Chulin 116

Today's is and we are in the middle of the ones the two dots being learned and so we're moving along in paracar dealing with related to the laws of specifically the Mishna had discussed the fact that it says in the Tory the not once not twice but thrice three times it says in the as we saw in the last few made a very big deal about the fact that it says three times and dashed in many dashes Number one, the fact that the Azor is mentioned three times Kazal said means that there are three different azor. There's an azor that says you're not let to cook. There's an aar that says you're not allowed to eat basal and there's an azar that says that you're not allowed to have from but [snorts] in addition to theor being mentioned three times it also says three times three times understood that there are algabes to be had meaning the terra could have mentioned three times but not emphasize the gi all three times and not emphasize the bal all three times and And it's for that reason Kazal said that you can't just learn from here three aaris but there are additional mudim and mutim to be had in the Mishna the great was mentioned and his opinion was that from the fact that the Tory said three times we learn three that there's no meaning as we saw in the Gar means not only a goat but it means or additionally means not and then finally is a and therefore from there that's not going to be kosh. The three mentions of are and the other one is if you remember the brought the who said that from the fact that it says three times the word gadi we learn six theor said six how could it be six and after further review the gumar edited And the garra said that really it's not six but depending on which one of the of the you want to go with either two are learned from there or three are learned from there. What were the number one is coming to be that the baser of an is considered baser. It's included in the laws of so in world is a boy and it's a baby gadi a fetus gadi that it's going to be included one's coming to beha and in one of the there's three to be had not two the other one would be coming to be that there's an of with regards to the of the animal and additionally with the of animal and even though really but over here and therefore you can have an even regarding which is already is going to begin with a very obvious question and that is at first glance threeas in the Mishna with the mas of two or let's go with threeas that he had in the gum rabaka's threeas are that we say and only one of them actually are the same. Don't we already need these for the way presented it? So how then could you make? Now it's interesting. You would think if said it one way and said it the other way, we'd be trying to make but the presents it as how do we make with says the must be that he holds and if that's the case as it relates to the of the ora as in a they don't really require a if that's the case one of the three that already used his uh three gadis for are not necessary. Additionally, hold that the fetus of an animal is just an animal. And if that's the case, if the Torah says he let the will be included in that and if that's the case, I don't need that either. Well, then two of three usages of ink's world are not necessary and then they're left over. What are they left for? But the is one of the three that used his for the other two are going to be in other words we have two in terms of how to dish in these three and interesting according to one's coming to one's coming to be and one's coming to according to one is coming to be [snorts] the other's coming to be ail the third one he concurs with Rabi It's coming to be. It's coming to be what's at stake in terms of seeing it way or seeing it as way. Number one, a global sha of do you hold in holds? So I don't need a to be the is going according to the hence I do need a boy for the other shil that's at stake is do we look at a fetus's buster as being good oldfashioned boser if we do then why would I need a to be marb if we don't that would explain why I do need a to be marb either way going back to the mishna so the mishna after it brought the sheet of it and mentioned had said. So the third time it says in the parish it's in the same [snorts] that mentions and we learn from there that anything that's included in is included in the if that's the case you would think it should be included in this as so when at face value what is coming to say is that uh is going to be excluded from the is of because even though it's included in the and it sounds like the of as it relates to is are you included is or are you not included but being that it [snorts] says and if mother doesn't have milk so it's for that reason it's going to be excluded but the truth is and we spoke about this when we went through the Mishna there's another thing is coming to say and that is that anything that's is included in the is with the exception of that means that not only is a included in this but is also included in so the says and we know from the means or what about [snorts] so is essentially saying that is included because if it's included in a is included in well is included in a even though it's included in a is excluded because So really is that includes it excludes that is as we just mentioned learns from the three but as it relates to that and are not included is not. So whether is that or is that not an isa? We mentioned also when we learned the Mishna that really there was a a tanakama that was quoted in the Mishna. Tanakama was talking about what happens if you cook B of where either the B of was from or the came from [snorts] and is that the is that you need them both to be and if one of them that's going to be enough of a reason for there not to be didn't say a word about didn't say a word about and it's for that reason what seemed is is that the is that the This is true s for a but also for a and for it's only and who come after the they're the ones that are getting involved in being and it's only them that are going to be excluded and if that's the case really we have three shittas in the Mishna the sheet of the tanakam who never got involved in this but from him not getting involved we can employ his sheet And that is that is only for a and that is for a and for three very distinct. Either way, the now is going to go through a little bit of what it is that we just set up. What is the meaning between again once had a different formulation it says in the same from the josition we learn anything that's included is included in with the exception of so what's the difference now we know what the difference As we just mentioned that the difference between and is and that's exactly what the and that's exactly what the says is the boss of holds being that it's included in it's included in bishop he never got involved in holds that is only because one of the is says or you could say the is not only but then as well and this is important only was the key word there even in the is there's no other way to learn the with a little bit of without coming to the obvious conclusion that they're arguing was explicitly says if you included in you're going to be included is included in let even so if That's the case. So obviously it's included in what is saying is that in addition to being there's an as well households. So in the same as well not on a level meaning not on a level but on a level because according to as much as but it's only [snorts] when he was he was and he never even included it in the so there happens to be according to even now again it doesn't go to the core of the Mishna because the Mishna was handling the so as it relates to the there's no that's the first the is saying that you should just know parenthetically there is but he included it in the when they expanded on the [snorts] they expanded it to as well chicken and cheese is something That's you're allowed to eat chicken, have a coffee with it. There's no there's no as well. Sounds like a little bit of aesh says it's actually in the world of they would cut wood to make coals to make. This is based on who holds that which is doesn't just mean but as well. So had that