The pasuk in Devarim mentions the case of Esnan Zona and Mechir Kelev as times when you cant use the currency ( animal, wine , money etcc.)from the transaction for a korban or presumably any other holy purpose. the word shneihem implies that this restriction does not apply to the cases of esnan kelev and mechir zona as the gemara explains.
In the artscroll chumash, the commentary on the pasuk of esnan zona and mechir kelev quotes the Ramban as basically saying that the reason you cant use the money, animal etc.. recived from the transaction is so taht we should never rationalize that we will do a bad action but make up for it by turning it into a positive- ie.- using the money for a korban. Probably similar the the concept of mitzva haba baveira.
according to the rationale set forth by the Ramban( at least the way it seems to be written)how does the Ramban reconcile the fact that you can use the money, animal etc.. recived in the case of esnan kelev for a korban? Even if you say that bestiality is not zenus it is still a horrible and disgusting action that will cause aperson to be chayav misa if they do it. That case would seem like a perfect example of what the Ramban is talking about and yet it seems as though the money, animal etc.. received in the case of esnan kelev can be used for a korban?
(a) Even according to the Ramban, it is with Esnan Zonah that the Torah prohibits using "black" money for Korbanos. Money acquired through bribing, usury, selling weapons, or any other unaccepted method is not "blacklisted" for Korbanos.
The reason for this is clear from the Ramban. If a Zonah could "cleanse herself" by offering sacrifices, it would bring her to sin more often, since she could absolve herself of guilt. Bringing the Korban with her Esnan would thus "encourage" her in her evil ways.
This is only so with regard to the sin of a Zonah, since it is a common way for a person to earn money through sin, since it has a strong attraction to the sinner, and since the sinner can fool herself into thinking that she can make up for what seems, to her, a relatively mild sin, by bringing Korbanos with the Esnan.
In the case of Esnan Kelev (either he pays her to live with his dog - Rashi Yevamos 59b - or he pays her to give him her dog - Rashi Temurah 30a), since a person will not be tempted to sin in such a way, and it is a very unusual sin, the Torah was not afraid that the Esnan would be used for a Korban of absolution.
(b) If anything, the simple approach to Esnan Zonah is more problematic. The simple approach (mentioned at the end of the Ramban) is that the Esnan is disgusting to Hekdesh. If so, certainly the Esnan of a Kelev should be even more disgusting, and should be prohibited!
Apparently, even according to this explanation, the Torah only specifies a prohibition for "common" types of "abhorred money", not for the rare condition where someone gets money for Esnan Kelev.
According to your answer...
The gemara brings down the case of esnan zona, kelev etcc... to prove that there is no zenus with an animal.
According to your answer isn't it possible to say that the reason why the money/ sheep etc.. is permitted to be used in the case of esnan kelev is because it is so uncommon that the torah will not be gozer against the use of the funds and not because ralations with an animal is not considered zenus. Therefore, the gemara would have no proof that there is no zenus with an animal?
That is a very interesting point.
The key here is whether relations with a dog is in the *category* of Zenus (immorality) or not. Anything in the *category* of Zenus was prohibited, since "Zenus" -- in a general sense -- is common. The entire category known as "Zenus" makes an Esnan because of the more common types of Zenus. Therefore, even the less common types of Zenus are prohibited because they are part of the category that the Torah prohibited.
It is for this reason that although it is uncommon for prostitutes to be ugly, when one gives money to an ugly Zonah the money becomes Esnan Zonah. The same applies to dogs if they would be in the category of Zenus. That is the Gemara's proof that relations with dogs are not in the category of Zenus.
One more follow up on this topic.
(a) We know from the pasuk that esnan zona and mecher kelev is asur to use for a korban. We know that when the pasuk says shneihem it limits the issur to these two cases and not the cases of esnan kelev and mechir zonah.
I can understand why we may think that esnan kelev would be asur- possible zenus, disgusting act etc...
What is the hava mina to think that mechir zona is asur? You are selling a girl as a shifcha who happens to be a zona as well. What is "horrible" or disgusting about that? And, I don't think you can compare it to mechir kelev because in mechir kelev the issur is enforced when you sell a dog to be a dog. By mechir zona, you are selling a shifcha to be a shifcha, the fact that she is a zona is seemingly irrelevant to the transaction. ( Maybe that is the point- that the fact that she is a zona is certainly relevant in that the sale price was effected by the fact that she was a zona and that is why there is the hava mina to think that mechir zona is asur. Maybe).
(b) Also, once a woman is mezaneh is she forever categorized as a zona? Can she ever lose that designation?
(a) That is a good suggestion, the sale price was probably affected by her being a Zonah.
(b) The classification of Zonah affects many different Halachos. With regard to the Isur prohibiting a Zonah to Kohanim, there is no way for her to leave the classification. With regard to the prohibition of Lo Siheyeh Kedeishah, a Zonah fits the category only if she is a professional prostitute (see Raavad in Hilchos Ishus 1:4, Rambam Isurei Bi'ah 18:2). If she retires, she is no longer a Kedeishah. In short, each Halachah must be judged on its own merit.