along with the image of the sun and the moon. And what is meant by “honorable” is those on earrings, rings, and other jewelry. It is taught in the Baraita there (page 43a): And what is meant by “whether they are below the water or above the water”? There, Rav said that valuable items are those above the water and less valuable items are those below the water meaning that those above the water are on the rims of the vessels and those below the water are on the edges and sides. And Shmuel said that both these and those are considered less valuable because they are used for eating and drinking. and valuable items are only those made for adornment. And there is a Tanna teaching like Shmuel. And therefore the decisors have ruled according to him.

And what is written that there is to say that silk and embroidered garments are considered lowly because they are for wearing etc… there in the braisa that is nearby it says that garments with embroidery are listed with the esteemed ones, the Rosh wrote there are those who call these 'shirim' meaning 'a kind of adornment' but garments with embroidery- all expensive garments are called lowly since they are worn and are like sheets. And there are those who call embroidered garments and expensive clothing 'esteemed', and according to the Ran, it seems from the Jerusalem Talmud that embroidered garments, since they are made for wearing out, are considered like sheets and they are considered lowly. And Rabbeinu Yerucham wrote that this is also the opinion of the Ramban. But the Rambam wrote in Chapter 6 of Laws of Idolatry that garments of the second category are judged like silver and gold vessels. And Rabbeinu Yerucham wrote that some say and likewise in the Tosefta, that only the prominent ones are prohibited.

And what [he] wrote, and all of this [applies] in the case of 'stam' (unspecified), but if it is known that they are not worshipped, even if they are on important objects, they are also permitted. In the Jerusalem Talmud, regarding what Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, “on the important objects, they are prohibited, etc.,” what [situation] are we dealing with? If it is certain that they are worshipped, even on lowly objects, they are forbidden. And if it is certain that they are not worshipped, even on important objects, they are permitted. Rather, we are dealing with [a case of] 'stam' (unspecified). And the Ran wrote, “and from this, we hear [learn], that any form that is certainly worshipped, there is no distinction between important objects and lowly ones. The Mishnah [refers to] 'stam' (unspecified), meaning that the gentiles were accustomed to worship them. But there are places where we do not know if they are worshipped there or not. And therefore, on important objects, they are prohibited; on lowly objects, they are permitted. For the vessels indicate if they are worshipped there or not.” This is the opinion of the Rashba in this matter: “And therefore, the Rabbi wrote that all vessels are forbidden, whether they are important or lowly. But it seems to me that this Jerusalem Talmud is saying, If it is certain that they are worshipped, meaning that those forms on the vessels were worshipped, they are forbidden, even if they are on lowly objects. Lest you say, 'Since they are lowly, their worship is not considered worship,' [know that] they are certainly forbidden. And if it is certain that those vessels were not worshipped, even if they are important, they are permitted. Rather, we are dealing with 'stam' (unspecified). Meaning, we do not know if these vessels were worshipped. Therefore, important objects are prohibited, since the form is certainly worshipped, we are concerned that even this vessel was worshipped because it is important. But on lowly objects, they are permitted because, although this form is certainly worshipped, it was not worshipped in this vessel because it is lowly.” And shortly, I will write that the words of the Ran seem to align with the opinions of some of the commentators. And know that we say in the Gemara (42b) regarding the Mishnah that on them are forms of the sun, the moon, or a dragon, To say that to these [objects], they worship them, but to other things, they do not. And we raise a contradiction: one who slaughters for the sake of seas, for the sake of rivers, etc., these are 'sacrifices to the dead.' Abaye said: They worship whatever they find. And they are distressed and worship these three things that are significant to them; they make images of them and worship them. For other things, they make them merely for decoration. And the Ran wrote: “however, this [applies] in unspecified places. But in a place known for worshipping a particular form, one who finds vessels with that form on them, they are forbidden.” And Rabbeinu Yerucham wrote in the name of Rabbi Avraham ben Yismael, “That nowadays, gentiles do not worship the sun, the moon, or the dragon, so vessels found with these forms are permitted for benefit. And it is possible that those who are not attached to idolatry, everything they make with these forms on vessels, they make only for decoration, and they are all permitted for benefit. But they are forbidden to keep because of suspicion if they are raised (embossed). And it is proper to be stringent in a case of doubt regarding a Torah prohibition, end quote.” And the Mordechai wrote in the chapter of 'All the Images' that in the case of villages, everyone agrees it is forbidden, etc. On this [Mishnah] that teaches that lowly images on cauldrons, etc., and on sheets and handkerchiefs, the Rif has a version that includes coins, because sheets and handkerchiefs are one, and therefore our coins that have the image of an idol on them are permitted. And similarly, it is written in the Hagahot Ashri; Rabbi Yehudah says that from here, there is proof that our coins are permitted because they are lowly, end quote.” But it is puzzling because it is like the form of the sun, moon, and dragon, which they make images of and worship because they are significant. And they said in the Jerusalem Talmud that the Mishnah's distinction between important and lowly objects applies only in unspecified cases. But if it is certain that they are worshipped, even if they are on lowly objects, they are forbidden. And it must be said that they interpret it like the Ran explained, that when it is known that those forms on those vessels were worshipped, the Jerusalem Talmud says that even on lowly objects, they are forbidden, etc. But in any case where we do not know if these vessels were worshipped, if they are lowly, they are permitted. For although this form is certainly worshipped, it was not worshipped on this vessel because it is lowly. And it seems to me that this aligns with the opinion of Rashi, who explained on what Abaye said, 'they worship whatever they find,' they are distressed and worship, these three [things] that are significant to them, they make images of them and worship them, etc. They make images of them and worship them, therefore they make images [to them] and worship. They make an image to worship these three that are significant to them.

