Answer #1 (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Nachman - Mishnah): If any animal became disqualified from being a Korban, its offspring are not disqualified;

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): They are forbidden.

Version #1: (They argue about whether the Shinuy of birth permits a fetus in an animal that became disqualified, and similarly, whether Shinuy permits the wheat.)

Rejection (and Answer #2): Rav Nachman taught that they argue in a case that the animal became pregnant after it became disqualified;

If it was pregnant when (it became disqualified because) a man had relations with it (or it gored or was Ne'evad), all agree that the calf is disqualified.

The Shinuy of birth does not permit the calf. Here also, it does not permit the wheat!

Version #2: They argue in a case that the animal became pregnant after it became disqualified;

If it was pregnant when a man had relations with it, all agree that the calf is disqualified.

The Shinuy of birth does not permit the calf. Here also, it does not permit the wheat!

Rejection: That is no proof. Birth of a calf is not a Shinuy. It merely left when the door (of the womb) opened;

Wheat that was turned into flour changed. Perhaps it becomes permitted!

Question (Reish Lakish): If a Nochri bowed to a date tree, may a Lulav of the tree be used for the Mitzvah?

If the tree was initially planted to be worshipped, it is Asur b'Hana'ah. Surely one may not use it for the Mitzvah.

The question is if the tree was planted and later worshipped;

According to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, it is Asur b'Hana'ah. Surely one may not use it for the Mitzvah;

The question is according to Chachamim. Is it repulsive to use it for a Mitzvah?

(Rav Dimi): His question was about an Asherah after Bitul. Does Dichuy apply to Mitzvos? (If something became Pasul for a Mitzvah, after the Pesul goes away, may it be used for the Mitzvah?)

Question: Why didn't he settle the question from a Mishnah?

(Mishnah): If one covered the blood (of a slaughtered bird or Chayah) and it became exposed, he need not cover it again. If the wind (blew earth and) covered it, he must cover it.

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): This is only if it became uncovered. If not, he is exempt.

Question: Even if it becomes uncovered, once the Mitzvah was lost, it should not return!

Answer (Rav Papa): This teaches that Ein Dichuy b'Mitzvos.

Answer: Reish Lakish knew that Ein Dichuy b'Mitzvos;

He was unsure if the Tana was certain about this (and says Ein Dichuy even to be lenient), or if he was in doubt (and is stringent to require Kisuy in case the Halachah is that Ein Dichuy).

His question is not resolved.

Question (Rav Papa): If a Nochri bowed to an animal, may its wool be used for Techeiles?

Question: To which use of Techeiles does he refer?

If it is for the garments of the Kohanim, this is like Rami bar Chama's questions (if Ne'evad applies to things used for the Avodah, and if Shinuy helps)!

If it is for one to put on his Tzitzis, this is Reish Lakish's question (whether Dichuy applies to Mitzvos, and the question about Shinuy)!

Answer: Indeed, (he asked about Bigdei Kehunah;) there was no Chidush to this question. He asked it among other questions (about what may be used for the Mikdash).

Question (Rav Papa): May we use its wool for Techeiles, its horns for trumpets, its thigh bones for flutes (for Leviyim to play in the Mikdash), and its intestines for strings for harps?

According to the opinion that the primary Mitzvah of Shirah of the Leviyim is to play instruments, surely it is forbidden;

The question is like the opinion that the primary Mitzvah of Shirah of the Leviyim is to sing.

Since the instruments merely enhance the voices, it is permitted;

Or, perhaps in any case it is forbidden?

This question is not resolved.

Question (Rabah): If a Nochri bows to a spring, may the water be used for Nesachim?

Question: What does he ask?

If he asks whether he bows to his reflection or to the water, he could have asked 'if a Nochri bows to a flask of water, may one benefit from the water?'!

Answer: He knows that he bows to the water. The question is, does he worship the water in front of him (and it flows away, the water which comes afterwards is permitted)?

Or, does he worship the source, and the entire spring is forbidden?

Question: he cannot forbid the spring!

(R. Yochanan): Public water cannot be forbidden.

Answer: The case is, the spring is contained within his property.

(Mishnah): If ones house had a wall adjacent to a house of idolatry, and it fell, he may not rebuild it;

Rather, he retreats four Amos into his own property, and rebuilds it.

If he jointly owned the wall (and its place) with the idolatry, half of its place counts towards four Amos;

Its stones and earth are Teme'im like a rodent (which is called Sheketz) - "Shaketz Teshaktzenu."

R. Akiva says, they are Teme'im like a Nidah - "Tizrem Kemo Davah";

Just like a Nidah has Tum'as Masa, also idolatry.

(Gemara) Question: By distancing himself, he allows more room for idolatry!

Answer #1 (Rav Chanina of Sura): He uses the area for a bathroom.

Question: One must relieve himself modestly, and not where he can be seen!

Answer #1: He uses it for a bathroom at night.

Objection: It was taught that a modest person is one who relieves himself at night in the same place as he does by day (i.e. far from people)!

We established that to mean in the same way as he does by day. However, in any case he should not be so close to people!

Answer #2: He uses it for a bathroom for children.

Answer #2: He fills the area with thorns.

(Mishnah): There are three laws of houses forbidden due to idolatry:

If a house was built from the beginning to be worshipped, it is forbidden (unless it was a Nochri's and the Nochri was Mevatel it);

If one plastered or illustrated the walls for the sake of idolatry, when this addition is removed, the house is permitted;

If idolatry was brought in and removed, the house is permitted.

(Gemara - Rav): If one bows to a house, he forbids it.

Inference: Rav holds that something that was detached (i.e. the wood and stones) and later attached is considered detached (regarding idolatry).

Question: The Mishnah discusses a house built to be worshipped (not one that was worshipped)!

Answer: It discusses a house that was built to be worshipped and was not worshipped. The same applies to one that was worshipped but not built to be worshipped.

Question: If so, there are four types of forbidden houses!

Answer: The Tana only counts houses with different laws of Bitul.

(Mishnah): There are three laws of rocks forbidden due to idolatry:

If a rock was originally quarried to be a base for idolatry (and the rock itself will be worshipped), it is forbidden;

If one plastered or illustrated it for the sake of idolatry, when this addition is removed, the rock is permitted;

If idolatry was put on it and removed, the rock is permitted.

(Gemara - R. Ami): (Plastering or illustrating the rock forbids it) only if it was chiseled into the rock itself.

Objection: Presumably, this is similar to the previous Mishnah, i.e. plastering or illustrating a house. There it is on the walls, and not in them!

Question: The plaster or design enters between the bricks!

Answer: The Mishnah discusses all cases, even if the house was already smooth (without crevices).

Correction: Rather, R. Ami taught that even if the plaster or design was chiseled into the rock itself, when it is removed, the rock is permitted.

One might have thought that since it was chiseled in, it is as if the rock was originally quarried for idolatry, and the entire rock is forbidden. He teaches that this is not so.