be shabas to make the to make the knife the result to be able to go ahead now and to do a brisal according to the the actual meal is but the is not going to be not that way. And this price says that being not that way his the people that lived in his in his zip code that followed his they actually used to do it last additionally and this is the part of the we need they used to eat why there's no but if he holds it so how could they have done it the ter is because he holds its and he held that it's tells a story on this note. Ley Ley once came to the house of the the hunter. Soishba used to know how to catch birds and Ley was once by Kame. So you figure if you're having dinner by Yishba, you're probably going to get a pretty cool o dinner. So they brought to him ra the heada of some sort of exotic bird kosher obviously and they served it to him together with milki and uh or ley didn't say a word ley came to rebi and he told him over the sobi told him he said uh you should have put him in ley if you saw Oh engaging in you should have done something about it had you not do anything about it says that ley told I'll be honest with you that this was a city with the people that lived there followed the laws of had some unique and I know they used to follow him I was down I said to myself that maybe holds And not only is it not it's not even for that reason I didn't say a word because [snorts] in my mind is such a and even though I wasn't in his I was but maybe held like him I knew I was in a place where they had unique men and it's for that reason I assumed that maybe that's what was going on and that's why I didn't say a word. This is an anecdote that follows what the had previously said that which was that as relates to there's not just one as it relates to but there's as relates to as just to do a a final in the we have three It's only my and number one that's easy. This seems to be a between the first terret of the gar and the second terret of the could be both as well. I didn't they both say is excluded. Yeah, would be and by the way that is very much supported. It's supported with you see from there that not only is this not but it's not either either way moving along another So the Mishna is talking about a case where an animal was or an animal was found dead and inside the ca one of the four stomachs the abomism of the animal they found milk. So this was milk that the animal had obviously digested and at this point the milk it's still viable was inside the cave of the animal. And the question is [snorts] how do we view this milk? So it says the Mishna this is the opening line that the kas which is that milk [snorts] of a behemoth that belongs to or a behema that's in a is going to be and the reason is because we look at the milk as being part and parcel of the buser of the animal and being that the buser of and the buser of both right is so and are essentially both the baser It's for that reason this milk that's inside of it is going to be as well. And of course the is that even if the milk itself the origin of the milk we know was kosher milk but once it's considered it was found there at that point we look at it as not as and therefore oh this milk is going to be as well. Another says the Mishna in the event that somebody was somebody made cheese using the of a ca of a kosher abame is if the ka that was used to be the to make the was enough to be into the then is it's going to be because it's going to be now it's only right it wasn't official But it's going to be if it's not nice and Tom then obviously it's not going to be a problem. Now the background to this line of Gumar is something that we know already specifically from the Coca-Cola raid right but this is something we know already and that is that once upon a time the way they used to make cheese is they would take a little bit of the of a ka they would put it inside and that's the way the milk would convert into the solid it would turn into gina. So the of the ka had certain enzymes that would emit into the and it had this quality this ability to be and that's literally the way they used to make veno. Now we spoke about this in the past [snorts] that is and we'll see actually later in today's is that the reason is because the used to use their ca the of their non-coosher animals which meant that there was some bu over here of non-coosher and it's for that reason was a problem I it shouldn't always be an issue because shouldn't we assume maybe this bit right should problem not if it's not nice and so that of course ushered in the famous Rajba and that was the whole Coca-Cola part one raid right but the bottom line is is that there was a mitas that the way converted to was by using the of aa therefore they're using the stand so please for that reason but our mission is not even talking about our Mishna says that if somebody goes ahead and he makes by taking the so there What's it talian? Well, it's totally if it's if it's going to be if it's not it's going to be and why would it be if it's not because the reason it would be is because of another says if you have a that was a nursed milk from an animal that's a so is any that's found inside the ca is going to be and the reason is because being that the came from a tra So the initially was even though right now it's inside the cave of the kosher animal we look at where it came from it's going to be what [snorts] about the flip side what would be if a traa was from a kas so there any milk that's found inside is going to be because even though the animal itself is a traa but being that it was yunkum and a we look at it as being kosher and the reason is nature k yeah because we say it's just k there it's not doesn't become part of the baser and it's for that reason it's going to be okay. So let's just do a quick recap on the Mishna Mishna if you think about it said three and as we'll see two of them blatantly contradict each other. The [snorts] first of the was so [snorts] you have an animal of an animal of the and there's milk inside the ca it's even if the origin of the milk is kosher milk because once it's inside the stomach of the animal it takes on baser the baser of is is not something you're allowed to eat. So therefore the is not something you eat either. First second is if somebody is he creates using the of a cave of a kosher animal if it's a problem it's not there's no the third of the mission is what would be if you have a kosher animal that was yik from a tra or a animal that was kosher milk. So what do we look at? We look at the origin of the milk. The milk inside the cave is going to be it's going to be because you don't look at the milk as being part of the animal says the so again three and we said two of them contradict each other. Which do contradict each other? It's easy. It's the first and the third. The first was what does that mean? that if there's milk inside the ca of the non-cooser animal, we treat it like the buster of the non-cooser animal and it's user. We don't care the origin of the milk is kosher. We look at where the milk is right now. The third was just the opposite. This is this case I mean right now it's inside the stomach of I don't care and it's for that reason it's going to be okay. First glance the first and the third of the Mishna contradict each other. This is something that the Garra is going to address. But before the gur addresses that the gum [snorts] addresses something else and that is obey the first line of again there's a steer between the first of the Mishna and the third of the Mishna. But before we ask steer it be helpful to understand the first of the Mishna. And there is something that requires beer which we would have to figure out first before we try understanding how this does or doesn't something else. So what was the first of the pretty straightforward says the what's the definition of sounds like of an animal that belongs to I don't care that it belongs to what it must mean is that it was slaughtered by it could belong to but be kosher and if the was done by everything's going to be okay the terret says means it was which is the same as so essentially the Mishna just