And [regarding] the images of the other constellations, and all other forms, even the form of a human, one who finds them, they are permitted. Here, Rav Sheshet applies the stringencies of the Mishnah and teaches: All the constellations are permitted except for the constellations of the sun and moon, and all the faces are permitted except for the face of a human. And all forms are permitted except for the form of a dragon. And the Gemara establishes the first and last parts as referring to 'one who finds' and the middle part as referring to 'one who makes'. For when it comes to one who finds, even a human face is permitted. For we learned in a Mishnah: one who finds vessels with the image of the sun, the image of the moon, or the image of a dragon, he should take them to the Dead Sea. The image of a dragon, yes [is prohibited], but the face of a human, no. And even though Rava also establishes the middle case as referring to 'one who finds' and like Rabbi Yehuda, he only disagrees in the case of a nursing woman and similar cases. But in the case of a simple human face, he agrees that it is permitted. And furthermore, Rava only established [the ruling] according to Rabbi Yehuda in order to establish the entire case as referring to 'one who finds', and not to need to establish the first part as 'one who finds' and the middle part as 'one who makes'. But regarding the law, it is clear that the halacha is not like Rabbi Yehuda, but like the Tanna of the Mishnah, who permits all human faces.

And what was written, "unless there is proof that it was made as an idol, such as a form standing at the entrance of a city, etc.," has already been explained at the beginning of the section. However, I am still puzzled by our master (Rabbeinu) who wrote this law plainly as it is mentioned in the Talmud, which certainly implies that this applied in their time. And furthermore, why should the form of the sun, moon, and dragon be prohibited in this time, since we certainly know that they are not worshiped at all. And so wrote Rabbeinu Yerucham in the name of his teacher, that vessels found with these forms at this time are permitted for benefit but prohibited to keep. However, from the words of Tosafot in the chapter "Kol HaTzelamim" (Avodah Zarah 43b), regarding what we say that "Rabban Gamliel is different because others made it for him," it implies that there is no difference between this time and their time in this matter.

And what was written, but all of them are prohibited to make, meaning, the form of all the constellations and the form of a human.

