Pt1 Forbidden Images and Idolatrous Objects: Representation, Worship, and Annulment (Avodah Zarah 42b-44a)

This is the first part of a four-part series. The outline of the series is below.¹

Part 1

This sugya examines several related but distinct problems concerning images and idolatrous objects: which representations are presumed to have been made for worship; which images Jews may themselves produce or possess; how context, form, and social use affect an image’s status; how an idolatrous object may lose that status; and how such an object must be destroyed when its prohibition remains in force. The discussion begins with a relatively narrow Mishnah concerning vessels decorated with particular images, but develops into a broader taxonomy of representation, worship, manufacture, possession, annulment, and destruction.

The Mishnah states that one who finds vessels bearing images of the sun, moon, or dragon must dispose of them in the Dead Sea, since these images are presumed to have an idolatrous function. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel qualifies the rule according to the setting of the image: an image displayed on a respectable object is forbidden, while one placed on a degrading object is permitted. The underlying issue is evidentiary: An image does not become prohibited merely because the represented entity could theoretically be worshipped; rather, the law must determine when the form and context of an image justify treating it as an object made for worship.

Abaye makes this distinction explicit: Human beings may worship virtually anything, including seas, rivers, wildernesses, celestial bodies, angels, and even a worm; but this does not mean that every depiction of such things is presumptively idolatrous. In Abaye’s formulation, the sun, moon, and dragon are sufficiently important that people deliberately fashion their images for worship; most other figures are generally made for ornament. The Mishnah’s list therefore concerns the presumed function of a found image rather than the possible objects of idolatrous worship.

The sugya then attempts to define the relevant categories more precisely. Rav Sheshet consolidates several baraitot into three groups: among celestial objects, all are permitted except the sun and moon; among faces, all are permitted except the human face; and among other forms, all are permitted except the dragon. R’ Yehuda adds two further cultic figures: a nursing woman and Serapis (“Sar Apis”). The nursing woman represents the biblical first woman Eve as the mother who metaphorically “nurses” the entire world,² while Sar Apis is interpreted as the biblical Joseph, who ruled over and sustained the world during famine. These images are identified through characteristic attributes rather than through their general form alone.

Part 2

Likewise, the prohibited dragon is not any vaguely serpentine creature: R’ Shimon ben Elazar identifies it by scales between its joints, and R’ Asi locates these specifically between the joints of its neck. The law thus requires recognizable iconographic markers.

The practical consequences appear in the story of R’ Elazar HaKappar, who finds a ring bearing a dragon. He first encounters a non-Jewish minor (=under age 13) and says nothing to him. When he later encounters an adult non-Jew, he orders him to annul the ring’s idolatrous status. When the man refuses, R’ Elazar HaKappar strikes him until he does so. The Talmud extracts three rules from the incident: a non-Jew may annul both his own idol and that of another non-Jew; annulment requires someone sufficiently knowledgeable about idolatry and its accessories; and the annulment remains effective even when obtained through coercion.

The episode also clarifies the difference between abandonment of property and annulment of idolatrous status. R’ Hanina objects that the original owner of a lost ring has presumably despaired of recovering it, just as an owner despairs of property lost in circumstances from which recovery is highly unlikely. Abaye responds that despair regarding ownership does not entail despair regarding the object’s religious status. The owner may assume that a non-Jewish finder will worship it, or that a Jewish finder, recognizing its value, will sell it to a non-Jew who will worship it. An idol can therefore cease to belong to its owner without ceasing to function conceptually as an idol. Ordinary property law and the law of idolatrous objects operate through different criteria.

From found idolatrous images, the sugya turns to a second question: the independent prohibition against making certain representations. The transition is prompted by Rabban Gamliel’s famous diagrams of the moon, which he used when examining witnesses who testified to seeing the new moon. If images of heavenly bodies are prohibited, how could Rabban Gamliel possess such diagrams?

