8:
The Gemara [AZ 40b] asks a very logical question concerning the difference of opinion between Rabbi Me'ir and the rest of the sages. Rabbi Me'ir says that these statues are worshipped at least once every year; so how can the sages permit them, regardless of whether they are holding some object or not? The great Amora of Eretz-Israel, Rabbi Yoĥanan, explains that Rabbi Me'ir always takes a very strict view in such matters. He says that where Rabbi Me'ir lived the non-Jews used to worship each statue once a year; although he knew that the custom practised in his own town was not generally followed elsewhere, he decided against all statues lest, in the places where they were worshipped annually, they would be used by the Jews because they saw them in use elsewhere. The rest of the sages, on the other hand, do not take a minority into consideration and so did not see any reason to legislate against statues in places where they are not worshipped.

9:
Rather strangely, the Babylonian Amora, Shemu'el, says that the mishnah is only referring to statues of kings. Presumably, what he means to say is that it goes without saying that all idolatrous statues are forbidden to Jews; so our mishnah must be referring to statues of emperors which were reverenced by the people, and not to ordinary idols.

10:
However, Rabbi Yoĥanan, who, being in Eretz-Israel, may be presumed to be better informed about such things, says that when Rabbi Me'ir prohibits all statues he has in mind only statues that are set up at the entrance to a town. They are presumably a kind of protecting deity and are set up in such a conspicuous place to be worshipped.

11:
In the continuation of the discussion in the Gemara [AZ 41a] the Babylonian Amora Rabbah makes an interesting distinction:

12:
Our mishnah mentions three objects which, according to the sages, indicate that a statue serves a pagan religious purpose: if the figure is holding a staff or a bird or a globe. The Gemara [AZ 41a] quotes a barayta which adds to this list three more objects whose presence indicates that a statue serves a pagan religious purpose: if it holds a sword in its hand, has a crown on its head, or a ring on its finger.

13:
The Gemara [AZ41a] tries to explain why these objects must be considered religious for pagans:

With the greatest of deference I would suggest that the reason why these objects were seen as identifying statues of worship was not so much for the reasons offered by the Gemara but rather because these objects were associated with certain pagan deities. I offer here three pictures which illustrate my contention. Firstly we have numerous depictions of the goddess Hera holding a staff in her hand. Hera (on the right) was the goddess of marriage and family life and, as such, she is depicted as a 'matrona' who rules her household. She was the consort of Zeus who had so many extra-marital relationships that they are beyond counting. Poor Hera. The goddess Athene (on the left) was the patron god of the city of Athens. (The Parthenon temple on the Athenian acropolis was dedicated to her.) Her special bird was an owl, as seen in this illustration. She was thus depicted also on Athenian coinage so that the Athenians began to refer to one coin as an 'obol', which is the Greek word for an owl. Zeus was the king of the gods. The object most associated with this god was a thunderbolt. However, the illustration (above) is a realisation of the great statue of Zeus at Olympia. Note the orb that the figure is holding in its left hand. (In its right hand is a thunderbolt - a streak of lightening.)

In AZ 035 the mishnah permitted pickles into which it is not customary to add wine or vinegar. Michael Lewyn writes:

I understand why the Mishnah is concerned about wine [since wine was used in pagan ritual]. But why vinegar?

I respond:

In ancient times vinegar was sour wine, made from grapes. Therefore it was just as much wine as was potable wine.

In AZ 036 the mishnah also stated that locusts straight from the basket are prohibited but those taken down from the shelf are permitted.

Amnon Ronel writes:

Why is there no fear of wine being sprinkled on locusts taken from the storehouse or the shelf while those on the counter are suspect?

I respond:

Actually, the answer was given in the shiur by quoting the Gemara [AZ40b]:

In other words, when the locusts were taken out of storage and put on display - on the counter - the shopkeeper would sprinkle some wine over them to keep them fresh and 'appetising'. It was this non-Jewish wine that disqualified the locusts on display.