And what was written, there is no difference between those in the dwelling place of the Divine Presence, and those in the upper dwelling, and no difference between those in the lower dwelling, the upper dwelling is called so in relation to the lower dwelling, but in relation to the dwelling place of the Divine Presence, it is obvious that it is the lower dwelling, and all these things that our teacher wrote, are from what is taught in the second chapter of Rosh Hashanah, Rabban Gamliel had images of the moon in his attic, on a tablet on the wall, through which he would show the laypeople, and he would say to them, "Did you see like this or like that?" And it is challenged there and in the chapter "Kol HaTzelamim" (all the images), [saying] and is it permitted?But it is written, "Do not make with Me," Do not make the likeness of My servants. Abaye said: The Torah only forbade the likenesses of those servants that it is possible to make like them, meaning, but the servants above, which it is impossible to make exactly like them, only a representation, is permitted. As it was taught in a Baraita: A person should not make a house in the form of the Temple, meaning, that it should have the same length, width, height, and measurement of its doorways, but if it is altered in some way, it is permitted. A portico in the form of the Hall, a courtyard in the form of the Temple courtyard, a table in the form of the Table, a menorah in the form of the Menorah, but one may make one with five branches, meaning, a menorah with five, six, or eight branches, because they do not resemble the one in the Temple. And one with seven branches should not be made, because it is like the one in the Temple, even if it is made from other metals, for even though it is not made of gold, it is still valid in the Temple. As we learn in "HaKomets Rabah," through the principle of general and specific and general. But one made of wood is permitted because it is not valid in the Temple, as the specific type mentioned is metal. And we challenge: And the servants that it is impossible to make like them, are they permitted? But it was taught in a braisa: "Do not make with Me," do not make the likeness of My servants who serve before Me on high, indicating that even the upper servants are also forbidden. And we respond: Abaye said: The Torah only forbade the likeness of the four faces together, meaning, the face of an ox, a human, a lion, and an eagle on one creature, like the Holy Beasts, as it is written, "Do not make with Me," the ones who dwell with Me. And we challenge: But if so, a human face alone should be permitted. And we resolve: Rav Adda bar Yehoshua said, from the teachings of Abaye I heard: "Do not make with Me," meaning, do not make an image of Me, meaning, the likeness in which I appear to the prophets. And we challenge: And are the other servants permitted? But it was taught in a braisa: "Do not make with Me," do not make the likeness of My servants who serve before Me on high, such as the Ophanim, Seraphim, Holy Beasts, and ministering angels. Meaning, the likeness in which they appear in prophetic visions, which is a human with wings. And we resolve: Abaye said: The Torah only forbade the likeness of the servants in the upper dwelling, meaning, as it is written, "with Me," but the sun and moon are in the lower dwelling. And we challenge: Are those in the lower dwelling permitted? But it was taught in a braisa: "That are in the heavens," to include the sun, moon, stars, and constellations, "above," to include the ministering angels. That teaching is about worshipping them. If it's about worship, even the smallest worm would be included. Yes, indeed. And it is derived from the end of the verse, as it was taught: "That are on the earth," to include the seas and rivers, "below," to include the smallest worm. And making them without intent to worship, is that permitted? But it was taught: "Do not make with Me," do not make the likeness of My servants who serve before Me on high, such as the sun, moon, stars, and constellations. And we resolve: Rabban Gamliel is different because others made it for him, meaning, idol worshippers. And behold Rabbi Yehuda, others made it for him, meaning, an image on a ring that he would wear. And Shmuel said to Rabbi Yehuda: "Sharp one, remove its eye," meaning, diminish its form. And we resolve: There, it was a raised seal, and because of suspicion, meaning, so that they wouldn't say he worships it. As it was taught: A ring with a raised seal, meaning, its form, is forbidden to wear, but permitted to seal with, because when it seals, the impression is sunken into the wax and is not visible from the outside. A ring with a sunken seal is permitted to wear but forbidden to seal with, because when it seals, the impression is raised. And later it challenges: If so, in the case of Rabban Gamliel, we should also be concerned about suspicion. And we resolve: And are we concerned about suspicion? But there was that synagogue in Nehardea called "Shaf Veyativ"—meaning, it was moved from another place, in the region of Nehardea. Some say that Jeconiah and his exiles took with them stones from Jerusalem and its soil, and built it there, and that is why it is called "Shaf Veyativ," moved from here and set there. And it is written, "For your servants take pleasure in her stones." And they placed in it a statue—meaning, an image. And Samuel's father and Levi would enter it and pray there and were not concerned about suspicion. The many are different. And Rabban Gamliel was an individual, but because he was a prince, many were frequently with him. And if you want, say that it was in parts, meaning, it was sectional and was only assembled at the time of examining witnesses, so it was not seen every day, and therefore there was no suspicion. And if you want, say that for learning, it is different. As it was taught: You shall not learn to do, but you may learn to understand and to teach. This is the end of the Ran (commentary) on the Gemara in the chapter "Kol HaTzelamim." And the Tosafot wrote: Rabbi Yitzchak said that all these explanations of Abaye are true, for if not, he would have said in each one, rather this is what it means… that he said: The Torah only forbade the servants below, except for a house in the form of the Temple, a portico in the form of the Hall, and among the servants below, the sun, moon, and stars are forbidden, and in the upper dwelling, the likeness of the four faces is forbidden. And so wrote the Ran in the name of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, of blessed memory, and he elaborated on resolving the sugya (topic) according to this interpretation. And now, what our teacher wrote that all are prohibited to make—there is no difference between those in the dwelling place of the Divine Presence, etc., until "but one with seven branches should not be made, even from other metals"—is clear in the Gemara. And the Ran wrote, based on the interpretation of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, of blessed memory, that all these are forbidden to keep even if others made them, except for the sun, moon, stars, and constellations, which are permitted if others made them, as long as there is no concern for suspicion, as will be explained shortly. But from the words of our teacher later on, it seems that he does not differentiate between them, and all are also permitted if others made them, as long as there is no concern for suspicion.

And what was written, that making forms of seas and hills is permitted, this is obvious because they are not included among the things mentioned in the Gemara as prohibited.

And what was written, that the form of a dragon is forbidden for one who finds it to keep it, meaning it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, and one must take it to the Dead Sea, because we are concerned that it might have been worshipped before it was found, as has been explained in this section.

And what was written that it is permitted to make it [the form of a dragon], this is because it is not among the things mentioned in the Gemara that are forbidden to be made. However, it seems that this only applies when there is no suspicion, such as in one of the cases mentioned further on. But otherwise, since it is something that is depicted and worshipped, it is obvious that it is forbidden, as we say regarding the sun and the moon. And know that the Rosh wrote in the chapter "Kol HaTzelamim" regarding a ring whose seal is protruding, it is forbidden to wear it, etc. This seal refers to the sun and the moon, stars and constellations, and the form of a human face, which are forbidden to be made and also to be kept if made by a non-Jew due to suspicion, but the form of a dragon is permitted to be made but forbidden to be kept, end quote. And it seemed to me that he meant: it is permitted to make it for a non-Jew, not for idolatry, as one does not transgress the prohibition of making it according to the verse "You shall not make with Me" because it is not among the things that are derived from this verse for prohibition. Since it is not included in those things that are derived from this verse for prohibition, but it is forbidden to keep it due to suspicion. And it seems that our master did not want to explain it this way because if it is forbidden to keep it due to suspicion, from that very reason it should also be forbidden to make it. Therefore, he explained it as follows: it is forbidden to keep it if found, because we are concerned that it may have been worshipped before it was found.

And all the forms that are forbidden to be made for oneself are also forbidden to be made for a non-Jew. It seems that the reason is because it is written in a general way, "You shall not make with Me," and it does not say "You shall not make for yourselves." This implies that the prohibition of making applies in all cases, even for a non-Jew.

And what [Rabbenu] wrote: "And so too, if a non-Jew made them for him, it is forbidden to keep [them]." In what case are these words said? When it is raised... as it is taught: a ring with a raised seal, etc. This is simple from what we say: "But Rabbi Yehudah [had a ring] that others made for him." And Shmuel said to him, "Sharp one, remove the eyes of this one," there [it was because] the seal was raised, and due to suspicion. As it is taught: a ring with a raised seal is forbidden to wear, etc. And what [Rabbenu] wrote: "And it seems that all those [forms] that are forbidden when found are also forbidden when they are recessed, etc."—this is clear in its reasoning.

And what [Rabbenu] wrote: That which is recessed is considered those that are woven into a garment or painted on a wall. That is to say, when they are painted with colors on the wall or on a board. So wrote the Rambam in Chapter 3 of the Laws of Idolatry. And so wrote the Mordechai in Chapter All the Idols, in the name of Rabbi Meir, may his memory be blessed.

And what [Rabbenu] wrote: "And even with protruding images, he only forbade them for an individual". This is straightforward, as what he wrote: "If a non-Jew made them for him, it is forbidden to keep them if they are protruding" refers to this.