Much of the ensuing discussion interprets Exodus 20:20, “You shall not make with Me” (לא תעשון אתי), as a prohibition against reproducing particular forms associated with God and the heavenly court. Several attempts are made to delimit the prohibition. Abaye first suggests that it applies only to divine attendants whose actual forms can be reproduced. A baraita accordingly prohibits making exact replicas of the Temple Sanctuary, Entrance Hall, courtyard, Table, and seven-branched Menorah. A Menorah with five, six, or eight branches is permitted, while a seven-branched one is prohibited even when made from metals other than gold. R’ Yosei bar Yehuda extends this to wood on the basis of the Hasmonean Menorah; the Rabbis reject his historical premise and maintain that the early Hasmonean Menorah consisted of iron spits plated with tin, later replaced by silver and eventually gold.

Abaye’s proposed distinction does not survive the Talmud’s successive objections. Other traditions explicitly prohibit images of heavenly attendants whose actual forms cannot be reproduced. The discussion moves through the four-faced creatures of Ezekiel’s divine chariot, the human face, ofanim, seraphim, sacred hayyot, ministering angels, and finally the sun, moon, stars, and constellations (=zodiac). One derivation reads “with Me” almost as “Me”: because the human being is understood as created in God’s image, fashioning the human form constitutes a representation of God. Other baraitot treat celestial beings as God’s attendants and independently prohibit their representation.

Part 3

The sugya carefully distinguishes this prohibition of manufacture from the prohibition of worship. Exodus 20:4, forbidding a graven image of anything “in heaven above,” “in the earth beneath,” or “in the water under the earth,” is interpreted broadly enough to include the sun, moon, stars, constellations, angels, seas, rivers, mountains, hills, and even a tiny worm. But this expansive list concerns what may not be worshipped. It does not by itself establish that every such entity may not be depicted. The Talmud repeatedly asks which textual tradition regulates worship and which regulates mere production of an image.

Rabban Gamliel’s moon diagrams are ultimately defended on several grounds. One answer is that others made them for him: the prohibition rests on making the image, not necessarily on possessing one made by someone else. Yet the case of Rav Yehuda complicates this distinction: Shmuel ordered Rav Yehuda to disfigure the human figure on his seal even though others had made it. The Talmud explains that Rav Yehuda’s problem was suspicion: a protruding human figure worn on a ring could make the owner appear to possess an idolatrous image.

This generates another set of formal distinctions. A ring bearing a protruding image may not be worn, although it may be used to stamp, because the resulting impression is recessed. A ring with a recessed seal may be worn, but it may not be used for stamping, since its impression would be protruding. Here the legal status depends on three separate variables: who produced the image, whether the resulting representation is protruding or recessed, and whether possession creates a reasonable appearance of idolatrous use.

Suspicion itself depends on social context. Shmuel’s father and Levi prayed in a synagogue in Neharde’a containing a royal statue without concern for suspicion, because a public institution is treated differently from an individual. Rabban Gamliel is similarly protected from this concern because, as Nasi, he was regularly surrounded by others. The Talmud also proposes that his lunar diagrams were assembled from separate pieces rather than maintained as complete images. Finally, it invokes the exception for study: the biblical prohibition against learning the practices of the surrounding nations is understood to permit studying them “to understand and to teach.” Rabban Gamliel’s images served a judicial and instructional purpose in evaluating testimony concerning the new moon.

The sugya then returns to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s distinction between respectable and degrading settings. Rav understands the distinction spatially within a vessel: an image above the level of its contents is treated respectfully, while one below the water or food is degraded. Shmuel takes a broader view and regards images on ordinary utensils as degraded altogether. For him, respectable placement means jewelry such as bracelets, nose rings, and finger rings. A baraita supports Shmuel and contrasts such jewelry with images on pots, kettles, water heaters, sheets, and towels. Placement supplies evidence of an image’s social meaning: an honored image is more plausibly cultic, while one placed where it is routinely dirtied, covered, or used instrumentally is less likely to be an object of worship.

