פירוש על עבודה זרה 81:12

Like a ball - That the world is round, as stated in the Jerusalem Talmud, that Alexander of Macedon ascended above until he saw all of the world like a ball, and the sea like a basin, meaning the great ocean that entirely encompasses the Earth.

According to Rabbah, R. Meir holds that statues that are in villages are worshipped, whereas the sages hold that they are not. But everyone agrees that statues in larger cities are only for ornamentation and are therefore permitted.

How can the sages hold that statues in villages are there for ornamentation? Villages do not have the money to put up statues just for ornamentation. They are definitely worshipped.

This emended version of the baraita locates the dispute in the case of cities—R. Meir says that the images there are worshipped and the sages hold that they are not. But statues in villages are definitely worshipped.

The staff, bird and orb are symbols of power. If the image holds one of them, it is certainly a royal idol of sorts.

A baraita adds three more items which if the image is found holding or wearing, is considered an idol. The Talmud then goes on to explain two things. First of all, why weren’t these items on the original list, that in the Mishnah. What were the rabbis who didn’t include them thinking? Second, what do they actually symbolize such that the rabbis prohibited idols featuring these objects?

Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel says that the image is considered an idol if it holds anything in its hand, even something small that lacks value. R. Ashi, a late amora, then pushes the question even further. What if it holds something disgusting such as excrement? Could this imply power—that everyone is worthless like filth? Or maybe it symbolizes that others held the image in contempt? Perhaps this was an image of a person vilified by all. R. Ashi’s question is not answered.

One who finds a fragment of an image may make use of that fragment. The mishnah teaches that we may assume that the non-Jew intentionally broke the idol and thereby annulled it from its idolatrous use.
However, if one finds an entire hand of an image or a foot, it is prohibited, since there are non-Jews who use these parts in and of themselves as idols.

Idols are definitely worshipped. Images may or may not have been worshiped. According to Shmuel, even if the fragment is from an idol, meaning from something that was definitely worshipped, the fragment is permitted.
The problem is that the Mishnah says “fragment of an image” not “fragment of an idol”! Shmuel answers that the mishnah used “fragment of an image” only because of the second clause. If the first clause had read “fragment of idol” then we would have assumed that the hand or foot only if it was known to have been worshipped.

Shmuel’s statement, that fragments of idols are permitted, seems to contradict the second clause of the mishnah, which states that a fragment that contains a hand or foot is prohibited. These fragments should always be permitted according to Shmuel.
Shmuel answers by limiting the mishnah to a case where the hand or foot is on a base. If it is on a base, we can see that this is not really a fragment but a full idol. This mishnah always reminds me of the giant foot in the television series Lost. Never really understood what that was, but it made an impression.