And what [Rabbenu] wrote: to differentiate between an individual and a public group, between something that is jointed and something that is not jointed, and between [making it] for educational purposes and [making it] not for educational purposes—all of this is explained in the Gemara that I have brought. And it seems that all of these three explanations that the Gemara gave are accepted as halacha, and each one of these cases is permitted. And this also appears from the words of the Rosh, may his memory be blessed, who wrote them. But the Rif wrote: “Is this allowed? Doesn't it say, ‘You shall not make with Me; you shall not make the form of My ministers that serve Me on high, such as the sun and the moon and the stars’?” [But] for educational purposes, it is different, as it is written: “You shall not learn [to do], but you may learn to understand and to teach.” And he [the Rif] did not differentiate between an individual and a public group, or between something that is jointed and something that is not jointed, and he also did not mention the permission where others made it for him at all. And also Rambam, may his memory be blessed, in the third chapter of the Laws of Idolatry, did not differentiate to permit these things. And the Ran wrote that it seems they [Rif and Rambam] hold that since the truth of the matter is that for understanding and teaching it is permitted, from this, it is not possible to say regarding Rabban Gamliel that others made it for him, and those explanations of “others made it for him” and “it was jointed” are rejected. Nevertheless, one can wonder about Rambam, may his memory be blessed, as he should have written that it is permitted to make them for educational purposes.

And what [Rabbenu] wrote in the name of Rabbeinu Tam, that regarding images of the sun, moon, stars, and constellations, there is no difference between [whether they are] raised or recessed, This is what the Tosafot and the Rosh wrote in the chapter "Kol HaTzelamim" [in Avodah Zarah]. And they deduced this from the fact that the Gemara asks, "But Rabban Gamliel was an individual," and does not answer that the image of the moon that Rabban Gamliel made was not raised. Therefore, they said that regarding the sun, moon, and constellations, there is no difference between raised or recessed [images], since they appear to us as recessed in the sky. Therefore, even recessed images are forbidden. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, also ruled this way in the third chapter of the Laws of Idolatry. And the Ran wrote in the chapter "Kol HaTzelamim" [in Avodah Zarah] regarding the Baraita of a ring with a raised seal that some say it does not refer to the forms of the heavenly ministers that the Torah forbade making. For the Torah did not differentiate between raised and recessed except in other forms, where even though they are permitted by Torah law, whether to make them or to keep them, if they are raised, they are forbidden by Rabbinic law because of suspicion. And if they are recessed, they are permitted if there is no suspicion. Similarly, the forms of the lower realm that the Torah forbade making—if he did not make them himself but others made them for him—if they are raised, it is forbidden to keep them by Rabbinic law, also because of suspicion. But if they are recessed, they are permitted because there is no Torah prohibition since others made them for him, and there is no suspicion since they are recessed. And another version says that all the forms that the Torah forbade are specifically raised ones that are forbidden, but recessed ones are permitted. And all other forms, whether recessed or raised, are permitted. And that which was taught in the Baraita about a ring with a raised seal, etc., refers to those forms that the Torah forbade. For in those [forbidden forms] there is room to differentiate between raised and recessed, but all other forms, whether raised or recessed, are permitted. And he, may his memory be blessed, decided according to the first version. And he further wrote: Rambam, may his memory be blessed, has a different opinion in the third chapter of the Laws of Idolatry, where he wrote that the forms of the heavenly ministers are forbidden whether raised or recessed, and all other forms, except the human form, are permitted whether raised or recessed. And this differentiation between a raised seal and a recessed seal, the Rabbi [Rambam] applied only to the human form. And I did not fully understand his reasoning—how he differentiates between the human form and the forms of the heavenly ministers, as they all derive from "You shall not make with Me." Perhaps the Rabbi [Rambam] holds that the angels, because they are not corporeal beings, and similarly the sun, moon, stars, and constellations, because they do not appear raised and even in their orbits are not raised but rather recessed within it, there is no room to differentiate between raised and recessed. But the human form, because it does not appear except as raised, is only forbidden in that manner. For although we derive [the prohibition] from "with Me," even so, since the human form is found to be raised, it is not forbidden except when raised.

