Avodah Zarah 43a — the Talmud in English

It follows that

these

are forms of the attendants in the heights,

no,

indeed it is forbidden to depict them, but

the form of a dragon is not.

It is not forbidden to depict it, since it does not dwell in the heights.

Rather,

one is compelled to say:

it is obvious

that the beraita is speaking

of one who finds, and

comes to teach us

as

in

as we learned

in our Mishna:

one who finds vessels with the form of the sun...

the form of a dragon—he shall take them to the Dead Sea,

and they are forbidden in benefit.

Rav Sheshet now concludes the “stringencies of the beraita: how can it be that

the beginning and the end

speak

of one who finds, and

whereas

the middle

speaks

of one who makes?!

And we answer:

Abaye said: Yes!

Indeed, this is how the beraita must be explained:

the beginning and the end concern one who finds, and the middle concerns one who makes.

Rava said:

Thus shall we explain the beraita:

the whole of it concerns one who finds, and

we shall answer the difficulty we raised concerning the middle, where it says that a human face is forbidden in benefit, whereas from our Mishna it follows that a human face is not forbidden in benefit:

The middle

is the teaching of

Rabbi Judah,

and indeed he disagrees with the tanna of our Mishna—

As it was taught:

we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Judah adds

to the forms enumerated in the Mishna, and forbids in benefit

also the figure

of a woman

nursing

a son,

and

the form of

Serapis.

“Nursing”—

on account of what do the gentiles make it and worship it?

On account of Eve, who nurses

—

the entire world.

“Serapis”—

on account of Joseph, who, after he was

made a minister,

appeased

and calmed the minds of

the entire world

and provided for them during the two years of famine.

And it is resolved: with regard to these faces the beraita said—according to Rabbi Judah—that they are forms from which one who finds them is forbidden to benefit.

And the Gemara adds:

And he

is Joseph; that is, this form is forbidden only in a case

where he holds a measure

—he holds a measuring vessel in his hand—

and measures.

with it.

And she

is Eve; that is, this form is forbidden only in a case

where she holds

in her arms

a son and nurses him,

nursing him.

The Gemara explains what we learned in the Mishna concerning the form of a “dragon.”

Our Rabbis taught: What is the form of a dragon?

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar explained: Any one that has fin-like appendages

—another explanation: something like hairs—

between

its joints,

its vertebrae.

Between which vertebrae?

Rav Asi demonstrated

by showing with his hands:

between the joints of its neck.

Rabbi Hama son of Rabbi Hanina said: The halakha is as

with

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

and only the form of a dragon that has fin-like appendages between the joints of its neck is forbidden.

The Gemara recounts an incident concerning a dragon and derives several laws from this incident.

Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: Once I was walking behind Rabbi Elazar Ha-Kappar the Great

—a designation for a great person—

on the road, and there he found

on the road

a ring with the form of a dragon on it,

and he wished to acquire it as ownerless property, but

he therefore did not lift it, so that he would not acquire it—for then it would be an object of idolatry belonging to a Jew, which cannot be nullified, and it would be forbidden in benefit—

and

what did he do?

He found a gentile

—a non-Jew—

a minor—

and he said nothing to him.

Afterward

he found a gentile

—a non-Jew—

an adult, and he said to him,

Rabbi Elazar Ha-Kappar said to the gentile: “

Nullify it!”

He commanded him to nullify it.

But he did not nullify it;

the gentile did not wish to nullify it.

He struck him

Rabbi Elazar Ha-Kappar on his cheek,

and he nullified it,

and Rabbi Elazar Ha-Kappar acquired it.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi observed his master in order to learn from his ways and his good deeds, and from this incident he learned several laws, including from his refraining from telling the minor gentile to nullify it, and he said:

Learn from it

that from this incident it is possible to learn

three

laws concerning the nullification of idolatry—

The first:

learn from it

that since Rabbi Elazar did not investigate whether the gentile worshipped that form, one may learn:

a gentile

—a non-Jew—

nullifies idolatry

—an idol—

belonging to himself and belonging to his fellow,

the gentile, even though it is not his idol.

And further,

learn from it:

since he did not command the minor gentile to nullify it, one may learn: a gentile who

knows the nature of idolatry and its accessories—

nullifies, and

a minor gentile

who does not know the nature of idolatry and its accessories

does not nullify.

And further,

learn from it:

since he struck him on his cheek so that he would nullify it, one may learn:

a gentile nullifies against his will.

Rabbi Hanina challenged it,

raising a difficulty concerning this discussion:

Rabbi Hanina

asked what need Rabbi Elazar had to nullify it through a gentile, since it had been nullified by itself, as it was found on the road, in a place where many people are present, and surely the gentile despaired of it and would no longer worship it; therefore it had been nullified by itself.

And does he not hold

—does he not maintain—

Rabbi Elazar Ha-Kappar the Great, this that was taught

in this beraita:

The beraita was taught in tractate Bava Metzia concerning the law of a lost object: one who lost an object and despaired of it—it belongs to the finder. The beraita comes to teach that there are cases in which the despair occurs automatically.

One who rescues

his fellow’s property

from a lion, from a bear, and from a leopard,

for example, they attacked an animal in order to prey upon it, and another person rescued it from them,

and from an invading army,

soldiers,

and from a river, and from the surge of the sea,

a great wave of the sea that turns back and washes away everything it encounters on its way,

and from the overflow of a river,

which rises over its banks and carries away everything in its path—

and one who finds

a lost object

in a main street or a large marketplace,

a place where many people gather,

and in every place where many people are present—

these

lost objects found there

are his,

and he need not return them to their owners,

because the owners despair of them,

willingly or unwillingly.