The second major unit of the sugya begins with R’ Yosei’s rule concerning the destruction of an actual idol. He permits grinding it up and scattering the dust to the wind or throwing it into the sea. The Rabbis object that pulverization does not necessarily eliminate benefit: idol-dust scattered over the ground can function as fertilizer. Their objection is based on the biblical requirement that nothing from prohibited idolatrous property remain available for benefit.

R’ Yosei responds through a series of biblical precedents. He first cites Moses’ destruction of the Golden Calf, which was burned, ground into fine dust, and cast into water. The Rabbis answer that this procedure had a special purpose: Moses made Israel drink the mixture in order to test the guilty in a manner compared to the ritual of the suspected adulteress (sota). The episode therefore cannot establish a general procedure for disposing of idols.

R’ Yosei next cites Asa‘s destruction of the idolatrous object made by his mother Maacah, which he pulverized and burned at the Kidron. The Rabbis reply that the relevant portion of the Kidron did not support vegetation, so there was no possibility that the remains would provide agricultural benefit. The Talmud notes that other sources describe material from the Temple drainage system flowing into the Kidron and being sold to gardeners as fertilizer. It reconciles the evidence geographically: some areas of the Kidron support vegetation and others do not.

The discussion of Maacah also produces a brief exegetical digression on the biblical description of her object as a miflatztah. Rav Yehuda understands the term as indicating an object associated with sexual obscenity. Rav Yosef explains that Maacah fashioned a phallic image and engaged in sexual activity with it daily.³ The interpretation situates the object simultaneously within idolatry and sexual practice.

Part 4

R’ Yosei’s third proof comes from Hezekiah’s destruction of the bronze serpent made by Moses. The Rabbis reject this precedent on a property-law ground. Since the serpent was Moses’ property, later worshippers could not render it forbidden: a person cannot prohibit through worship an object belonging to someone else. Hezekiah destroyed the serpent because Israel had begun worshipping it, not because the object had acquired the standard halakhic status of forbidden idolatrous property. Its destruction therefore cannot establish how such property must normally be disposed of.

His fourth proof concerns the Philistine idols captured by David. One biblical account states that David and his men “carried them away,” which R’ Yosei interprets, through comparison with Isaiah, as scattering them to the wind. The parallel account in Chronicles, however, states that the idols were burned. The Rabbis therefore reject the proposed proof, and the Talmud must reconcile the two biblical accounts.

Rav Huna resolves the contradiction through the law of annulment developed earlier in the sugya. Before Ittai the Gittite arrived, the captured idols retained their status and had to be burned. After Ittai arrived, he could annul their idolatrous status, after which David and his men could simply take them. The earlier abstract rules concerning annulment are thus used to reconstruct a biblical sequence of events.

Ittai’s role is extended to another biblical problem: David’s use of the crown of Malcam (=Milcom). Since a crown belonging to an idol should be prohibited for benefit, Rav Nahman explains that Ittai annulled its idolatrous status. This point launches the sugya’s final sequence, which gradually leaves the laws of idolatry and turns to the crown itself.

The biblical statement that the crown weighed a talent (ככר) of gold raises the problem of how David could physically wear it. Rav explains that the verse means that the crown was suited to David’s head. R’ Yosei bar R’ Hanina proposes that a lodestone supported its weight. R’ Elazar instead understands the “talent” as the value of a precious stone set into the crown. From there, the crown becomes a symbol of legitimate Davidic kingship. Psalms’ reference to “this” as a testimony is interpreted as referring to the crown, which fit David at the place of the head-tefillin. The Talmud explains that there is sufficient space in the relevant area of the head for two sets of tefillin, allowing crown and tefillin to coexist.

