Implied Question: There is no reason to worry about the moon seeing the part of the rainbow that is not full. (Why?)

Answer: This is because a rainbow only appears during the day, at which time the moon is like a candle during the day, and those who worship the moon would not say it is shooting arrows at the rainbow.

Question: This is difficult, as Rebbi Yochanan taught earlier (23b) that we see from the Pasuk, "He makes peace in his Heights (i.e Heavens)" that the sun never saw the part of the moon that is not showing. When the moon is in front of the sun and there is a new moon which is not showing on the eastern side, the sun faces it!

Answer: Rebbi Eliyahu bar Shlomo from Gorgosh showed me that with two Heavenly bodies such as the sun and moon, it is possible to see the moon before the sun, and the sun does not see the part of the moon that is not full since the moon is lower than the sun which is high above it. Those who know about the constellations understand this to be a simple thing.

Implied Question: According to the opinion in Shevuos (47b) that when there are two groups of witnesses that contradict each other each can come to Beis Din separately and testify in separate cases, this is understandable as they can combine for testimony regarding money matters. However, according to the opinion that they are considered false witnesses from now on, how can they be valid for any testimony, even for the new moon?

Answer: This is why Rashi is forced to explain that the Gemara means that one of these witnesses can testify together with another person who agrees with his version of the new moon for this month. When the Beraisa says, "for a different testimony" it means he can join with a different witness to make a new testimony.

Proof: This is explained clearly in the Gemara at the end of Shevuos (48a). The Gemara (Rava) says the reason is because it is now the word of one witness against two witnesses, and therefore the word of the single witness is discounted.

Explanation: This is referring to the Heichal and Ulam, and we do not have the text, "that serve before Me on high."

Explanation: An Achsadrah generally has three walls, and the fourth side is totally open.

Proof: This is implied in Bava Basra (25a) where the Gemara says that the world is like an Achsadrah, and the north wind is not enclosed (by a wall).

Implied Question: The Gemara states that one should not make an Achsadrah like the Ulam. (How are the two comparable according to what he have just stated?)

Answer #1: Since it had a large opening it can be called an Achsadrah, even though it was not totally open on the fourth side, as there were small walls of fifteen cubits on each side as explained in the Mishnah in Midos (4:7).

Answer #2: Perhaps it is similar because the Beis ha'Chalifos was there, and a wall fully interrupted it inside.

Implied Question: The Gemara calls the branches of the Menorah "spits." (This seems appropriate for straight pieces of metal, not for the intricate design on the branches of the Menorah! Why are the branches called "spits?")

Answer: This is because the Menorah did not have cups, buttons, and flowers on its branches unless it was made out of gold, as stated in Menachos (28a).

Question: This is difficult. What is the question? Perhaps the case here is regarding a person who finds it, as is the opinion of Rava who establishes this according to Rebbi Yehudah in Avodah Zarah (43a). However, it is permitted to make it!

Answer: Our Gemara is according to Abaye who does not hold of Rava's law. Abaye understands the case is regarding one who makes it.

Observation: Accordingly, it is permitted to make a figure of a person, as we rule like Rava when he argues with Abaye.

Question: However, there is no proof. Without any question Rava can derive, "Lo Sasoon Osi." Indeed, the Beraisa later on states that if a signet ring has an indented seal, it is forbidden to sign with it.

Question: Why does Abaye need to say that it is only forbidden to make the four faces together? Even the face of a person by itself is forbidden!

Answer 1: When there are other faces with a person's face, there is more reason to be lenient (and even so he is saying that all four together is forbidden).

Answer #2: Alternatively, this teaches that if a person finds an image of a person it is forbidden to add the other three faces.

Question: However, this is difficult as the face of a person by itself should be forbidden due to the faces on the Keruvim that were on the Kapores!

Answer: They are not called "those who serve me." The image of the Keruvim in the heavens is unknown.

Explanation: Abaye did not retract any of his three statements on this topic at any time, as they are all correct.

Explanation (cont.): He means to say that regarding those that serve below, one may not make a house in the shape of the Heichal and an Achsadrah in the shape of the Ulam. Regarding those that serve in the lower heavens, one may not make a sun, moon, and stars. Regarding those that serve in the higher heavens, one may not make the image of the four faces.

Observation: According to what the Gemara currently thinks that this is referring to making them, it could have asked that we derive not making those who serve on high from the Pasuk, "Lo Sasoon."

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we normally say it is forbidden according to Rabbinic law to have a Nochri do something that the Torah forbids us to do, as is apparent from the Gemara in Moed Katan (12a). This even applies to telling him to transgress a Rabbinic law. In Bava Metzia (90a), there is a question regarding whether there is a Rabbinic prohibition to tell him to transgress a negative prohibition regarding muzzling a cow and threshing with it. (How was it permitted for Rabban Gamliel to have Nochrim make these images for him?)

Answer: There is no such Rabbinic prohibition in this case due to the Mitzvah involved.

Observation: One must be careful when lending money to Nochrim and signing the document with a wax seal that hangs on the letter. This is because we do not rely on Rava (in this matter) as I explained, as Rava is not arguing. If the Nochri brings the Jew a seal on his own, it is permitted.

Explanation #1: This implies that it is forbidden to keep it, lest people suspect that he made it and transgressed, "Lo Sasoon." Rabban Gamliel's images therefore should also be prohibited! The Gemara answers that regarding a signature that sticks out we suspect that a person will say it is an idol, but there is no suspicion of "Lo Sasoon."

Explanation #2: The Bahag explains that the ring of Rav Yehudah had the image of a Darkon. The Mishnah in Avodah Zarah (42b) says that if a person finds vessels and they have the image of a sun, moon, or Darkon he should throw them into the Dead Sea. The Gemara there explains that this is because these are considered more important to idolaters. This is why people would suspect these images more than others.

Question: This is difficult. Rabban Gamliel's images did not stick out!

Answer: Even so it is possible that people would suspect him, as regarding a moon there is no difference whether it sticks out or not, since it does not appear as sticking out when it is seen in the sky.

Explanation #1: If they say that they saw the old moon in the east and the new moon in the west, they are false witnesses. This is because we hold (20b) that the new moon is covered for twenty four hours before it appears. This is the explanation of Rashi in the name of his teachers.

Question: He asked that the Beraisa states, "sometimes it comes the long way." "Long" and "short" do not seem to be appropriate here, as because it is small the old moon is covered from the people in the west when it is in the east before it becomes a new moon.

Explanation #2: Rashi explains that they testified regarding the new moon. Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri said they are false witnesses because at the twelve hour mark during the day, it does not quickly go from the east to the west. This is why the Beraisa states that sometimes it goes the long way and does not arrive for a long time.

Question: This is a difficult statement. What was Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri thinking? Why can't it go for twelve hours to the south and be partially in the east and partially in the west?

Observation: The Yerushalmi implies that the first explanation above is correct. This is because Rebbi Simlai says that the reason of Rebbi Yochanan Ben Nuri is that when any new moon is seen, it was not possible for the eye to see the old moon six hours (or less) previously. If the old moon is seen in the morning, the new moon will not be seen in the afternoon. If the new moon is seen in the afternoon, the old moon would not have been seen in the morning. Rebbi Chiya bar Abba asks, why did Rabban Gamliel accept them? This is because it was a tradition from his fathers that sometimes the moon takes a long time and sometimes it takes a short time.

Question: This is difficult. Is the tradition that Rabban Gamliel has from his fathers arguing on the Gemara earlier (20b) that states that the moon is covered for twenty four hours before becoming a new moon? The Gemara there says that the reason this is significant, because this fact contradicts witnesses who claim otherwise!

Answer: Perhaps we can differentiate between the different amount of time in each hour. There are times when a hour (Shaos Zemaniyos) is short, such as in Tekufas Teves. There are medium hours in the days of Nisan and Tishrei, and there are long hours in Tekufas Tamuz. During the short or medium hours it is possible that the old moon will be covered for the people of Eretz Yisrael for eighteen hours, and the new moon will be covered for six hours. This means that it will not be covered this long when the days are long (see Tosfos ha'Rosh). Sometimes it will be covered for a small amount of time, for example when it travels the long way, and sometimes it will not be covered when it comes the short way.