The difficulty is: Rabbi Elazar Ha-Kappar found it in a place where its gentile owner certainly despaired of it, and it was ownerless; he certainly nullified it in his mind, so that he would no longer worship it. Why, then, did he need to nullify it? And we answer:

Abaye said: Granted—

indeed—

with regard to its monetary value,

from the vessel itself, from its “financial” value, he

despairs;

he despairs, but

with regard to the prohibition,

from its attachment to the idol that causes it to be forbidden in benefit—

does he despair?!

Has he really given up hope of removing that prohibition?!

He may say

that the gentile, upon learning that his idol was lost, says:

If a gentile finds it,

if a gentile finds it,

he will worship it;

he will worship it.

If a Jew finds it,

and if a Jew finds it,

since its value is high,

because its value is great,

he will sell it to a gentile,

he will sell it to a gentile,

and

the gentile who buys it

will worship it.

будет ему служить.

Therefore, it is not nullified with regard to its prohibition, and Rabbi Elazar Ha-Kappar needed a gentile to nullify it before he acquired it as ownerless property.

We learned in the preceding discussion that the Torah commanded, through a special negative commandment, that it is forbidden for a Jew to make certain forms, even for purposes of ornamentation. This is what the Torah said [Exodus 20]: “You shall not make with Me gods of silver, and gods of gold you shall not make for yourselves.”

Now the Gemara discusses which forms one is permitted to make and which are forbidden.

It first cites a Mishna in tractate Rosh Hashana. There we learned that Rabban Gamaliel, the Nasi of Israel and head of the Sanhedrin, who received the witnesses who came to testify that they had seen the moon at its renewal, prepared different forms of the moon that the moon could assume at its renewal, in order to examine the witnesses and determine whether their words corresponded and whether they had seen that form of the moon.

These forms that Rabban Gamaliel had were seemingly forbidden to draw. The Gemara deals with this matter.

We learned there:

we learned there:

Rabban Gamaliel had diagrams of the forms of moons in his upper chamber,

drawn

on a tablet

—a board—

on the wall, with which he showed the ordinary people and said to them: “

Did you see one like this?

Or did you see one like this?”

And we raise a difficulty:

Is it permitted?

Is it indeed permitted to do this?

But

this

is written: “

You shall not make with Me,”

and we expound in a beraita:

You shall not make forms resembling the attendants

the servants of the Most High

who serve before Me,

and the moon is one of the “attendants.”

And we answer:

Abaye said: The Torah prohibited only attendants that it is possible to make exactly like them,

such as the attendants of the Holy One, blessed is He, below: the courtyard, the hall, and the Sanctuary resemble the courtyard, the hall, and the Sanctuary of the Temple, and likewise the menorah—

but the attendants in the heights, such as the sun and the moon, which it is impossible to make exactly like them, but only to draw a picture resembling them, are permitted.

As

in

as it was taught:

we learned in a beraita:

A person shall not make a house

like

the pattern of the Sanctuary,

the Temple, in its length, width, and height, with all its measurements; and likewise a person shall not make

a portico

like

the pattern of the hall,

the Temple, built with three sides and open on the fourth side,

a courtyard in the pattern of the Temple courtyard, a table in the pattern of the table

of purity in the Sanctuary,

a menorah in the pattern of the menorah.

But if he makes it with a change, and not in the likeness of the Temple, it is permitted. For example:

But he may make

a menorah

of five

lamps,

or of six or of eight,

because the menorah of the Temple had seven.

But one of seven lamps—

he shall not make, even of other kinds of metal—

even though it does not resemble the menorah of the Temple, which was made of gold, it is forbidden to make it, because the Temple menorah is valid even when made of other kinds of metal. It follows that every seven-branched menorah resembles the Temple menorah, even when made of other kinds of metal.

These are the words of the Sages. According to their view, it is permitted to make a seven-branched menorah made of wood, because in their view the Temple menorah cannot be made of wood.

Rabbi Yosei bar Judah says: Even

a menorah

of wood he shall not make,

because in his view the Temple menorah is valid when made of wood—and he brings proof for this:

As was done

by the kings of

the Hasmonean house

when their power prevailed over the Greeks and they defeated them, and entered the Temple but did not find the Temple vessels, because the Greeks had plundered them and taken them with them; the Hasmoneans were poor and could not make it of gold, so they made it of wood. In his view it is permitted to make the Temple menorah of wood; therefore it is forbidden to make a seven-branched menorah even of wood.

They said to him,

the Sages to Rabbi Yosei bar Judah:

Is there proof from there?!

The Hasmonean house did not make a wooden menorah; rather,

they had iron spits that were covered

—according to the version of the Bach—

and covered

with tin,

and it appeared as though they were made of wood. And when

they became wealthy,

they made them of silver; when they again became wealthy,

they made them of gold.

The Gemara brought this beraita to prove Abaye’s statement: that the prohibition derived from “You shall not make with Me” is to make a likeness of the attendants below, exactly like them, whereas the beraita did not prohibit drawing forms of the attendants in the heights. It is therefore resolved that Rabban Gamaliel properly made forms of moons.

And we raise a difficulty:

But attendants that it is impossible to make like them,

such as the sun and the moon—

are they permitted?

Is it indeed permitted?!

But

this

was taught

in another beraita: The Torah said, “

You shall not make with Me,”

and we expound:

You shall not make forms resembling the attendants who serve before Me in the heights.

It follows that it is forbidden to make even attendants in the heights.

The difficulty returns: How, then, did Rabban Gamaliel do so?