The same crown is then connected with the coronation of Joash, where Scripture refers to “the crown and the testimony.” Rav interprets the crown as a miraculous test for the Davidic dynasty: it fit those genuinely qualified for kingship and failed to fit those who were not. Adonijah’s attempt to “exalt himself” is accordingly read as an attempt to make the royal crown fit his head, which failed. The sugya closes with a further elaboration of Adonijah’s royal pretensions: his fifty runners were exceptionally fast because their spleens had been removed and the soles of their feet hollowed out.

Across these discussions, the sugya develops several overlapping legal classifications. It distinguishes an object that is actually worshipped from a representation merely associated with something that can be worshipped; making an image from possessing one; possession from public suspicion; complete from partial representations; protruding from recessed forms; honored from degrading contexts; loss of ownership from annulment of idolatrous status; and destruction of an idol from legally effective annulment. The relevant facts include iconography, physical form, ownership, intended use, social setting, manufacture, and subsequent treatment.

The sugya also repeatedly moves between material objects and their changing legal meanings. A dragon ring may be valuable property, a suspected idol, an abandoned object, or an annulled former idol. A lunar diagram may resemble a prohibited celestial image yet function as a judicial instrument. A human figure may be unobjectionable in one public setting but generate suspicion when worn privately. Pulverized remains may cease to resemble an idol while remaining prohibited because they can fertilize crops. A captured pagan crown can move from idolatrous property to permitted royal regalia through annulment. The sugya’s central concern is therefore the legal classification of representations and objects whose physical form remains relatively stable while their status changes according to how they were made, displayed, worshipped, abandoned, annulled, destroyed, or used.

Outline

Intro

The Passage

Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:3)

1. One who finds vessels bearing images of the sun, moon, or dragon must destroy them by casting them into the Dead Sea

2. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel - Such images are forbidden when placed on respectable objects, but permitted when placed on degrading objects

Talmud

1. Abaye - People may worship virtually anything, but only important figures such as the sun, moon, and dragon are deliberately fashioned for worship; other images are generally ornamental

2. Rav Sheshet, consolidating baraitot - Among constellations, all images are permitted except the sun and moon; among faces, all except the human face; among other forms, all except the dragon

3. R’ Yehuda - Adds images of a nursing woman and Sar Apis to the forbidden images: the former represents Eve nursing the world, the latter Joseph sustaining the world They are forbidden when depicted with their characteristic attributes

Part 2

1. R’ Shimon ben Elazar - A dragon image is identified by scales between its joints

2. R’ Asi - Specifies that the dragon’s distinctive scales are between the joints of its neck

3. R’ Hama bar R’ Hanina - The halakha follows R’ Shimon ben Elazar’s definition of a dragon

4. Rabba bar bar Hana citing R’ Yehoshua ben Levi - R’ Elazar HaKappar found a ring bearing a dragon; he had an adult non-Jew revoke its idolatrous status, even coercing him to do so

5. From R’ Elazar HaKappar’s anecdote we can derive the following halachot: a non-Jew may annul his own or another non-Jew’s idol; only one knowledgeable about idolatry can annul it; annulment may be coerced

6. R’ Hanina - Challenges the need to annul the lost dragon ring: its owner should already have despaired of it

7. Abaye - Despair of recovering an idol does not equal annulment of its idolatrous status, since the non-Jewish owner expects that whoever finds it will ultimately cause it to be worshipped again by a non-Jew

8. Mishnah (in tractate Rosh Hashana) - Rabban Gamliel kept diagrams of phases/forms of the moon to question witnesses about their sighting of the new moon

9. Abaye - distinguishes between heavenly attendants whose actual likeness can and cannot be reproduced - Exodus 20:20

10. Baraita - One may not construct replicas of the Temple building, Entrance Hall, courtyard, Table, or seven-branched Menorah Menorahs with other numbers of branches are permitted

11. R’ Yosei bar Yehuda - Even a wooden seven-branched Menorah is forbidden, since the Hasmoneans used one

12. Rabbis - Reject R’ Yosei bar Yehuda’s historical proof: the Hasmoneans initially used iron spits coated with tin, later replacing them with silver and then gold