repeated itself just say what's a we know so why even mention it makes no sense just tell me the of is not kosher is just an example of I could give you a hundred examples of so why mention and we'll see the is going to say two the first is the second one we're talking about where in the case of was the one that so why is it bought the animal from a guy okay so then what's the problem it should be because we're concerned that maybe this animal was yiking from a tra because at the end of the day you bought it from a guy or yid would be careful that his animal shouldn't be ying from a tra but the guy's not careful. So we're worried that maybe he was ying from a tra and it's for that reason it's going to be so because of the fact that right now it's in the buster of a for a whole different reason. It's because we're worried that the origin of the milk came from a not because right now it's in a non-coser animal. It's not doesn't mean it means something else. It means that it was bought from a guy and it's because of the origin. So really these two are not saying the same thing is even if the animal is kosher because of we're concerned of the origin because it's sitting in the so therefore it's part of the it's for that reason it's going to ask is that something that we're really concerned about. We're worried [snorts] that if you go ahead and you buy from a a guy or an animal from a guy that maybe came from a buy from we're not concerned. We're not worried that maybe this ba came from a which would make it or came from a obviously we're concerned on. So here you're telling me that if somebody buys an animal from then there's milk inside maybe it came from a tra therefore it's going to be us. That's what the means when it says that you're buy maybe it nursed from a non-coosher animal and it's the same point that at the end of the day the milk might be non-coosher milk but the we just proved from the fact that we're not worried about So if you're not worried about and that's not the concern. So why would we worried about very simple? We know animals are not right underpins. So it's true as So if you tell me that so why you allowed to even go ahead and eat the ka from an animal that you did that you bought from aid why you not worried that the yid's animal also was of not but maybe gives the obvious answer We're people that are md ourselves. We distance ourselves from non-coosher animals. And if we see a non-coosher animal anywhere near our animals, we're going to quickly be we're going to get rid of it. It's like you have to be worried that don't eat the ca that's inside because well you're worried he came from a Jew wouldn't let a beh come within 100 feet of his uh herd the non-Jews then themselves from these non-coosher animals and if they see that a non-cos animal is mingling amongst his animals we won't be should be but the bottom line is the first terret in terms of understanding Isn't just an example of an so why would you even mention it? The terrorist says no. We're saying two things and by the way it's not for the same reason. It's talking about you bought the from and you're concerned that maybe it was from not because that went for but and it's for that reason we're worried that the origin of this milk is from something non-coosher means we're it's a real is going to be because we look at the as being we look at as being baser that's a reason that it would be not okay either way that is the first terret of the The second the way you read the Mishna is that it's saying it's not saying two things two different timing but we have to do a dot of surgery in the way you read it and almost so the Mishna is talking about the ca of the cave of an animal that was shocked by it happens to be it's a and it's for that reason it's going to be awesome so again it's still a little funny according to why would the Mishna talk about the ca of an animal that was slaughtered by as opposed to just talk about the cave of a true isn't just an example of per the little but at the end of the day it's not redundant it's not wordy it's not like you're mentioning the one part you're just saying one thing that isn't and it's for that reason he it's going to be ask really hold that If there's milk found inside the cave of an it's going to be how do you know holds that was just the way himself said why is it that the why is it that we mentioned it a minute ago it's because we're worried there's a little bit of the of the was put inside it's for that reason it's going to be a problem says the you see that held that the only reason is cuz you're worried. They take a little bit of ka and they put it into the cave. But you see that the that's found inside the cave itself that doesn't bother me. Because if you're worried about the that's found inside the cave, then why do you have to come on to the fact that they're with you? You're saying good say better. Tell me that the itself might have originated from the cave. I mean that that is for sure a problem. So therefore should always be an issue from the fact that we don't say that. But rather schmoo said it's because of a different that they put a little bit of the kasa inside. Isn't that he must hold that is really so if that's the case that that what that himself said that was only because they take a little bit of and they put it inside. So there's two things just in terms of clarifying that I think are worth mentioning. Number one is not the same thing right in the we saw it's two things but I just think it's worth for clarity to this over again stating the obvious means that you have and it's in a vat somewhere and you're converting it into gina. One of the ingredients that I use is they take a little bit of the skin of the ka and they put it inside. Assuming it comes from noa, there's a little bit of na inside. Hence, you have yourself a problem. # Coca-Cola, right? That's [snorts] basically what's going on over here. That's means milk that was found inside the actual ca two different things. Not you're taking an a little bit of art of the cave and you're putting it into the milk. But the milk that was actually found inside the cave said that the reason is [snorts] because the gy like the Jews use a little bit of to make their right. We saw in the Mishna that's the that was the second case of our Mishna right the second was talking about a kosher animal. That's the way they used to make vo. So they're going to do the same thing. The problem is when we do it we're using kosher meat. When they use it they're using non kosher and as a result that's why said that is going to be awesome is that why do you have to come on to the fact that there's no inside. There's a more obvious reason that there should be and that is because maybe the guy is using the of the ka and being that that's inside the ka is a problem. So maybe this gina should be dead on arrival because maybe it came from that the is implying from there that must hold that that's found inside the cave is not an issue. The problem is Mishmoo was mafarishna that it that it really is is by the way why is gin zakum not user anyways because it's kalvakum so again we mentioned this in the coca but why is zakum anyways not user just because of good oldfashioned kvak we know is also so let beer as well so we know the answer the answer is because you can't make gina from non- kosher milk so we know for sure that the origin of the milk has to be kosher so the iskum which is bas on maybe it's from a non-coosher animal that's not applicable to the of we know the milk must be kosher so if the milk is kosher it should be kosher so said oh it's because of the of the c that's put inside t is going to have a better reason it could be it's kosher milk the milk came from a cow but once it made it into the ca of the non-coosher animal got and that's why it should be a problem so why typically because maybe it's That's in the cave itself. What's known as the right and we know holds it around that way. The second that needs to be mentioned in this and that is so you're asking a steering. What's the first? It's not a steering. It's anything. It's a in our is just so it's a sounds fancy but really it's not so much a steerish as much speaks out mean it could have always been an like maybe had that didn't learn that way. But if the he probably holds like the so at the end of the day how are these two but the bottom line is this is the from the way was you see he holds like that if you find milk inside the ca of a if that's the case why would have said that because they took of the and they put it into the milk should have said because the milk that's inside the ca that in of itself is already a problem the garra says is like I don't think it's a because I could always tell you. So what does this mean? So really the background to this is it's this general brings asked this. So again this was discussing and discussed himself asked this he asked him why is it that at the end of the day the doesn't apply to because he can't make vo from non so now there was a long shakar the initial attempt of Yeshua to explain the issue was he said it's because of That's inside the ka and that has a dinner of and it's for that reason it's going to be an issue was told him that I know that that doesn't have a and that doesn't have a is because that were allowed to eat that was found inside the cave of the carbon now the carbon is like if the of the cave always has a den of the then it should have been treated like you're not allowed to eat for the fact that the k's allowed to eat it it's for that reason he said it's going to Okay, the bottom line is is Rabishua initially gave this answer. He said that could be the reason Venus Akum is also is because the that's in the ka is considered is considered ka and we're worried you're using that and it's for that reason it's going to be a problem but the ultimately was the said that's not true that's not initial by the way gave another was as well and the left it open and that's why had to chime in and that's what famously said but here's the point the point says the garra is the point is is that You see that there was a time in in in the discussion between Yeshua before Yeshua debated this he was of the opinion that the reason is because we look at the as being and in that time you didn't have to come on because anyways it was there was an issue a more obvious issue because of the concern of the says the I could tell you I could tell you that the reason there was an issue over here. The reason in our is saying that is and then he's coming on and he's saying that's before proved from the said it's talking about after the so there was a before and after you see from the so could be this is The is the before and the second is the after. Either way, we now go to the next part of the discussion of the Mishna and that is the steer. So we said the Mishna had three. The first and the third seem to blatantly contradict each other. First was had to learn the right saying two is one but that the is saying that any that's found inside the ca gets the status of the ca and if the cave is then the is going to be a as well according to that's only one of two that the said right the said kosher >> [snorts] >> might be because you bought it from is going to be additionally kosher milk but non-coosher animal the milk is also going to be because I look at it as according to that's the only one that's being said but for sure that's found inside a non-cos is without a question going to be what was the third but we need is why is it because even though the itself is but if it was milk everything is going to be okay that is the first with that second part of the third could be the whole of the Mishna is really in when we say the that's found inside the cave is also it's rises It's only could be which is the first case of the Mishna were and they whereas the talking about they were so again as much as we have a ste between the first and third is talking about third from aura's perspective it's six of one half a dozen of another it's the same thing maybe this is only it's not and if that's the case maybe and they weren't by because if it looks like you're eating we have to be the oh it looks like you're eating well we're not so I hear [snorts] the if anything I think it actually makes more sense that the rabb would be by and be which is disgusting. You can be mal inside the cave of the but no one's coming to eat the actual because it's considered mus so and still you're saying you let eat it as it relates to a of an animal that is not disgusting right you're not going to eat it right you would eat it says you're not eat it but there is more of a concern you might come to eat like you should be more m over there so if this is I would actually think that in it should be just the opposite said because gives a different like I'll tell you the ter and really it's the same way the was the first is beforehu was where he held that the reason is because of the ka oh if that's the case because of the milk that's found inside of there so you see the milk is that's what the Mishna holds in the The in the third case is after Yeshua I'll bring you from the fact that that's not a problem. Oh really changes. Now if there's a before and after. So why would the Mishna tell me the before and after? Just tell me the after. Why you also telling me why you also telling me the before? Says the because that's once something's a Mishna even if sometimes we leave the here. This is a mid of [snorts] the sometimes we have this idea of this is an example. You're right. There is a theory the saying there is no mahal. I don't have an answer. They had a mahal knocked it out. But really going back to days there was already an approach over here and that is that there is no way to be mash one is before the khazar and one is now we already knew from the previous that the first line of the mishna was before right we knew it from the steering because seems to not hold of this of being a problem from the fact that he said that only I was he clearly held like the ter says what did probably holds this is what we're saying now is is essentially it's away from the itself because you see the itself was right if you think about it we had a stem and we had and it all is in the same way was a that was all not like that was and really because you see the mission itself So this before and after of is really playing itself out in this way of the it's playing itself out in the d the ration of the Mishna case number one is the before and the of the case number three is the that's the after just a few as relates to everything that we just spoke So that is relates to our so the ca meaning the that was found inside the stomach of is going to be mutter and you want to make cheese from it you can make cheese from it but the [snorts] that's found inside the ca of an animal that had a from a that already is going to be a problem. Now, first glance, this seems to be a mission. So, what's the difference if you're using? So he said when you're saying what you're saying you probably hold it's been a while we assume and it's for that reason every is not just like the says it's worse than that it's considered and therefore it's right it's much more so if would be going that would make sense. So the between is one is just and the other one ish there's a distinction maybe that's what's going on over here. So again told he was curious he says is that what's going on of course right he answered him rhetorically who else obviously that's what I mean that's the so which is only going to be whereas there it's going to be more there it's going to be now what's the so rash explains the rashi says that the that's inside So based on the after of Yeshua, based on the after of the Mishna, the third case in Mishna, the safe of the third case in Mishna is not going to be an issue. But when it comes to Bazar, it's different. The reason is because used to like it when their animals look plump. They look gishmak right. So it's for that reason the inside that makes the animal look a little bit inflated is something that the has from therefore it's considered part of the desire it's going to be a problem it's not the bas of the do I look at that milk as being b or not even though the first half of sound