The gemara looks for a case where a buela is not a zona where Rav can agree with R' Elazer. and first answers that it can be the case of a woman who had relations with an animal. She is a beula [since she did have relations] but not a zona [since znoos is not applicable to relations with an animal]. The gemara rejects this scenario because if a person is a beula then she is also a zona and if she's not a beula, then she's not a zona, either. Afterwards, the gemara settles on a case of a mima-enes [who had relations shelo kidarka, so she is a beula but since it was during marriage she is not a zona].
Maybe I'm missing something, but why is the mima-enes which is a case of a beula who's not a zona, better than the case of relations with animal who is a beula, but not a zona?
greg lapushin, New York
Abaye does not agree with what the Gemara asserted before, that Z'nus is not applicable to relations with an animal. Instead, Abaye maintains that if relations with an animal is considered Bi'ah, it is also considered Z'nus. Mema'enes is different because it is within the framework of marriage. Therefore, even though Mema'enes had relations she'Lo k'Darkah, this is not considered Z'nus, since anything within marriage is not considered Z'nus. However, Mema'enes is considered Be'ulah since she'Lo k'Darkah is considered as Bi'ah.
In short, Mema'enes is better because it is within marriage, and -- according to Abaye -- relations with an animal is considered Z'nus.
Kesivah v'Chasimah Tovah,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you, Rabbi Bloom for your previous reply. I see the chiluk between "a beula not a zona" outside the context of marriage vs "a beula not a zona" within the context of marriage and the latter being a better case.
Still, when Abaye said there is no beula who's not a zona, he seemed to be making an absolute statement. If so, even if the mima-enes case is a beula who's not a zona in the context of marriage, ultimately this would not seem to satisfy Abaye's statement which says there is no such thing as a beula who's not a zona...?
Also, how do we see that Abaye holds that relations with an animal is znoos? Is that the implication of Abaye's statement? Or is this position stated explicitly somewhere else in the gemara, since on this daf where the source for relations with an animal not being znoos is quoted, the gemara doesn't bring any tana who argues that indeed that relations with an animal IS znoos?
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
Gregory Lapushin, new york
1) It seems to me that Abaye is chiefly coming to challenge Rav Yosef, who said that if she had Bi'ah with an animal she is a Be'ulah but not a Zonah (therefore, she would be forbidden to a Kohen Gadol but permitted to any other Kohen). Abaye disagrees and argues that there is no such middle status. He says that it is all or nothing. If she is a Be'ulah, she is also a Zonah, but if she is not a Be'ulah, she is not a Zonah either.
2) Rebbi Zeira, who mentioned the case of Mema'enes, disagrees with Abaye. Rebbi Zeira maintains that it is possible to have something in the middle because Mema'enes is a Be'ulah but not a Zonah.
3) Abaye did not actually decide for certain that relations with an animal is Z'nus, but he entertained this possibility. This is what he countered to Rav Yosef: If we say that a Be'ulah to an animal is considered a Be'ulah, then she must also be a Zonah. According to this, there is Z'nus with an animal. However, Abaye did say that there is another possibility -- namely, that Be'ulah with an animal is neither a Be'ulah nor a Zonah. According to this side, Abaye would hold that there is not Z'nus with an animal.
(When I wrote in my first reply that, according to Abaye, relations with an animal is considered Z'nus, this was meant only according to one side of Abaye's argument against Rav Yosef. My apologies for the lack of clarity.)
4) Greg, you are right that there is no Tana who argues that relations with an animal is Z'nus. In fact, the Gemara later cites a Beraisa which teaches that a Be'ulah to an animal is permitted to a Kohen, which means it was not Z'nus, and this was also the practical case study involving Rebbi. So it turns out that the only opinion that held that there is Z'nus with an animal is the side of Abaye's argument that if Bi'ah with an animal makes her a Be'ulah, one must say that it also makes her a Zonah.
Greg, thank you very much for helping to make this Sugya a lot clearer.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom