"Regarding the 'ball' and 'Plutah' (idols), the Gemara explains that these are certainly worshipped, because of their importance, they were taken in hand as objects of veneration. The Gemara teaches regarding the Mishnah: If they are worshipped once a year, what is the reasoning of the Rabbanan? This means that since it does not state 'and the Sages say that it is only worshipped by someone holding a stick,' it implies that they agree it is worshipped. And we explain: Rabbi Yitzchak bar Rabbi Yosi said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: In Rabbi Meir’s locale, they worshipped them once a year, and because Rabbi Meir is concerned with the minority, he decreed concerning other places because of that locale. The Rabbanan, who are not concerned with the minority, did not decree concerning other places because of that local.. The Ramban z"l explained that this means: Rabbi Meir, who is concerned with the minority, holds that any place whose customs are unknown is forbidden by law, because since Rabbi Meir is concerned with the minority, we must be concerned that perhaps they follow the custom of his place, even though that place is a minority in relation to all the places known to us, where these objects are not worshipped. Similarly, all the statues found on the way are forbidden by law for this reason. And since the majority of the world is forbidden by law according to Rabbi Meir, he decreed even in places where we know they are not worshipped because of the prohibition that extends from that place. Since the majority of the world is forbidden according to Rabbi Meir, he decreed regarding the minority because of the majority. However, the Rabbanan, who are not concerned with the minority, do not prohibit the world because of Rabbi Meir’s locale alone. These are his words, z"l.. But the language of 'he decreed concerning other places because of that place' does not sit well with me, and what he also says, that every place whose custom is unknown is forbidden by law according to Rabbi Meir, is not clear to me. For although we hear from Rabbi Meir that he is concerned with the minority in cases like a minor or a minor girl (Yevamot 61a), where he says they do not perform chalitzah nor yibbum lest they be found to be a eunuch or an aylonit (barren woman), that is because it is a common minority in every place. But to hold a prohibition from one place to another because of Rabbi Meir’s locale is unfounded, since all the places known to us do not follow his custom. Even if you say this minority is similar to the minority of eunuchs and barren women, even so, Rabbi Meir should not be concerned here, because it is stated in the first chapter of Chullin (11a): 'From where do we know that the Rabbis say to follow the majority?' We are puzzled and respond, 'From the verse, "After the majority, you shall incline" (Exodus 23:2).' The Gemara asks about a case where the majority is present before us, like nine stores or the Sanhedrin; we do not question it. But when we question, it is regarding a majority that is not present before us, such as a minor or a minor girl. Therefore, concerning a majority that is present before us, even Rabbi Meir agrees with it, for the reasoning is that since the majority is known before us, it nullifies the minority and renders it as if it does not exist.. And here too, the majority of places where idols are not worshipped is known before us and is present before us. Therefore, the minority should be nullified, and we should not be concerned about unknown places because of Rabbi Meir’s locale. Thus, it seems to me that the correct explanation is that, according to Rabbi Meir, all the places in the world are permitted by law, even in places where the custom is unknown. However, since Rabbi Meir is generally concerned with the minority, it indicates that he does not consider the minority as if it does not exist. Therefore, he decreed concerning other places so that they would not err in his locale. And even though it is a minority, it is proper to be concerned about its potential harm. But the Rabbanan, who are not concerned with the minority, hold that the minority is as if it does not exist, and such language is used by them at the end of Kiddushin (80a) and in the chapter 'Kol Hayad' (18b). Therefore, they do not decree on the entire world because of a concern for the minority’s harm.. And thus, the language of 'he decreed concerning other places because of that place' makes sense. After this, it is stated: Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: 'We taught this regarding the statue of kings,' meaning that when the king dies, they make a statue of him at the city gates as a memorial. In such a case, Rabbi Meir prohibited it because they would come to worship it out of affection. Rav Yehuda’s statement in the name of Shmuel seems to be explaining the Mishnah, saying we need not say that Rabbi Meir and the Rabbanan argue whether to decree concerning other places because of that place, but they only argue concerning that place itself. This is taught regarding the statues of kings, specifically in large cities, as Rava concludes. Certainly, these statues were not made for worship but only for adornment. However, Rabbi Meir was concerned about the minority of people in that place who would accept it as a god. This is the meaning of 'because they are worshipped once a year,' meaning since we are concerned about the minority, we must be concerned that perhaps one person might mistakenly worship it once a year. The Rabbanan, who are not concerned with the minority, permitted it."