Commentary for Avodah Zarah 84:25

When it came to the Asherah tree, we said that if the main idol still exists, then the pieces are not annulled. But earlier we said that if a non-Jew chips some pieces off an idol to improve it, the chipped pieces are permitted, even though the idol still remains.
The answer is that falling leaves cannot be considered a form of annulment because this is natural. Nothing was done to the leaves to annul them. But when the idolater chips pieces off the idol, he is in essence removing their sanctity. Therefore they are permitted.

The question in this baraita seems to be whether one may use the bird’s nest to make a fire (I know, not a nice thing to do, but people needed firewood back then). If the tree has been dedicated to the Temple, then we could assume that the branches may have been dedicated. One should not therefore use them. But if one does, this does not count as “trespass,” illegal use of Temple property because we cannot be sure that the nest came from that tree.
But if the tree was an idol, then one can use the nest. This proves that pieces broken from an idol are permitted and refutes R. Yohanan.

Yohanan says that the baraita refers to a bird that is assumed to have brought the twigs for the nest from another tree, not the tree in which the nest was found. This helps explain the whole baraita better. If the tree has been dedicated to the Temple, then he should not use the nest lest the twigs might have come from the tree. But it does not count as “trespass” because the twigs did not certainly come from that tree. But if the twigs did certainly come from that tree, then using them should certainly count as trespass.

The Talmud rejects the proof that R. Yohanan brought that the twigs must have come from another tree. One could say that the twigs came from the same tree that was dedicated but that the branches grew after the tree had been dedicated. This baraita might hold that while one should not use such twigs, if one does this does not constitute “trespass.” But if the twigs come from that same tree, then they would also come from the asherah tree and this would prove that an idol that broke on its own accord may be used. In the case of the asherah tree, it would not matter when they grew. They should always be prohibited.

Abahu explains the baraita in an entirely different way so that it is not a difficulty on R. Yohanan. When the baraita says, “[If the nest was made] on top of an Asherah, he may knock it off with a stick” it does not mean that he may use the sticks. He may not. He is knocking the next off only to get the birds, not the sticks.

These amoraim now explain when one may or may not make use of the birds or eggs found in a dedicated tree or an asherah tree. If the birds can fly, then they do not need the tree, and therefore, they may be used. But eggs and young birds need the tree and therefore are prohibited.
Note that this concludes our long sugya about idols that broke on their own. There is no resolution to the sugya. No one “wins” the argument. The halakhah ends up following R. Yohanan, but not because he wins. The halakhah follows him because according to a rule imposed on the Talmud that the halakhah basically always follows R. Yohanan when he argues with Resh Lakish except for six cases. This is not one of the six.

If one finds a utensil that has on it a picture of the sun, moon or a dragon he must destroy it, since it was certainly used for idolatrous purposes. According to the first opinion, the best way to totally destroy an idol is to throw it into the Dead Sea. In such a way there is no chance that he, or any other Jew, will ever derive any benefit from it.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel states that not all utensils that have pictures of the sun, moon or dragon are forbidden. Only precious utensils with such pictures on them are forbidden, for they were certainly worshipped. Cheap utensils were, in all likelihood, not worshipped, and are therefore permitted, even though they have on them pictures of the sun, moon or dragon.

The mishnah seems to imply that people worship the sun, the moon and dragons. But the baraita quoted here implies that they worshipped many other objects as well. This is a difficulty.

Abaye explains that there is a difference between worship and creation of images for the sake of worship. Idolaters worship a whole host of natural phenomenon. But, at least according to Abaye, they only decorate and then worship the three mentioned in the mishnah—sun, moon and dragon. Game of Thrones style!

Sheshet here seems to be gathering material related to the Mishnah, although some translate this as gathering “difficulties” on the Mishnah. In any case, the three objects are the same as those in the Mishnah, and this baraita reads the three of them as being exclusive. Only these planets, faces and figures are forbidden. Others are permitted.

If we interpret the baraita to mean that a Jew can make any image but the sun and the moon, then we have a problem for there is a baraita that explicitly prohibits making an image of any heavenly body, not just the sun and moon.
Therefore, the first line must be in accord with our Mishnah, which allows one to keep utensils with all images except the sun, the moon or a dragon.

If the first clause refers to finding images, then the second clause should also refer to finding images. One who finds an image with a face on it may use it unless it is a human face.
But this clashes with the mishnah—the mishnah allows one to use a vessel with a human face on it. Only the image of a dragon is forbidden.
Thus the second clause must refer to making the images, and it accords with an opinion attributed later to R. Huna son of R. Joshua who says that the verse prohibits making human figures.

If the middle clause deals with making them, then the last clause should as well. But this is again a problem. The last clause would prohibit making the image of a dragon, but according to another baraita, making an image of god is prohibited, not the image of a dragon.
Therefore, this section must refer to finding. One can keep utensils unless they have on them with image of the sun, moon or dragon.
Now, in conclusion the first and third clauses of the baraita refer to finding vessels with these images on them, whereas the third clause prohibits making vessels with these images on them. This seems to be a strange structure for a baraita, and therefore this is one long extended difficulty.