The Sages interpret this verse as referring to the heavenly constellations, which indicates that it is prohibited to form only these figures, but it is not prohibited to form a figure of a dragon.

Rather, the Gemara concludes, it is obvious that this halakha is referring to a case where one finds a vessel with the figure of a dragon, and this is as we learned in the mishna: In the case of one who finds vessels, and upon them is a figure of the sun, a figure of the moon, or a figure of a dragon, he must take them and cast them into the Dead Sea.

The Gemara asks about the lack of consistency between the clauses of Rav Sheshet’s statement: Can it be that the first clause and the last clause are referring to a case where one finds vessels with the specified figures, and the middle clause is referring to a case where one forms these figures?

Abaye said: Indeed, the first clause and the last clause are referring to cases where one finds vessels with figures, and the middle clause is referring to a case where one forms figures.

Rava said: The entire statement of Rav Sheshet is referring to a case where one finds vessels with these figures, and the middle clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda adds to the list of forbidden figures even a figure of a nursing woman and Sar Apis. The figure of a nursing woman is worshipped as it symbolizes Eve, who nurses the entire world. The figure of Sar Apis is worshipped as it symbolizes Joseph, who ruled over [sar] and appeased [mefis] the entire world by distributing food during the seven years of famine (see Genesis, chapter 41). But the figure of Sar Apis is forbidden only when it is holding a dry measure and measuring with it; and the figure of a nursing woman is forbidden only when she is holding a child and nursing it.

§ The Sages taught: What is a figure of a dragon? Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar explained: It is any figure that has scales between its joints. Rabbi Asi motioned with his hands to depict scales between the joints of the neck. Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Once, I was following Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished on the road, and he found a ring there, and there was a figure of a dragon on it. And he then encountered a minor gentile boy, but did not say anything to him. He then encountered an adult gentile, and said to him: Revoke the ring’s idolatrous status. But the gentile did not revoke it. Rabbi Elazar HaKappar then slapped him across his face, whereupon the gentile succumbed and revoked its idolatrous status.

The Gemara comments: Learn from this incident the following three halakhot: Learn from it that a gentile can revoke the idolatrous status of both his object of idol worship and that of another gentile. And learn from the fact that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar waited to find an adult gentile, that only one who is aware of the nature of idol worship and its accessories can revoke the idol’s status, but one who is not aware of the nature of idol worship and its accessories, such as a minor, cannot revoke the idol’s status. And finally, learn from it that a gentile can revoke the status of an idol even against his will.

Rabbi Ḥanina ridiculed this ruling and asked: But why was it necessary to have a gentile actively revoke the idolatrous status of the ring? Doesn’t Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished maintain in accordance with that which we learned in a baraita: In the case of one who saves an object from a lion, or from a bear, or from a cheetah, or from a troop of soldiers, or from a river, or from the tide of the sea, or from the flooding of a river, or similarly one who finds an object in a main thoroughfare or in a large plaza, or for that matter, anywhere frequented by the public, in all these cases, the objects belong to him, because the owners despair of recovering them? Therefore, in the case of a lost ring with an idolatrous figure on it, its idolatrous status is automatically revoked, as its owner despairs of recovering it.

Abaye said: Granted, the owner despairs of recovering the object itself, but does he despair of its forbidden [me’issura] idolatrous status? The owner does not assume that the object will never be worshipped again; rather, he says to himself: If a gentile finds it, he will worship it. If a Jew finds it, since it is valuable, he will sell it to a gentile who will then worship it. Therefore, Rabbi Elazar HaKappar had to have the ring’s idolatrous status revoked.

§ We learned in a mishna there (Rosh HaShana 24a): Rabban Gamliel had diagrams of the different figures of moons drawn on a tablet that hung on the wall of his attic, which he would show to the ordinary people [hahedyotot] who came to testify about sighting the new moon but who were unable to adequately describe what they had seen. And he would say to them: Did you see an image like this, or did you see an image like that?

The Gemara asks: And is it permitted to form these figures? But isn’t it written: “You shall not make with Me gods of silver, or gods of gold” (Exodus 20:20), which is interpreted to mean: You shall not make figures of My attendants who serve before Me, i.e., those celestial bodies that were created to serve God, including the sun and the moon.

In answering, Abaye said: The Torah prohibited only the figures of those attendants that one can possibly reproduce something that is truly in their likeness. Since it is impossible to reproduce the sun and the moon, the prohibition does not apply to these entities.

As it is taught in a baraita: A person may not construct a house in the exact image of the Sanctuary, nor a portico in the exact image of the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary, nor a courtyard corresponding to the Temple courtyard, nor a table corresponding to the Table in the Temple, nor a candelabrum corresponding to the Candelabrum in the Temple. But one may fashion a candelabrum of five or of six or of eight lamps. And one may not fashion a candelabrum of seven lamps even if he constructs it from other kinds of metal rather than gold, as in extenuating circumstances the Candelabrum in the Temple may be fashioned from other metals.

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: One may not fashion a candelabrum of wood either, in the manner that the kings of the Hasmonean monarchy fashioned it. When they first purified the Temple they had to fashion the Candelabrum out of wood as no other material was available. Since a wooden candelabrum is fit for the Temple, it is prohibited to fashion one of this kind for oneself.

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda: Do you seek to cite a proof from there, i.e., from the Hasmonean era, that a candelabrum fashioned of wood is fit for the Temple? During that era the branches of the Candelabrum were fashioned from spits [shappudin] of iron, and they covered them with tin [beva’atz]. Later, when they grew richer and could afford a Candelabrum of higher-quality material, they fashioned the Candelabrum from silver. When they grew even richer, they fashioned the Candelabrum from gold. In any event, Abaye proves from this baraita that the prohibition against forming a figure applies only to items that can be reconstructed in an accurate manner. Since this is not possible in the case of the moon, Rabban Gamliel’s figures were permitted.

The Gemara asks: And is it actually permitted to fashion figures of those attendants of God concerning which it is impossible to reproduce their likeness? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the verse: “You shall not make with Me gods of silver” (Exodus 20:20), is interpreted to mean: You shall not make figures of My attendants who serve before Me on high? Apparently, this includes the sun and the moon.

Abaye said: