Explanation #2: Rabeinu Nesanel therefore explains (See Shitah Mekubetzes Hashmatos) that since it is a Binyan Av that equates the Din of Esnan with the Isur of a Kohen and a Zonah - as the Gemara says 'Any Bi'ah that is Asur to a Kohen is subject to Esnan', even that of a Panuy and a Penuyah ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): In the same way we would learn the Din of Esnan of a Kohen from Zonah - in that if it is similar to a Zonah and a Kohen it is subject to Esnan, i.e. if there is no other Isur ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): But Almanah le'Kohen Gadol, which is not Asur because of Zonah but because of another Isur, ought not to be subject to Esnan ...

Conclusion: Therefore it teaches us that it too, is subject to Esnan.

Alternative Text: Another text cited in the Sefarim reads 'Meisveih ... ' until 'Ha de'Katani be'Seifa ... '; and it answers 'Ha Mani Rebbi Akiva hi, de'Amar "Ein Kidushin Tofsin be'Chayvei La'avin", ve'Ha ka'Mashma-Lan de'Chol Zonah Dumya de'Almanah le'Kohen Gadol - de'Lo Tafsi bah Kidushin'

Question: However, the question on this is - 'Why we need to conclude 'Ha ka'Mashma-Lan ...', seeing as the Gemara already gave a good answer, when it established it like Rebbi Akiva?

Answer (Abaye): The Problem is why, in the Seifa, the Tana finds it necessary to mention 'K'gon Almanah le'Kohen Gadol' and to establish it like Rebbi Akiva, let what it writes in the Reisha 'Achas Zonah Yisre'eilis' suffice, and let it go according to everybody? ...

Answer (Abaye [cont.]): Inasmuch as any Bi'ah that makes her a Zonah is subject to Esnan - Chayvei Kerisos according to the Rabbanan, and Chayvei La'avin, according to Rebbi Akiva ...

Answer (Abaye [cont.]): That is why the Gemara concludes 'It teaches us 'Similar to Almanah le'Kohen Gadol' - Because had it only said 'Achas Zonah Yisre'elis', one could have erred and said that a woman who is already a Zonah, such as where she had relations with Chayvei K'risos ...

Answer (Abaye [cont.]): Or a Zonah who is promiscuous - is a Zonah with regard to Esnan, even if she is hired out to a man to whom she is permitted ...

Answer (Abaye [concl.]): That is why the Tana learns the Seifa 'K'gon Almanah le'Kohyen Gadol' - to teach us that she is only subject to Esnan via a Bi'ah on which Kidushin does not take effect, similar to an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol according to Rebbi Akiva.

Answer (Rava): And according to Rava, who declares it an Esnan even if Kidushin take effect, even if she was already a Zonah, such as where she had relations with Chayvei K'risos or because she was promiscuous - 'Why does the Tana say "K'gon Almanah le'Kohen Gadol"?'

Answer (Rava [cont.]): And the Gemara answers 'Similar to an Almanah - Just as an Almanah S'tam is not subject to Malkos until she is warned, so too, a Zonah, it is only an Esnan when if he says to her "Here is an Esnan!" ', because then, since he mentioned a Lashon Esnan, it is considered Z'nus, but not S'tam (if he did not) ...

Answer (Rava [cont.]): 'And to preclude Rebbi Elazar, who says 'Panuy ha'Ba al ha'Penuyah As'ah Zonah" ' - because according to him, even just once, and even S'tam, she is a Zonah ...

Answer (Rava [concl.]): But where she was a Zonah initially, her Esnan is forbidden even by S'tam, since she is promiscuous, and it is called the Esnan of a Zonah, as Rashi explains.

Question: It is a Dochek however, to explain how we find that by S'tam it is not an Esnan according to the Rabbanan ...

Reason: Because regarding a Penuyah - they do not hold of Esnan at all, even where he said 'Here is an Esnan'? ...

Reason (cont.): Whereas as far as a woman who was already a Zonah is concerned, such as one who had relations with a Chayvei Kareis or a woman who is promiscuous, they say that even by S'tam it is an Esnan?