13. Abaye - The Torah only prohibits fashioning the combined four-faced form of the creatures of the Divine Chariot - Ezekiel 1:10

14. Rav Yehuda b. Yehoshua, citing R’ Yehoshua - The prohibition of a human image derives from reading “with Me (=God)” as “Me”: one may not make God’s image, ie the human form - Exodus 20:20; Genesis 1:27

15. Baraita - One may not fashion images of God’s upper celestial attendants, such as ofanim, seraphim, sacred hayyot, and ministering angels - Exodus 20:20

16. Abaye - The fashioning prohibition applies specifically to attendants in the upper heavenly realm

Part 3

1. Baraita - “In heaven” includes the sun, moon, stars, and constellations; “above” includes ministering angels - Exodus 20:4

2. The preceding exposition concerns worshipping these beings, not merely depicting them

3. Baraita - The prohibition of worship extends also to earthly phenomena: seas, rivers, mountains, hills, and even a tiny worm - Exodus 20:4

4. Baraita - Explicitly prohibits fashioning images of the sun, moon, stars, and constellations as God’s heavenly attendants - Exodus 20:20

5. Rabban Gamliel’s moon diagrams were permissible because others fashioned them for him

6. Shmuel to Rav Yehuda - Orders Rav Yehuda to disfigure the human image on his seal

7. Baraita - A ring with a protruding image may not be worn, but may be used as a seal; one with a recessed image may be worn, but may not be used to stamp a protruding image

8. Proof from the fact that Shmuel’s father and Levi would pray in a synagogue in Neharde’a containing a royal statue

9. Baraita - Respectable images are those on jewelry; degrading ones include those on pots, kettles, water heaters, sheets, and towels

Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:3)

1. R’ Yosei - An idol should be ground up and its dust scattered to the wind or cast into the sea

2. Rabbis - Object that even scattered idol-dust can become fertilizer, thereby providing forbidden benefit - Deuteronomy 13:18

Talmud

1. R’ Yosei - biblical prooftext #1: Moses’ destruction of the Golden Calf proves that an idol may be ground to dust and dispersed - Deuteronomy 9:21

2. Rabbis - Reject the Golden Calf proof: Moses mixed its dust into water specifically to test Israel like suspected adulteresses - Exodus 32:20

3. R’ Yosei - biblical prooftext #2: Asa’s destruction of Maacah’s idolatrous image at the Kidron provides another precedent for pulverizing an idol - I Kings 15:13

4. Rabbis - Reject the proof because that part of the Kidron did not support vegetation, so no benefit as fertilizer resulted - I Kings 15:13

5. Different portions of the Kidron differ: some grow vegetation, and some do not

6. Rav Yehuda - “Miflatztah” in the verse denotes an object that intensifies sexual obscenity - I Kings 15:13

7. Rav Yosef - Maacah’s idol had a phallic form with which she engaged sexually each day

Part 4

1. R’ Yosei - biblical prooftext #3: Hezekiah’s breaking of the bronze serpent provides another precedent for destroying an idol by crushing it - II Kings 18:4

2. Rabbis - Reject the proof: the bronze serpent belonged to Moses, and another person’s worship cannot render someone else’s property prohibited; Hezekiah destroyed it only to stop Israel from worshipping it - Numbers 21:8

3. R’ Yosei - biblical prooftext #4: David’s treatment of the Philistine idols implies that he scattered them to the wind - II Samuel 5:21

4. Rav Yosef - Supports the interpretation of va-yissa’em as “dispersal” by comparison with Isaiah’s language of winnowing and wind carrying material away - Isaiah 41:16

5. Rabbis - Reject R’ Yosei’s interpretation because the parallel account says David burned the idols; vayyissa’em therefore means literally that he carried them away - I Chronicles 14:12