like this was an issue but we know based on the it's not really an issue but it comes there it's going to be different just to finish came from he said the name right so like he's one of the came from so he said the name he said over not like but he said over in the cave of right that's not a problem why not that is based on the the after of our but additionally as well because he held the lake but he holds the lake. So what's the bottom line? Again we have conflicting reports and so we're a little confused there right? There's a before and there's an after and there's two. So what's the bottom line says after all that is with the you can't take a little bit of put it inside you are allowed to use the like the second for so as it relates to red I thought that being that we're coming to an end of perkalabasar and really we're coming to the end of the taru component of it's could I to go back to a discussion that we began two short weeks ago and that is the history of the kashras of Coca-Cola. So we mentioned that in the early 1930s there was a big toml amongst the rabbon. How is it that Coca-Cola is being marketed, advertised, and sold as being kosher? The one thing everyone knew about Coca-Cola was that they were extremely secretive about their ingredients. Nobody knew what exactly was inside Coca-Cola. Well, if you don't know what's in Coca-Cola, how you supposed to know that it's kosher? And the decision was made to reach out to a Lithuanian RV who had moved to the United States of America. He was living in Atlanta, Georgia, which is the hometown, the corporate headquarters of Coca-Cola. He was a tremendous, tremendous. And they felt that he would be able to use his TRA knowledge and the fact that he was in close proximity to the powers that be of Coca-Cola to perhaps penetrate what was going on there and be able to come back with a conclusive decision. Is Coca-Cola kosher or is it not kosher? The name of that rabbi was Rabbi Tobias Geffania Geffen. And we talked about how when he made his initial attempt to try to get in, he was completely shut down. But Hashkah through Hashkah, he had a friend who was general counsel of Coca-Cola at the time. a man by the name of Harold Hirs who by the way if you think about it he was general counsel of Coca-Cola which means he was a very early shareholder of Coca-Cola. He got in at a very very low price. Turns out he was a very very wealthy person. He was a huge philanthropist. In fact he graduated I think from Emory University Law School and the law school is named after him. Ad Maza. So a very important person in the secular world but also [snorts] in the Jewish community in Atlanta, Georgia. So Tuvia Geffin gets to know Mr. Harold Hirs and he asked him is there any way for him to be able to, you know, give him a behind the scenes of what's going on so he can get back to all the rabbin and tell them whether Coca-Cola is kosher [clears throat] or not kosher. To make a long story short, which we already did, he was initially shut down. Eventually he was told he can get in. And when he finally got in and was given access to the ingredients, he discovered that lo and behold, one of the ingredients that was being used was glycerol or more popularly referred to as glycerin, which is an animal byproduct, which meant that there was a component of non-cooser meat that was inside the Coca-Cola. Raptin sat down. He wrote a truva and he said that there's no question in the world CocaCola is not kosher. Now he warned you to tell me even though there's glycerin inside the Coca-Cola but based on the information he was given it was less than 1,000th of the total ingredients of what was inside the Coca-Cola. But based on a rabb that brings that says that although there's and certainly but at the same time to the extent that there's an ingredient inside a voice that's one of the predetermined ingredients then there's no of the was from the of the topic of today's by the way but the point is the rajbah which is brought down in said that you don't say b to the extent that this dom is purposefully being put into this taru and based on that gean said that it's not going to be okay we spoke a little bit about okay so gaffin comes and he writes chuva and he says Coca-Cola is not fine but there were about him that seemed to claim that it was kosher now forget about did they have access not have access that's beyond the scope of this raid by it's above my pay grade for that we'd have to have more historical knowledge in terms of knowing where exactly they were coming from when they went ahead and they said the Coca-Cola was kosher but you have to assume they knew what was inside and if they knew what was inside and they knew there was glycerin inside so based on that how in the world could they have possibly said it's kosher and you'll tell me because it's bottle no it's not the brought down says it's not okay and that was really the second half of the rabbi where we mentioned that it's based on a from theuda this is ina it's in sim nunv of where the god the said that we could be make because really that raj was told in the and the ramagos had a whole different learn of and was that the pas actually not like the raja but rather like the ramagos and he said there's no question in the world you don't have to be like this now was obviously not talking about Coca-Cola cuz Coca-Cola is America's pastime, but Nebuda is writing his cha in 18th century Moravia. Nuda [snorts] was talking about a a drink that we probably should not drink, which is called cremeaboui feski, which was similar to Coca-Cola in that there was a little bit of na inside. Sounds like they might have been to Coca-Cola's secret recipe uh centuries [snorts] earlier. But the point is that there too there was a very very similar sh and was to go ahead and drink it. Now we talked about the end of the day wasn't right. How could anything isn't it? We spoke out from Mosha in one of his casu to the gate of Elizabeth where you see from that exchange that was learning up infl and that is must have held that the although he brings the but he brought it in one place in and was bothered that 50 passed and didn't feel that it had to tell you there's such basic that to the extent that there's an ingredient you don't say the you would think this would be in the how's it possible that it took 50 for the to bring it therefore held that it was him that this is of and said by the way if that's the case today you don't have to be the first but the bottom line is the bottom line is the came prior to Ryakov binfeld senior were relying on this in himself in his tru that we read from addressed heav and he said even though but the brings the rajbah was he didn't want to be on and as a result he came out he said that Coca-Cola is a problem my Jews continued to drink Coca-Cola so we mentioned the rest of the story is that he used his clout out his protect to his relationship with Mr. Harold Hirs to get Coca-Cola to change the ingredients or at least to tweak the ingredients and he got them to replace the animal gristin with vegetable glycerin which Kimuven completely avoided this issue and this really was where Coca-Cola part one concluded but here's part two and theorm there's going to be a part three as well maybe even a part four and that is it was a do push throughout this discussion that glycerin is not kosher and makes sense that glycerin would be not kosher. It's an animal byproduct and to the extent that the animal is not a kosher animal it's posit that it would be a problem the was do you say do you not say I don't want to be the brings but this is all presupposing that I have a and the question is whether or not this is bottle or whether this is not bottle but the truth is I think we have to take a step backwards and we have to ask ourselves should it be so pushet that glycerin is not kosher. Granted, glycerin from a non-cooser animal essentially is a of a non-cooser animal, but the way that the glycerin is produced involves a very complex process during which point it's going to go through a phase where seemingly it's not going to be you can't stick a fork and a knife in