Bovines with DRM / Copy Protection

Continuing my discussion of Sanhedrin 33a, Rav Hamnuna tries to bring up a story in which Rabbi Tarfon mistakenly rendered an animal a triefa:

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּפָרָה שֶׁל בֵּית מְנַחֵם שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה הָאֵם שֶׁלָּהּ, וְהֶאֱכִילָהּ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן לִכְלָבִים.

Rav Hamnuna raised an objection to Rav Sheshet from the continuation of the mishna cited earlier (Bekhorot 28b): There was an incident involving a cow of the household of Menaḥem whose womb was removed, and when Rabbi Tarfon was consulted he ruled that it is an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], which is forbidden for consumption. And based on the ruling of Rabbi Tarfon, the questioner fed it to the dogs.

וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים בְּיַבְנֶה, וְהִתִּירוּהָ. שֶׁאָמַר תּוֹדוֹס הָרוֹפֵא: אֵין פָּרָה וַחֲזִירָה יוֹצֵאת מֵאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חוֹתְכִין הָאֵם שֶׁלָּהּ, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תֵּלֵד. אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: הָלְכָה חֲמוֹרְךָ, טַרְפוֹן! אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: פָּטוּר אַתָּה, שֶׁכׇּל הַמּוּמְחֶה לָרַבִּים פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.

The mishna continues: And the incident came before the Sages of the court in Yavne, and they ruled that such an animal is permitted and is not a tereifa. As Theodosius [Todos] the doctor said: A cow or pig does not emerge from Alexandria of Egypt unless the residents sever its womb so that it will not give birth in the future. The breeds of cows and pigs in Alexandria were of exceptional quality and the people of Alexandria did not want them reproduced elsewhere. The fact that these animals lived long lives after their wombs were removed proves that the hysterectomy did not render them tereifot. Upon hearing this, Rabbi Tarfon said: Your donkey is gone, Tarfon, as he believed he was required to compensate the owner for the cow that he ruled to be a tereifa. Rabbi Akiva said to him: You are exempt, as any judge accepted as an expert for the public is exempt from liability to pay.

וְאִי אִיתָא, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: טוֹעֶה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה אַתָּה, וְטוֹעֶה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה חוֹזֵר.

Rav Hamnuna states his objection to Rav Sheshet: And if it is so that there is a distinction between the two types of judicial errors, let Rabbi Akiva say to Rabbi Tarfon: You err in a matter that appears in the Mishna, as the ruling that an animal whose womb has been removed is permitted is recorded in a mishna (see Ḥullin 54a), and in the case of one who errs in a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is revoked.

A few points.

(1) In the Vilna Shas, Beis Menachem is removed, because Chabad didn’t exist in Rabbi Tarfon’s day:

But really because it is a quote from a Mishnah in Bechorot, and the Mishnah in Bechorot lacks this. However, all the printings and manuscripts on Hachi Garsinan have this, except for Florence 9 which has Rabbi Menachem. So too, see Rashba on Avoda Zara who has this.

Looking at manuscripts of the Mishnah in Bechorot 28b, we indeed don’t see it there. However, a bit later, Bechorot 40a:

וּמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁמִּיעֵךְ וְלֹא יָצָא וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּפָירָן שֶׁל בֵּית מְנַחֵם, שֶׁמִּיעֵךְ וְלֹא יָצָאת, וְנִשְׁחֲטָה וְנִמְצֵאת דְּבוּקָה בַּכְּסָלִים, וְהִתִּיר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְאָסַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי.

§ The mishna teaches: And there was an incident where one mashed the sac and the testicle did not emerge. Then the animal was slaughtered and the testicle was discovered attached to the loins. And Rabbi Akiva permitted the consumption of its flesh, and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri prohibited its consumption. The Gemara elaborates on this incident: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident in Piran of Beit Menaḥem where a firstborn animal apparently had only one testicle, and someone mashed its sac and the other testicle did not emerge. And the animal was slaughtered and the testicle was discovered attached to the loins. And Rabbi Akiva permitted its consumption, and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri prohibited its consumption.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי: עַד מָתַי אַתָּה מְכַלֶּה מָמוֹנָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל! אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: עַד מָתַי אַתָּה מַאֲכִיל יִשְׂרָאֵל נְבֵילוֹת! ?

The baraita continues: Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: Until when will you consume the property of the Jewish people by prohibiting animals in such cases? Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said to Rabbi Akiva: Until when will you feed the Jewish people unslaughtered animal carcasses?

This would be about the same era. Rashi says Piran is the name of the village. It certainly should not be פרן, or פרו, without the yud. Though פרו is indeed what some texts have:

The problem is that we are dealing with an animal, perhaps a bovine though the text does not say that, with a single testicle. That is not a female cow.

That may be the source of our mistaken Beit Menachem in our sugya, knowledge of this brayta. Still, it is strange for such a distant text to influence our local text and not its own local text.

I wonder if it is actually legitimately Piran of Beit Menachem in both places, and שֶׁמִּיעֵךְ וְלֹא יָצָאת was not an attempt to make the testicle emerge, but to make it sterile. Similarly, the animal שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה הָאֵם שֶׁלָּהּ could have resulted from deliberate action, rather than some accident.

If so, they would be emulating Alexandria in Egypt, as recounted by Todos the Physician. The purpose was to maintain control of their “intellectual property”, the genetic stock of these animals. If they allowed fertile animals out of either sex, then others could breed them and have their own Alexandrian or Beit Menachem quality animals.