6. Rav Huna - Reconciles the accounts of David’s treatment of the idols: before Ittai the Gittite arrived they had to be burned; afterward Ittai could annul their idolatrous status and they could simply be taken - II Samuel 5:21; I Chronicles 14:12

7. Rav Nahman - Ittai the Gittite annulled the idolatrous status of the crown of Malcam, allowing David to benefit from it - II Samuel 12:30

8. Rav Yehuda citing Rav - The statement that Malcam’s crown weighed a talent means that it was fitting to rest on David’s head, not necessarily that David bore that full weight - II Samuel 12:30

9. R’ Yosei bar R’ Hanina - A lodestone suspended the heavy crown so that it appeared to rest on David’s head

10. R’ Elazar - The crown contained a precious stone worth a talent of gold, rather than itself weighing a talent - II Samuel 12:30

11. “This I have had because I kept Your precepts” refers to the crown serving as testimony to David’s fitness for kingship - Psalms 119:56

12. R’ Yehoshua ben Levi - The crown’s testimony was that it fit David exactly at the place of tefillin - Psalms 119:56

13. R’ Shmuel b. Yitzhak - There is enough room on the head for two sets of tefillin, allowing David’s crown and tefillin to occupy the relevant area

14. Rav Yehuda citing Rav - The royal crown was a miraculous “testimony” for the Davidic dynasty: it fit anyone genuinely suited for kingship and failed to fit anyone unfit - II Chronicles 23:11

15. Rav Yehuda citing Rav - Adonijah’s “exalting himself” means that he tried to make the royal crown fit him, but it did not - I Kings 1:5

16. Baraita - Adonijah’s 50 runners were exceptional because their spleens had been removed and the soles of their feet hollowed out (to make them faster) - I Kings 1:5

Appendix - Notes on of the Comparative Late Antique Greco-Roman background of our sugya

The Passage

Avodah_Zarah/42b#11 thru 44a#19

Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:3)

Mishnah Avodah Zarah 3:3

One who finds vessels bearing images of the sun, moon, or dragon must destroy them by casting them into the Dead Sea

המוצא כלים

ועליהם

1. צורת חמה,

2. צורת לבנה,

3. צורת דרקון —

יוליכם לים המלח.

In the case of one who finds vessels,

and upon them is

1. a figure of the sun,

2. a figure of the moon,

3. or a figure of a dragon⁴ —

he must take them and cast them into the Dead Sea⁵

and not derive any benefit from them, as they are assumed to be objects of idol worship.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel - Such images are forbidden when placed on respectable objects, but permitted when placed on degrading objects

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר:

• שעל המכובדין —

  • אסורין,

• שעל המבוזין —

  • מותרין.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

• Those figures that are upon respectable vessels

  • are forbidden.

• Those that are upon disgraceful (מבוזין) vessels

  • are permitted.

Talmud

Question from another Mishnah (in tractate Ḥullin)

למימרא דלהני הוא דפלחי להו,

למידי אחרינא לא?

ורמינהי:

השוחט

1. לשום ימים,

2. לשום נהרות,

3. לשום מדבר,

4. לשום חמה,

5. לשום לבנה,

6. לשום כוכבים ומזלות,

7. לשום מיכאל שר הגדול,

8. לשום שילשול קטן —

הרי אלו זבחי מתים

The Talmud asks with regard to the specific figures listed in the Mishnah:

Is this to say that people worship only these figures,

but not any other item?

And the Talmud raises a contradiction between this list and that which is taught in another Mishnah (Ḥullin 39b):

With regard to one who slaughters an animal

1. for the sake of,⁶ i.e., to worship, seas,

2. for the sake of rivers,

3. for the sake of the wilderness,

4. for the sake of the sun,

5. for the sake of the moon,

6. for the sake of the stars and constellations,

7. for the sake of Michael the great ministering angel,

8. or even for the sake of a small worm⁷ —

in all of these cases, the animal is forbidden, as these animals have the status of offerings to the dead,⁸ i.e., idols.