it and have it with a glass of wine. In fact, it's going to be processed with so many chemicals that you could almost make the argument that even though it's true, it's part of an animal, but I don't know. This doesn't really look like a part of an animal. And does that impact or does that not impact? There was a very, very hot contested debate. Maybe the greatest debate in Jewish American history. Again, we're still in the spirit of 250, but this might be number one. It's for sure on Mount Rushmore, pun intended, and that is gelatin. Is gelatin kosher or is it not kosher? And by the way, we make this discla disclaimer a lot. Now, we have to do it in neon lights. This is 100% not aic discussion. We know that gelatin is not kosher. That's not what this is about. But just from a a historical perspective, gelatin. So what exactly is gelatin? So gelatin comes most cases from the bones or the skin of an animal, which means that it's if it's being produced by a non-coosher manufacturer, it's going to be coming from a non-coosher animal. It's actually worse than that. In more than most cases, it comes from a pig. Meaning in most situations, gelatin comes from either pig skin or it comes from pig bones. And if that's the case, at first glance, you would think that gelatin should be dead on arrival. Stating that, similar to glycerin, gelatin goes through a a tremendous evolutionary process where at the time that it's gelatin and it's being put into whatever product it is that it's being put into, it doesn't have a reen to the it has no to having split hooves or chewing its cut. At that point, it's a completely different item. And really this hakic discussion as it relates to glycerin is a hakic discussion with relates to gelatin as well. From historical perspective gelatin was a much bigger topic than was glycerin. And the reason is because it was used much more popularly. Now it's interesting. Glycerin comes from animal fats. Gelatin comes from what's called collagen. It comes from the bone of the skin. It comes from the protein of the animal. So if you're a chemist, if you're a scientist, you would say they're very very similar. They both come from a non-cooser animal, but at the same time, by the time it it'll make it into, you know, your product or whatever it is, it's going to completely completely be altered. Additionally, [snorts] the usage of glycerin was very different than the usage of gelatin. Glycerin is a moisturizer. Also has a little bit of taste. So it'd be used in products that require some level of moisture, right? So for example, skin creams are going to very often have glycerin inside of them. Additionally, it's a low-fat sweetener. So a lot of the lowfat products have a little bit of glycerin inside of it. [snorts] Gelatin is used. It's used to create that jell-o feel. And really the most hotted area where it was discussed back in the day in the United States of America was jell-o was made from gelatin. Right? Back in the day before there were like 18 layer cakes. You know your mother served you jell-o for dessert. I remember in yeshiva that's what we used to have every single day. Right? So jell-o was once upon a time a very very big deal. And the regular jell-o that you would buy at a local supermarket was made from gelatin. And this was a big topic. Is is gelatin kosher? Is it not kosher? And really it was put in a lot a lot of different products. A lot of the these gummy beers or jelly beans, wrigglies gum, kioda. But again, if you know, you know. But the bottom line is it's was a very very popular item. And there was a big discussion whether or not gelatin is kosher. It's not kosher. And really it ties very much into the same exact stylycerin. Is it kosher? Is it not kosher? Now just before we set this up just to appreciate a little bit better in terms of how exactly gelatin is made. So here we go. We can focus on glycerin. We can focus on gelatin. Glycerin is more nega the sugi of Coca-Cola. But really the chuis and everything that was ever written on it was written primarily on on gelatin less so on glycerin. So I think we're going to focus on on glycer on gelatin with an understanding that it's allian. So again the basic process of gelatin the preparation that's the first thing. So you need the raw materials which are the hides the bones and the skins. They're all cleaned of fat and all the non-colagen material. The next thing that's done is is what's referred to as the pre-treatment. The material is soaked in either an acid or an alkaline/lime solution to break down the collagen structure and loosen it from the other tissue. The third thing that's done is there's an extraction process. The treated material is repeatedly washed and then heated in hot water. This hydra hydraizes the collagen into soluble gelatin extracted in multiple batches at increasing temperatures. The fourth thing is filtration and purification. The extracted liquid is filtered, deionized, and clarified to remove impurities. Finally, [snorts] there's a concentration and a drying process. The gelatin solution is concentrated, meaning evaporated, then cooled to a gel, extruded into strands or sheets, and dried. The dried gelatin is then ground into granules of powder for sale. The bottom line is from the time that it leaves the bones of the khazer until it makes it into jell-o. It's had a long day. It's gone through a lot. It has to bench go 15 times, right? So it definitely goes through this incredible chemical process. And here's the question. The question is, does that change anything or does that not change? That will be the topic is of this next year. Now like all good haki controversies they begin how with a chuva from the Yehuda. So the Yehuda in a chuva and this is in madur it's invas asked a question about the shukus of a dog that was being put into certain mashka. Is it okay or is it not okay? [snorts] So the shukus of a fish is the swim bladder of a fish. It's a it's an organ of a of a fish. And apparently there was a certain mashka, the mashka of med, also known as mead. So this was uh honeybased mashka had an alcoholic kick to it. And it seems that the makers of it would take the shalukus, the swim bladder of this non-cosha fish, and they would put it inside. The reason they put it inside was not to give taste, but it seems it had the ability to just clarify, just to make the liquid a little bit more clear. So this liquid because it had honey inside there was a lot of there was a lot of sediment it doesn't look so nice if you're going to drink it that way. So if you want it to look like a nice clear liquid so they would add this shukus they would put it inside and that would go ahead and clarify it. And the question that was asked to behud was [snorts] is it okay for a ye to drink it or is it not okay for a ye to drink it? Now at first glance you'll tell me it should be in whether there's BL or there's not B assuming there's a B and based on that you can argue that maybe it'll be okay but there was a follow-up question and that is so could a Yid go ahead and could a Yid manufactured could he produce this Jews were making this so could they go to the store buy the put it inside their maid put it inside their meat and go ahead and have this mash you'll tell me it's bottle very nice But there's and this is what was asked this that's being put into this uh meat is it okay or is it not okay sat down and he wrote a mud said as follows at first glance this seems to be a very obvious to this and that is in the in right in the beginning of so the first inb This is in the skin of the featured very prominently in today's there were times that it would be salted and they would dry it to the point that it becomes like a haltz. It becomes so thickened that it literally becomes like a piece of wood and there are people that would fill it up with milk. Is this okay as an arrow? COULD YOU TAKE A ca which is but after you salted it and you dried it up? It's like could you fill it up with water and go ahead and eat this? You're allowed to because that it dries out it becomes like a piece of wood. there's no Ber anymore and if there's no Ber anymore at