The objection raised here—“If so, a human face should be permitted!”—why then was it taught in a Baraita: “All faces [i.e., facial images] are permitted except for the human face”? This does not align with Rava’s explanation, who interpreted the Baraita as referring to someone who finds such an image. Rather, it is Abaye who provides this answer—and according to his explanation, there’s a difficulty, for he said earlier that the middle clause refers to one who makes [the image]. And if that is so, it would imply that the halakha does not follow Abaye, who prohibits only the human face. However, since Abaye derived this from a verse, the halakha does follow him, and Rava does not dispute him on this point. And this is also taught in the Tosefta: “A ring that has a face on it is permitted for sealing.” Rabban Chana ben Gamliel said, “In my father’s house, they used to seal with face-shaped stamps.” Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok said, “All types of face images were found in Jerusalem, except for a human face.” And our great teacher, of blessed memory, also relied on the opinions of Abaye and Rav Huna bar Ashi—and that is the correct ruling. And the Ra’avad, of blessed memory, explained that the image of the ministering angels is actually the image of a human. And since the version [of the Baraita] that mentions “ministering angels” includes them among the heavenly servants, Abaye did not need to derive from the verse ‘You shall not make with Me’ [Ex. 20:20] anything beyond what he already did—that is, a prohibition on all heavenly servants. But this is incorrect, because earlier we saw that Rav Huna Mar bar Rav Ashi also derived [the prohibition] from this verse, and the Baraita alone would not have sufficed as proof. Additionally, ministering angels have wings and their form is not entirely like that of a human. And regarding the Baraita that teaches, “and the holy creatures” (chayot hakodesh)—this does not mean that an image of a human face alone would be permitted. For if that were the case, it would contradict Abaye. Rather, if the Torah had not explicitly forbidden making likenesses of the heavenly servants, one might have thought that since a figure with four faces was made, this would not be considered a human form and thus should be permitted. Therefore, the verse was necessary.

And we conclude that images of the heavenly attendants, even those in the lower sphere, are forbidden. And it seems proper to explain and say: it makes no difference whether they are raised (engraved outward) or recessed (engraved inward). And likewise with the image of a human face, for it is written “you shall not make [them]” (Ex. 20:20), and the Torah does not distinguish between raised or recessed. Rather, when others made it for him, the Sages said that recessed is permitted and raised is forbidden—because of suspicion. And that which is taught in a baraita: a ring whose seal is not of the heavenly attendants but of other figures—since they are raised, one must be concerned for suspicion that perhaps it is an image that is worshipped, since he wears it. And even though others made it for him, it is forbidden to wear it. And likewise, it is forbidden to make any raised form, lest people say he made it for idolatrous purposes, as it is taught: if its seal is recessed, it is permitted to wear it, but forbidden to seal with it. And that which we permitted earlier—to make forms and faces—was all in the case of recessed images. But with raised ones, we are concerned for suspicion, unless he makes them for the public, in a context where there is no suspicion. However, it seems to me that they only said this with regard to a ring and similar items which are considered important and prestigious. But with items that are degraded (not objects of respect), it is permitted to fashion other images whether raised or recessed, since there is no suspicion with them. And that which it taught, “it is forbidden to seal with it,” refers to important objects, such as on ornaments and jewelry, but with a degraded object it is permitted, so it seems to me. But in the Halakhot Gedolot it is written: “The Sages taught: a ring whose seal is raised, etc., and it has upon it the image of the sun, or the image of the moon, or the image of a dragon—what is the reason [for prohibition]? Because of suspicion, lest people say he bows to it.” End quote. And again I saw that many authorities, and the author of the Tosafot as well, hold this way: that any recessed image is permitted, even the image of a human or of the heavenly attendants; but a raised image is forbidden in these mentioned (sun, moon, dragon, human), but not in other figures found on earth. And I saw in the Tosefta (Avodah Zarah 6:1): “Three types of rings that have upon them idolatry: when they are raised, it is forbidden to derive benefit from them; if they are not raised, it is permitted to derive benefit from them, and permitted to seal with them. And a ring that has upon it a seal—it is permitted to seal with it. Rabbi Yehudah says: if its seal is recessed, it is forbidden to seal with it, because a form is thereby produced. A ring whose seal is recessed, etc.; a ring that has upon it a face—it is permitted to seal with it, etc. Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok says: all kinds of faces were [engraved] in Jerusalem, etc.” Earlier it presented the case with sun and moon, and holds that vessels only become forbidden when the form is raised; but if it is recessed—even though it is of idolatry—it is permitted to seal with it. And the “ring that has upon it a seal” that the Tosefta taught refers to all other seals of various figures, including the faces mentioned at the end—i.e. of animals and birds. And this is a support to my words.