And what [Rabbenu] wrote that the Ramban added further the image of a human and all the heavenly ministers, meaning those in the upper realm, which are forbidden whether they are raised or recessed, etc. This is the reasoning that the Ran decided in favor of. And the Ran further wrote there that it seems to him that they only worried about suspicion in forms that it was customary for idolaters to worship. But forms such as these are permitted to make as long as it is not known or heard that they are worshipped at all. For the custom is to maintain raised forms of those that the Torah did not forbid, and we have not heard of anyone objecting to this, end quote. And further below, I will write other opinions in the name of the Mordechai concerning the form of a living creature, except for the form of a human. And what [Rabbenu] wrote, and it seems logical that they did not forbid other forms—meaning other forms that are permitted by Torah law and were forbidden by the sages because of suspicion—except for rings and the like, which are prestigious, etc. And that which was taught, "It is forbidden to seal," meaning that which is taught in the Baraita, that a ring with a recessed seal is forbidden to seal with, refers to sealing for the prestigious. But to seal with it for the despised is permitted because, since they are despised, there is no suspicion. And this reasoning of the Ramban was written by the Ran in the chapter "Kol HaTzelamim." (Note: Blessed be He) Rabbeinu Yerucham wrote about that which a ring with a raised seal is permitted to seal with, etc. This seal refers to [images of] the sun and moon, stars and constellations, and the human form; it is forbidden to make it and even to keep it if an idolater made it, because of suspicion. And concerning the permission when many are commonly with him, he wrote [that it is permitted] if two people enter a house where there is an image, and it seems that he learned this from what is presented in the Gemara regarding the incident with Levi and Shmuel's father, who would enter and pray in a synagogue that had an image, and we were not concerned about suspicion. And [the Gemara] answered, "The case of many is different." And he further wrote in the name of the poskim that even though there is no suspicion when there are many, it is still disgraceful for them.

The Rashba wrote that the image of heavenly ministers that is forbidden to make, there is no difference between prestigious and despised etc… The Rosh wrote in the chapter "Kol HaTzelamim" that Rabban Gamliel's case is different because others made it for him—he acquired it from idolaters; therefore, it is permitted. And the Tosafot wrote in the second chapter of Rosh Hashanah (24b) that Rabban Gamliel's case is different because others made it for him. And even though generally speaking, instructing a non-Jew to do work is rabbinically prohibited, here they did not decree [it as forbidden] because it was for the sake of a mitzvah. And one must be careful when lending to a non-Jew and sealing the seal with a wax seal attached to a letter. But if the non-Jew brings him a seal on his own, it is permitted. And in the chapter "Kol HaTzelamim," they wrote that some wanted to be stringent not to seal for a non-Jew with a seal that has the form of a human for a debt, unless the non-Jew brought it himself. And likewise not to wear those belts that have raised forms. However, there is support for permitting based on this version that interprets Rabbi Yehuda's statement regarding the form of a dragon, where suspicion is more relevant than in other cases, as it is taught in the Mishnah: "If one finds vessels with a dragon image on them, he should take them to the Dead Sea." And the Andarti [statue] that they were concerned about regarding suspicion refers to one that was a statue of a human figure, complete with hands and feet. And so too wrote the Mordechai.

And the fact that we prohibit [making] a full form of a human and a dragon, etc… So writes the Rosh in Chapter "All the Sculptures," and the text says: And the prohibition of [making] the form of a human and a dragon is only in a complete form but [making] just the head without a complete body is permitted, as "You shall not make with Me" is interpreted and also there is no concern for suspicion if the entire figure is not complete. End of quote. Rabbeinu Yerucham wrote: The bedspreads (מצעות) that have those images made on them are forbidden to make, For they are worshipped, and it is appropriate to excommunicate anyone who does not refrain from making them, and so wrote the commentaries. End of quote. *note start](From the "Ba"ah," wrote in "A" the Rashba in responsum #167 and #505 about an image of a lion without the inscription on a silver plate for healing purposes. According to a book of remedies where it is found that this is beneficial for a specific illness, and if it was made at a known time, he responded that even if a Jew made it, even if it was protruding, there is no prohibition on making it. For it is not like celestial images: the form of a lion stands alone and is not worshiped, but rather the faces of the living creatures of the chariot [Merkavah], these four living creatures. And someone who makes the face in the form of those creatures that have four faces is forbidden. But one of them alone [is not forbidden]. And he brought proofs to this. I heard that my teacher, the Ramban, used to make that image for that illness. And he wrote further that if it is for the sake of a remedy, and it is known to doctors that it works, there is no concern of following the practices of the Amorites. And furthermore, it seems to me that if it is not explicitly prohibited in the Gemara (Shabbat 67) among those mentioned as practices of the Amorites, it is permitted to make them for healing, even though it is not clear to us if it is indeed a remedy because the effectiveness of remedies is not known to us. And he brought evidence to this. And I found in the responsa of the later Catalan scholars that the Rashba was persuaded by his contemporaries regarding the allowance of this image and retracted his opinion. *note end Mordechai wrote in Chapter "All the Sculptures" that Rabbeinu Ephraim responded regarding images of birds and horses painted in the synagogue. It is not comparable to a seal with an image because there it is a form of an idol, a human face, or images of the sun and moon and dragon that are worshipped. But images of birds and horses. And these things are not worshipped by non-Jews even when they are standalone images, let alone when they are painted on clothes. And we learned that all images are permitted except for the image of a human, and the Talmud explains that the image of a human is only prohibited if it is found, according to Rabbi Yehuda, but the Rabbis permit even the image of a human if it is found. Therefore, there is no concern here. End of quote. And Rabbeinu Elikim explained that the text "all images are permitted except for the image of a human" means in the case of making [the image] as explained by Abaye. And the term "all" is not absolute, for the image of the sun, moon, and dragon are included in the prohibition. Since they are considered objects of worship. And it can be said that Abaye's opinion is only concerning those who make them, but we follow Rava who says that all images are permitted if found. It is (the opinion of) Rabbi Yehuda, from which we learn that found (images) are permitted, but making them is forbidden. And in the Mekhilta, it forbids making even the image of an animal, birds, grasshoppers, and fish, as it is said: "the form of any animal that is on the earth" (Deuteronomy 4:17). Based on these proofs, it was commanded to remove the images of lions and snakes that were drawn in the synagogue in Cologne. End of quote. And in the Hagahot Ashri, it is written in the name of the Or Zarua regarding the words of Rabbeinu Elikim, and he gave another reason because it says in Berakhot 5b that we require nothing to come between a person and the wall (during prayer). And also, as it says in Bava Batra 25b, "One who wishes to become wealthy should turn to the north," thus it will appear as though they are bowing to those images. And he wrote further: "When my father was a boy, they would draw in the synagogue images of trees and birds, and he judged this to be forbidden." Now it has become clear to us that all of these are forbidden to be made, such as the images of faces, which are those of humans, animals, and living creatures, and images such as birds, fish, snakes, and worms. And statues, such as anything in the form or shape of something — anyone who makes them transgresses a prohibition. But if others made them for him, it is permitted according to Torah law but prohibited by Rabbinic law until their form is altered. End of quote. And it has already been explained above that according to the latter opinion, which the Ra"n wrote, all forms are permitted, even protruding ones, except for those that the Torah forbids because of "You shall not make with Me" (Exodus 20:20). And similarly, Maimonides of blessed memory wrote in Chapter 3 of the Laws of Idolatry, and this is what he said: The forms of animals and other living creatures, excluding humans, and the forms of trees, grasses, and the like, are permitted to be fashioned, even if the form is protruding. And this is clarified according to the words of Rabbeinu Ephraim. Even according to the first opinion, which the Ra"n ruled in favor of, and which our teacher quoted in the name of the Ramban of blessed memory, although he forbids other forms when they are protruding, nevertheless, when they are sunken, they are permitted. And it has already been explained above that what is drawn with symbols on a board or tablet is considered sunken (i.e., not protruding). And the Mordechai also wrote in the name of Rabbi Meir (the R”M) and permitted drawing forms using various colors because they are not protruding. Therefore, from the words of all of them, we learn that in such a case where they were painted on the wall, it is permitted, and not like the opinion of Rabbeinu Elikim. Furthermore, even according to the opinion of the Ra"n and Ramban, since non-Jews do not worship those forms, even if they were protruding, they are permitted. And as it is written earlier in the name of the Ra"n of blessed memory, therefore, we hold like the opinion of Rabbeinu Ephraim, as all agree with him, and the opinion of Rabbeinu Elikim is not followed, as he is an