Abaye - People may worship virtually anything, but only important figures such as the sun, moon, and dragon are deliberately fashioned for worship; other images are generally ornamental

אמר אביי:

1. מיפלח --

   1. לכל דמשכחי פלחי,

2. מיצר ומפלחי —

   1. הני תלתא דחשיבי ציירי להו ופלחי להו,

3. למידי אחרינא —

   1. לנוי בעלמא עבדי להו.

Abaye said in response to the contradiction:

1. With regard to worship --

   1. people might worship any item that they find.

2. With regard to fashioning figures and then worshipping them --

   1. only with regard to these 3 items listed in the Mishnah, which are important, do people fashion figures of them and worship them.

3. With regard to figures of any other entity --

   1. people make them merely for ornamental (נוי) purposes.

Rav Sheshet, consolidating baraitot - Among constellations, all images are permitted except the sun and moon; among faces, all except the human face; among other forms, all except the dragon

מנקיט רב ששת חומרי מתנייתא ותני:

1. כל המזלות מותרין —

   1. חוץ ממזל חמה ולבנה,

2. וכל הפרצופין מותרין —

   1. חוץ מפרצוף אדם,

3. וכל הצורות מותרות —

   1. חוץ מצורת דרקון.

[...]

Rav Sheshet would consolidate the principles of the baraitot pertaining to this matter and teach:

1. Figures of all constellations are permitted,

   1. except for the following celestial objects: The sun and the moon.

2. And figures of all faces⁹ are permitted,

   1. except for the human face.

3. And all figures of other items are permitted

   1. except for the figure of a dragon.

[...]

R’ Yehuda - Adds images of a nursing woman and Sar Apis to the forbidden images: the former represents Eve nursing the world, the latter Joseph sustaining the world They are forbidden when depicted with their characteristic attributes

תניא:

רבי יהודה מוסיף אף דמות

1. מניקה

2. וסר אפיס.

1. מניקה —

   1. על שם חוה

   2. שמניקה כל העולם כולו,

2. סר אפיס —

   1. על שם יוסף

   2. שסר ומפיס את כל העולם כולו.

[...]

it is taught in a baraita that

R’ Yehuda adds to the list of forbidden figures even a figure of (דמות)

1. a nursing woman

2. and Sar Apis.

1. The figure of a nursing woman is worshipped

   1. as it symbolizes Eve,

   2. who metaphorically nurses the entire world.

2. The figure of Sar Apis is worshipped

   1. as it symbolizes Joseph,

   2. who rules over [sar] and appeases [mefis] the entire world as he distributed food during the 7 years of famine (see Genesis, chapter 41).

[...]

1. This sugya riffs off the Mishnah in tractate Avodah Zarah 3:3. For the next Mishnah, see my “Proclus and Rabban Gamliel: A Philosophical Exchange on Idolatry and Civic Spaces Outside of Aphrodite’s Bathhouse (Mishnah Avodah Zarah 3:4)“.

2. Compare Wikipedia, “Kourotrophos“:

Kourotrophos (Greek: κουροτρόφος ‘child nurturer’) is the name that was given in ancient Greece to gods and goddesses whose properties included their ability to protect young people.

Numerous gods are referred to by the epithet […]

They were usually depicted holding an infant in their arms […]

Most kourotrophoi from this era stand 20 to 30 cm tall and were fashioned in a variety of materials, such as limestone and terracotta. They hold infants, who are typically within cradleboards, to their left shoulder. There have been at least two Cypriot figures from this period that show the figure nursing an infant, and two figures that are depicted sitting with the infant on their laps.

And compare also the famous Venus of Willendorf, and Wikipedia’s “List of fertility deities“ (“A fertility deity is a god or goddess associated with fertility, sex, pregnancy, childbirth, and crops.“).

3. Compare the modern-day dildo.

4. דרקון - from Greek.