Explanation #2: What the Gemara therefore means when it says 'Af Zonah ad de'Amar lah Heilech Esnan' is - that if he gives an Esnan to a Zonah who previously had relations with a Chayvei K'risos or to one who is promiscuous, it is not an Esnan unless he specifically states 'Here is this lamb for your Esnan' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Byut if he gave it to her S'tam without a statement, it is not an Esnan ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): 'To preclude Rebbi Elazar' - according to whom, since he is so stringent as to declare even a Panuy ha'Ba al ha'Penuyah a Zonah, even by S'tam it is an Esnan ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): 'But where she was a Zonah beforehand' - even according to the Rabbanan, there where she becomes a Zonah with the Bi'ah by which he gives her the Esnan - i.e. if he gives it to his sister or to one of the Chayvei K'risos, even bi'S'tam, it is an Esnan ...

Reason: Seeing as through that Bi'ah she becomes a Zonah ...

Precedent: As the Gemara says according to Rebbi Elazar - that because he makes her a Zonah - even though it is a Panuy who has relations with a Penuyah, it is an Esnan, So too (according to the Rabbanan) it is an Esnan even bi'S'tam, there where she becomes a Zonah with that Bi'ah ...

Conclusion: But there where she was a Zonah already, and along comes a man with whom Kidushin is effective and gives her an Esnan, it is not an Esnan bi'S'tam, unless he specifically states 'Here is this lamb as your Esnan!'

Reason: Because of B'reirah ...

Clarification: Which ggoes well with the Ri, who Paskens throughout Shas 'Yeshy B'reirah'.

Question: According to Rabeinu Tam, whoever, who Paskens 'Ein B'reirah', how can the Gemara simply ask that 'The rest should be permitted?'?

Answer: Since there are many Tana'im who hold of B'reirah, the Gemara asks deom the Mishnah, which cannot go like them?

Introduction #1 to Questions: It implies here that if Isur is mixed with Heter, one removes the Isur, relying on B'reirah to say that it is the Isur that was removed.

Introduction #2 to Questions: Similarly, in the case in D'mai (7:4) of 'Someone who purchases wine from among the Kutim, and declares "The two Lugin that I am going to separate are T'rumah", and who relies on B'reirah to ascertain that what he subsequently drank was Chulin.

Introduction #3 to Questions: And likewise the case where 'Three people purchased their bird Korbanos in partnership, and one of the birds subsequently dies' - on which the Gemara at the end of Yoma (Daf 55b) asks matter-of-factly 'Why not take four Zuzim and throw them out, and permit the rest on account of B'reirah?'

Question #1: In which case, why do we not rely on B'reirah whenever Isur becomes mixed up with Heter? Why not simply take away the Shi'ur Isur and permit the rest?

Question #2: And by the same token, 'Korbanos that became mixed up with a Shor ha'Niskal', why does the Gemara say in Zevachim (70b) 'Yamusu'? ...

Question #2 (cont.): Granted, live animals are Chashuv and are not subject to Bitul, why can one nevertheless not take one away, and permit the rest on account of B'reirah?

Answer: Tosfos' Rebbe, ha'Rav Mordechai presents a major principle with regard to this Din - Certainly, he says, in any case where the Isur was initially discernable and became mixed up with Heter afterwards, we do not rely on B'reirah ...

Reason: Since it became mixed up be'Isur ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas the above cases became mixed up be'Heter - seeing as the Isur was not clearly discernable before the mix-up and the Isur was only born after it occurred ...

Answer (concl.): that is when we rely on B'reirah (Examine Tosfos in Bechoros [56b] which belongs on 57a DH 'Liveror', and see also Tosfos Sotah, 18a DH 'Chazar').

Explanation #1: As the Mishnah states 'Esnan Kelev Mutar' (Rashi's wording).

Question #1: Did the Gemara not know that the Tana learned it from the Pasuk "Two", 'and not four'?

Question #2: Moreover, how can the Gemara answer 'Lo Lishtamit ... '? Is he telling him (the questioner) a new S'vara that is not mentioned in the Mishnah?

Question #3: Furthermore, when the Gemara cites the Beraisa "Two", and not four', why did he not cite the Mishnah, which says the same thing?

Explanation #2: Tosfos' Rebbe therefore explains that of course Rav Acha from Parzika knew the Mishnah and the Pasuk "Two", 'and not four' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And he took for granted that if he gave the Esnan to the dog that it was an Esnan, precisely on account of the Pasuk ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And his She'eilah was the reverse case - where a man gives an Esnan to a Zonah on condition that the dog sleeps with her, whether relations with the dog is considered a Bi'as Z'nus or not?

Explanation #2 (cont.): Because even though an Esnan that a man gives to a bitch is not forbidden, perhaps one that a dog gives a woman is.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And the Gemara answers that 'The Tana'im would not fail to insert 'An Esnan that a man gives her and the Esnan that a dog gives her' ...

Question: Though the Lashon is somewhat forced?

Explanation #2 (cont.): It then cites the Beraisa that 'Just as the Bi'ah of a man with an animal is not considered Z'nus, so too, is the Bi'ah of an animal with a woman not considered Z'nus'.

Explanation #2 (concl.): It declined to cite the Mishnah, because it is not the way of a Mishnah to elaborate, whereas as far as the Beraisa is concerned, had the Esnan of a woman who has relations with a dog been Asur, the Tana ought to have said so.

Proof: And in Yevamos (Daf 59b) it is clear that Rav Acha's statement refers to a woman who has relations with a dog - since it cites there the story of 'A woman in Hislu, who was sweeping the house when a wild dog raped her from behind; and when the story came before the Chachamim, they declared her Kasher'.

Conclusion: And it is in connection with that story that Rav from Parzika asked 'From where do they know ... ?'

Introduction to Question: Here by Ne'evad, the Gemara declares the V'lad of a Ne'evad forbidden, whereas in Maseches Avodah Zarah (Daf 46b) the Gemara regarding 'Someone who prostrates himsel before standing corn', what the Din will be with regard to the flour being eligible for Menachos, whether there is Sinuy (a change) by Ne'evad or not?

Introduction to Question: And, after citing the current statement of Rava that 'V'lad Ne'evad is Asur', it retorts that 'There it was an animal to begin with, only the door was closed in front of it (See Shitah Mekubetzes, 27), whilst the standing corn (in the case there) was initially wheat which now became flour' ...

Question: So we see that there is more S'vara to permit something that has changed than a V'lad, whereas in connection with Esnan, Beis Shamai holds the opposite - that Shinuy retains its status, inasmuch as 'Wheat which one ground into flour remains Asur', but they concede that a V'lad is permitted, due to the D'rashah "Heim", 've'Lo V'ladoseihem'?

Answer: There is reason to differentiate however - in that certainly, with regard to Avodas Kochavim, the V'lad is forbidden, as the Gemara explains here, because 'he is pleased with the swelling', and he has in mind to prostrate before the swelling too ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas someone who prostrates himself before standing corn only has in mind what he sees, i.e. the wheat and not the flour ...

Answer (concl.): On the other hand, regarding Esnan, her mind is on the main article. Consequently, by an animal, her mind is on the animal and not the V'lad, whereas by standing corn it is on the flour, which is the Ikar.

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains that - to a Hedyot, everyone agrees, it is permitted, seeing as it does not grow from its body.

Refutation: That is not correct however, since in Perek Eilu T'reifos (Chulin, Daf 58a) the Gemara specifically states that (according to Rebbi Eliezer) it is Asur to a Hedyot as well ...

Implied Question: And they only argue by Gavohah ...

Answer: To teach us how far Rebbi Yehoshua goes, that he even permits to Gavohah. It would therefore seem that even to a Hedyot it is also Asur.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Tana says 'Lo Yikarev' ...

Answer: Is because the Rabbanan say 'Yikarev'.

Clarification: Because 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem is Mutar'.

Question: But Rebbi Eliezer says in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 27a) that 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem is Asur'?

Answer: There it is speaking about something that is Asur also to a Hedyot, whereas here it is speaking about Isur Gavohah exclusively (See Tosfos, Sanhedrin, Daf 80b DH 'Ela' [There in Pesachim, Tosfos leaves this Kashya unanswered]).