this point this is something that's going to be okay I think this is what it is cuz I did a little bit of inquiries and it sounds like this is when they put it in it's already dried out describes the process of how it's made and it's literally like that and just like that it's doesn't have a anymore so stating that and you know anytime you learn a truth there's always a great so it says is right in the beginning says in I think it's you know what the is the is kosher right the is kosher you're allowed to eat it after you go ahead and you mix it with that's when the is comes about to the extent that by the time you mix it with the it was already so then that it can't be on a ca that right now is but of the THAT WAS BORN BECAUSE IT COMES FROM A DOG. So over there the is pre-existed the fact that it became the nas you want then now that it became an is going away says have no right from that the is talking about a which is it only becomes when it's to the extent that it's at the time that it was it could be of because it's can't become as opposed to the of the over there who was born So the existed literally what's the sh now that it became maybe it's says I can make a very strong argument that is doesn't have an ability to be either saying that when it's can't become but to say that it should be but said even though the is avari a vivosking that once something is an it can't become that means when it's we don't look at it as ka right we don't LOOK AT IT AS BASER ANYMORE so I think the same thing maybe would be true the even though now and only now it's becoming was already when it was a it was awesome but now it's so it shouldn't be anymore says in that is which goes on to get all these that we're going to learn now everything that we've been learning the last couple of weeks. So we know that in the world the is the truth is the origin to the is says the R says if you have a and by the way we're not talking about we have a that has a little bit of a and it's ready of from 24 hours and you want to know if it's we're discussing not the bio we're discussing the real thing we're discussing we have a piece of flesh that right now just doesn't taste good it smells it's disgusting nobody wants to eat it right now it's noisfier if you have massur such as na I don't care if it's noisfam or if it's going to be says [laughter] if it's going to be if it's at that point it's going to be so is the one in this that holds as it relates to flesh that's going to be says either way it's going to be awesome so I'm skipping a little bit says what's that holds It's based on the following. So it says in the what do you do with says the anytime I have that I can be what the said you're supposed to do with a and that is give it to the so if it's something that's going to be considered an means not just doesn't taste so If it's going to be do with that holds just like that's coming to be in the event that this was always so at the time that it became it was already disgusting. Nobody was going to eat it in that case. But to the extent that it started off good and only later it became at that point it's going to be different. In other words which after further review is a case where you have something let's keep it simple which was a perfect was a good piece of meat and then something happened. It became afterwards. right now it's you're allowed to eat it or you're not let it say you're allowed to eat it cuz knows right now you can't give it to the G it doesn't have the RO says no in this situation being that it was once okay so now you want to go ahead and now you want to be miter doesn't have the ability to mam if it was if it started off already bad so in that situation in that situation but as it relates to a situation where it started off good and then it was afterward says it's going to be us says if you take a look at the and really if you go through the there's no whether we passing like as relates to the sh where you have something that is non-cosher it started off being and then only later it became [snorts] is it going to be or is it going to the doesn't have a where the ra tells you what it's going to be. So if that's the case to try to figure out on our own what is so what do you do if there's says it's the says that if there's everlass like if there's everlim right it's because they were so great that was we spoken about over the years that in all cases says What do you do if there's for this you're going to have to wait for to come? Says the night. So now what do I do? I mean up his engagement shows up. So what are you supposed to do is says he brings from one of the that said that in a situation like this. So is the m you're going to go like and the go like now in this is the so if that's the case the way I'm walking away from is to be like that to the extent you have food that was and then it became where it happened later. So what would be that as it relates to if it starts off then if however it started off good and it only became later for that you don't have the but we pass for that reason in that situation is it's going to be us but invite he said that the emmes is I don't think you only have to say that is like grand mayor based on because the is another says which is in this right here that other is the over there is discussing the of so we know is it's not only but it's as well and the brings that there was a between and in the event that you have that is it going to be considered a that it should be or is it not considered a because it's and as a result it's not going to be able to be in that holds that if I have if I have that I don't care it's still says no that it has to be in order for it to be that it would be able to be you go through the gar inside the garments What's why does hold that I mean my time what's the holds that if you would have that's not at that point it's not going to be says because the only time Sunday is considered that's the over here is told me it's not it's not good. But it's not the says I know there's this that's discussing IS THE IDENTICAL THAT YOU HAVE in what's the difference in we're discussing and we're discussing is is identical. You now I KNOW BECAUSE IN BOTH THE TELLS YOU WHAT the is and the is how you do you say it's true only for you say it's true anytime that it's a and in both cases and in both that's exactly what's going on. So says it's push to me that is the same exact as and if that's the case who is in the event that is even if it wasn't in he's going in who is when it comes to the extent that it only was later because right now it's not and it's again I don't care if it was yesterday or today at the end of the day right now it's not really so it's not and there not going to be that's going to be that's going to be but if that's the case with is and just like mayor said in that unless it's in the same is saying the same exact thing and he's saying as relates to unless so for that we had to come on to I have and I have IN THE SAME EXACT AND IT'S TO me it's the same. Oh, if that's the case now it got easy because what do you do in what do you do is anybody in so it's like and by the way if you take a look at says [laughter] so if that's the case that means and if that's the case it's to that when it comes to the of but right now it's not right now nobody would put this in his mouth it's physically not what's the well it depends if it was not at the time that it was becoming if however it was but afterward words it was his like mayor which is really is going to be that at that point at that point [snorts] it is going to be to me I think it's posit that when the said that if you have this ka that started off as a ka and then it got because it was gaz whatever exactly happened to it and right now it's says you want to eat it together with there's no is That's that's because when the becomes it's and being that the only happens when it's together with the so if [laughter] it's TOGETHER WITH AT A TIME THAT it's the and the everybody agrees to this IS GOING TO BE however as it relates to the of this oh that's already different because of The doc told me before it became before it was being processed to