- אבני הר שנדלדלו
The sons of Rebbe Chiya and Rebbe Yochanan discussed אבני הר שנדלדלו – stones which became detached on their own from a mountain and worshipped. One group prohibited these stones in benefit, and the other group permitted them. This second opinion compares these stones to a worshipped mountain, which has no תפיסת ידי אדם – involvement of man’s hands and remains permitted. Although a mountain is attached to the ground, an animal, which also remains permitted when worshipped, proves that even detached items remain permitted if they lack תפיסת ידי אדם. Although an animal is uniquely significant as a בעלת חיים – living being, a צד השוה – common characteristic between mountains and animals teaches that anything without תפיסת ידי אדם remains permitted. The Gemara objects that both these items were לא נשתנו מברייתן – not changed from their original state, as opposed to detached stones!? It ultimately explains that he derives a צד השוה from a blemished animal (which was “changed”) and a mountain, or an unblemished animal and a dried-out (“changed”) tree. The opinion prohibiting detached stones holds that "שקץ תשקצנו" – “you shall surely loath it” teaches not to permit idolatrous items from a צד השוה.
- נעבד במחובר אצל גבוה
Rami bar Chama asked, if someone bows to a mountain (which remains permitted in benefit), אבניו מהו למזבח – can its stones be used for the mizbeiach? Do we say יש נעבד במחובר אצל גבוה – a worshipped item does [disqualify] something attached to the ground as an offering korban for the Most High? Although it is permitted in benefit, does it still become disqualified as an offering (like a worshipped animal is disqualified as a korban, despite remaining permitted in benefit)? If we assume it is disqualified as a korban, מכשירי קרבן כקרבן דמו או לא – are preparatory items for a korban (such as the מזבח) like a korban, and stones of a worshipped mountain could not be used for a מזבח, or not? Rava derives a kal vachomer: an אתנן (hire for a זונה) is permitted in benefit even when detached, yet we can derive that it is disqualified as a korban even when it is attached, because the passuk says not to bring an אתנן to "בית ה'" – Hashem’s house, implying that it cannot even be used for the Mikdash building (attached to the ground). Then certainly נעבד – a worshipped item, which is more stringent (in being prohibited in benefit when detached), should be disqualified even when attached, and even as מכשירי קרבן.
- יש שינוי בנעבד או אין שינוי בנעבד
Rami bar Chama asked: המשתחוה לקמת חטים מהו למנחות – if one bows to standing wheat, can it be used for flour offerings since it was physically changed from its former state when it was ground? יש שינוי בנעבד – Does a physical change permit a worshipped item to be used as a korban, or not? Mar Zutra brei d’Rav Nachman quoted a machlokes Tannaim, regarding korbanos which were disqualified (through being worshipped or having relations with people), if their offspring are permitted as korbanos. Mar Zutra assumed the machlokes was about an animal which was pregnant when worshipped, so the fetus was also worshipped. If so, the Tannaim are arguing if the change undergone by the fetus when it is born permits it to be used as a korban. However, the Gemara asserts that the machlokes is where the animal was worshipped before it conceived, but if a pregnant animal was worshipped, all would disqualify the born fetus as a korban. Likewise, the worshipped wheat would remain disqualified for מנחות even after being ground. Alternatively, the Gemara distinguishes between birth, where it was an animal both before and after but was merely enclosed by the womb, versus wheat, which changed significantly to flour.