5. ים המלח.

Throwing into the Dead Sea is the stereotypical way of destroying an idol in the Talmudic literature.

The basic biblical command underlying the obligation to destroy idols is Deut. 12:2–3:

אבד תאבדון את כל המקמות

אשר עבדו שם הגוים

אשר אתם ירשים אתם

את אלהיהם

1. על ההרים הרמים

2. ועל הגבעות

3. ותחת כל עץ רענן

You shall utterly destroy all the places,

in which the nations whom you are to dispossess,

served their gods,

1. upon the high mountains,

2. and upon the hills,

3. and under every leafy tree:

ונתצתם את מזבחתם

ושברתם את מצבתם

ואשריהם תשרפון באש

ופסילי אלהיהם תגדעון

ואבדתם את שמם מן המקום ההוא

and you shall overthrow their altars,

and break their pillars (מצבתם - matzevah),

and burn their asherim with fire;

and you shall hew down the carvings (פסילי) of their gods,

and destroy the name of them out of that place.

And compare related commands in Exodus 23:24, 34:13, and Deut. 7:5, 25–26.

6. לשום.

On this word, see Jastrow (modernized), entry “שׁוּם II”, sense #3:

3) (Aramaism) name, title; לְשׁוּם in the name of, for the sake of, for the purpose of, in the capacity of.

• Mishnah Gittin 4:4 עבד … אם לש׳ עבד וכ׳ if a slave was taken captive, and some one redeemed him: if he redeemed him as a slave, he may be held as a slave (of his redeemer), if as a freed man etc.

• Mishnah Gittin 3:1 כל גט שנכתב שלא לש׳ אשה a letter of divorce not written with the intention to be used for a special woman.

• Mishnah Gittin 8:5 כתב לש׳ מלכות אחרת if a letter of divorce is dated in the name of a strange government; (Bavli ed. 79b שאינה הוגנת, see הוּגָּן).

• Yevamot 24b:3 איש שנתגייר לש׳ אשה a man that embraced the Jewish religion for the sake of a woman;

• לש׳ שולחן מלכים for the sake of the royal table (see שׁוּלְחָן);

• לש׳ עבדי שלמה for the sake of being one of Solomon’s servants;

• and very frequently.

• [Ibid. 47b לשֵׁם שפחות in her capacity as a slave;

• לשם שחרור with the purpose of making her a freed woman;

• and frequently.]

7. שילשול.

On this word, see Jastrow (modernized), entry “שִׁלְשׁוּל ³”:

(שול, compare שַׁבְּלוּל; see שַׁלְשֵׁל III) [slimy substance,]

1) slimy abdominal secretion.

• Bereishit Rabbah 51, beginning: כש׳ הזה שהוא נמחה בצואה like the secretion which is dissolved in the excrements, see כִּילּוּיָא.

2) snail, worm.

• Rosh Hashanah 24b:7 - מתחת לרבות שלשול קטן - “ ‘beneath’ (Exodus 20:4) this includes the smallest earth-worms”

• Tosefta Chullin 2:18; Chullin 40a:2 השוחט … לשום ש׳ וכ׳ if one kills an animal in the name of mountains … or even of a small worm, such are ‘sacrifices of the dead.’

• Chullin 67b:14 כל לרבות הש׳ והרומה לש׳ ‘whatsoever’ goes up on the belly (Leviticus 11:42), this includes the snail and whatever is like it (worms);

• Sifra Sh’mini, Parah 10, chapter 12 - השִׁלְשׁוּלִים (plural:).

• Bereishit Rabbah 8:13; Vayikra Rabbah 14:9 ש׳ קדמך the worm has been created before thee (man);

• and elsewhere.

Plural: שִׁלְשׁוּלִים, שִׁי׳, see above.

8. זבחי מתים - a standard Talmudic dysphemism for pagan sacrifices.

9. פרצופין - from Greek.