individual against the majority. And what Rabbeinu Elikim explained, that the teaching 'all faces are permitted except for the face of a human' — this 'all' is not literal, for the forms of the sun, moon, and dragon are included in the prohibition. I do not know what benefit there is in this explanation, since all other forms except for these three are still permitted. And that incident where they painted in the synagogue, since they were not from these forms, it is certainly permitted. And what he wrote, and alternatively, that only Abaye establishes this case as 'one who makes,' but we hold like Rava who says it is all in the context of 'finding' — meaning that found items are permitted, and making them is forbidden. It can be said that Rava did not depart from Abaye's explanation except because it was difficult for him to establish the beginning and end (of the teaching) in one way and the middle in another way, and therefore, he established it all in the context of 'finding. But regarding the law, indeed, he holds like Abaye, who permits making all forms except for the face of a human. Since we do not find that Abaye disagrees on this, we do not establish a dispute between them, and you will understand from what is said in the Gemara about the middle case, that it is certainly about 'making. And like the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who said that the face of a human is forbidden because of 'You shall not make with Me,' and since there was no need to bring proof for the permission of other forms. And only to prohibit the face of a human was it necessary to bring the ruling of Rav Huna, implying that other forms are certainly permitted. For even the face of a human would have been permitted if not for the verse brought by Rav Huna. And regarding other forms for which we do not find anyone bringing a verse for prohibition, they are certainly permitted to everyone. And what was written, that in the Mekhilta it forbids making even the face of an animal, etc.. It can be said that this [refers to] only protruding [images], in accordance with the view of Ramban and Ra"n, of blessed memory. And in the fifth chapter (54a) regarding the statement there that Rav only acquired his garden through a form, Rashi explains that it was a form of an animal or bird. Mordechai wrote that from here Rabbi Meir deduced that the teaching in the Mekhilta—'Do not make for yourself a graven image,' etc.—means that it prohibits making a carved image (protruding), but a sunken image (engraved) is permitted. [The verse says,] 'and any form,' even an animal, wild beast, bird, fish, or locusts. This refers specifically to a complete face carved out; a carved form refers to a protruding image, and a sunken form refers to an engraved image. But it is permitted to use colored images, even for a Jew for his own purposes, as is implied here by Rashbam. However, a protruding or engraved seal is forbidden for a Jew to make. However, if others made it, it is permitted to use it in a place where many people frequent, as there is no concern of suspicion, as is implied in the chapter 'All the images'—and that is the end of it. And in my humble opinion, it seems to me that the Mekhilta is referring to one who makes an actual idol, even for a non-Jew, or to forms that non-Jews customarily worship. This is why it brings the verse 'You shall not make for yourself a graven image. But forms that are not customarily worshiped by non-Jews are permitted, as Ra"n of blessed memory wrote. And what was written, that based on this evidence he ordered the removal of the images of lions and snakes that were painted in the synagogue in Cologne—I do not know what was achieved by this ruling. For according to all opinions, other forms are permitted if found, and since they are permitted when found, even though it was possible to suspect that they might be worshiped, we do not worry about that. And it implies that maintaining [such forms] is also permitted, since there is no concern of idolatry. Why should we prohibit maintaining it? And it implies that the same applies if a Jew made them. Even though the maker committed a transgression, maintaining them is still permitted. And the one who commits the transgression did so at the time of making it, and afterward, there is no remedy, even if he removes them. It is possible to say that nevertheless, he did not want there to be any remembrance or permanence of something that was made in violation, according to his opinion, of blessed memory, But I have already written that all the decisors disagree with him and permit making them, even from the outset. The Maharik wrote in his responsa, section 75, that which it is taught: a seven-branched menorah should not be made, even though its height differs from that of the menorah in the Temple, because the requirement that the Temple menorah must be 18 handbreadths high is not an absolute requirement. And he further wrote that regarding the teaching that a portico in the form of a hall is prohibited, Tosafot wrote that even though the hall had four walls, it can be said that since its entrance was very wide and high, it appeared as if it had only three walls. end of quote. And he brought proof from there that it depends on appearance. So too, since it has seven branches, even though it is not 18 handbreadths high, it resembles the one in the Temple. And even though Rashi explained that a house in the form of the sanctuary must be similar in its length, width, height, and the measurements of its doorways, if it is altered slightly, it is permitted. This implies that we need an exact replica of the Temple. It can be said that a house is different, because if it is not made exactly like the Temple, it is not easily recognizable as a replica of the Temple. For many houses are made tall and long. But regarding a menorah, one cannot say this. And even if we say that [Maharik] disagrees with Tosafot and does not accept their reasoning regarding the portico. Nevertheless, regarding the height of the menorah, we can say that he does not disagree. For the length, height, and breadth of the sanctuary, as well as the dimensions of its doorways, are explicitly written in the verse. But the height of the menorah is not written. And even if we say that [Maharik] disagrees with them, who would dare interject themselves between Rashi and Tosafot on a biblical prohibition? And he wrote in the name of Rabbi Isaac of Corbeil that the form of a seven-branched menorah is forbidden even without the cups. And he, of blessed memory, wrote that the same applies even without the knobs and flowers; it is also forbidden.