use with this meat. At that point there was already said now you're dealing with a situation that was not his SOMETHING THAT WAS GOOD AND then later was well you're not going to say it's for that reason it's going to be that's where I'm coming from. I'm not just saying I'm coming literally from the By the way, this is the first page of a 10page. It's not normal when you sit down and go through a little bit. What's going on there? But this is the beginning of and this was the he said that it's true already told us he was this idea that if you have food that is problematic from a perspective and now it's it's but stating that based on the way the understood it's it's only going to be true as it relates to in that state it can't become assur but if it was asser now that it's in that state that is not going to be okay it's interesting this goes down as a controversial usually it's the we're having this conversation about oh here's the ofud on this very he says that made this distinction and then he quotes from one of the who But the truth is it wasn't just if you look at the pkim the pkim were very very troubled by this and [snorts] the reason they were troubled was for many many reasons. Number one that as it relates to this between there's no right you're left with the there we have a and like this we know how to pass and that's his stating at the this is peric base. So the over there is discussing a barrier. So sometimes is if somebody eats even if it's going to be a problem to the extent that it's a full barrier says the raam coming in middle somebody has a barrier and it was it became disgusting and changed even if you eat the entire thing or because you ate the entire thing you're gonna get malus. So the Ram says if somebody eats a berry he gets malus and the Ram adds even if it was and it was still it's going to be says the this can't be talking about where it's at the point where it's not because if it did become so disgusting that you can't give it to your neighbor. The already told us says the rabb's telling you that if it's a it's still going to be a problem. Oh, you better be very careful. Read the not such fine print. Right? That's the magnit's job to put the fine print on the side of the rab. So he says let me tell you what YOU BETTER KNOW. THAT'S ONLY IF it was his a little bit. But if it was to the point that it's discussing that it's at that point this this is not going to be true. YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE LIKE HOW DO I KNOW that I'm passing like that way? So the RAM over there says as follows. Ra's talking about if somebody eats but he eats it says you're only if you eat it right and it's for that reason in those situations you're going to be awesome even if you very famous we need the next ho If somebody would take and he would liquefy it and then he would swallow it and he did it when it was very hot like he literally burnt his throat or he ate the raw or he mixed it with like bitter things and he put it this what we need create and it's no longer going to be says the magishn that at first comes in as relates to the still you're going to get malcus it's not that Okay. There's only one way for me to understand this. One must be talking about a Z level of and the other one's level of from the fact that if somebody eats that was his you're going to be so must he talking about where it wasn't so disgusting. Mishna who no one knew more about the Mishna who learned up in the that is like who the sat down and he said there's no like so he had to jump to he had TO at the very least learning up so how could have written on 15 page tru and not even mention this ra it's a on but the bottom line is for sure the way understood it seems to be that once is not I don't care if it was not at the time that wanted to be or if the was then only later it became any in either case is going to be the same is that it's going to be mut The truth is if you look in the Rajay and this is and they both pass and cler [snorts] like and again for whatever reason in this he failed to mention the and he failed to mention this Russ because timing that even if there's no hak So what are you going to do? So the truth is already addresses this and already says that it's not that the two because it's very you're talking that between there's one way of looking at it and as it relates to there's another way of looking at it but the point is already made that distinction and that's the how it's possible with like yet in the of the he would pass in like and that would how the and by the way other as well would have the places they would have the right to go ahead and they would be able to pass skin like in the even though it's called understands that is going to be like it's not a steer because it could be and but the bottom line is the bottom line is is that this epic true of the Yehuda really really in the world of the was very very almost felt this urge to reinvent the wheel and come up with a how you going to treat this it's enough it's a raj it's a rush I mean these are literally the rebas of the pkim of of and if that's the case we already have a muack and the seems to be that is like who we'll get two more in the course of these next few raid bites who has a very important tru on this whole topic and this is in he has literally four pages dedicated to all the and he brings from the from the all done for that as much as the certainly in this but really in role is every that he wrote is is is fire and and how could anybody go but already was was to it and if you go through you'll see that not like this again not all but it it became a chuva that even people that would say how could you be make but the evidence not like is so compelling ing there's often that seem to be not that way and if that's the case a lot of held that whenever you pose with such a question is going to be that we're that if you have food of even IF IT WAS ONCE BUT IF RIGHT now it's right now we're going to say that it's and if that's the case it's no longer going to be considered which would mean that in the case of the with the in that situation over there there'd be and any situation that's similar where you're dealing with in front of you which you know originated from and at one point it was a regular viable is where if somebody would eat from it he WOULD GET LASHES BUT IF RIGHT NOW it's there's a tremendous in the and certainly in the and even say that we're going to go even though the wrote a chuva not that way but at the end of the day the chuva goes down as a little bit of a tamua and therefore a lot of done 100% but there's another nuda that needs to be addressed as relates to this topic much shorter but very very important and integral to this discussion and that is the rush in bra inim and this is in simil He brings Absac from Rabenua. It's a talk about early. He brings Absac from Rabenua. Rabenu was discussing something called musk. So what exactly is musk? Musk was something that was a byproduct of a deer. If you look it up, the musk deer, it came from the blood of the deer and it was processed to the point where it was in some cases used as a food ingredient. People would eat musk together with other food and it was used as a fragrance as well. Ever hear the expression a musky odor, right? Certain cologn have musky odors. This is where it comes from. Comes from the musk. But the point is that and this was something that was very popularly used in the times of the and sat down and he had issu is a Jew allowed to eat musk or is he not allowed to eat musk? Now wo not because the deer the musk was a non-cos deer. So at the end of the day it comes from something that you're not allowed to eat and if it comes from something you're not allowed to eat it's not going to be okay. said it's mut 100% full stop mut didn't say he said it's 100% going to be mut and the reason he said is he said because let's be honest by the time the dam converts to musk it has no sh to musk and then he uttered the immortal words that we've all heard in THAT IS IT'S NOT THE SAME THING IT'S A it's a and if that's the case who cares that once upon a time it was blood OF A RIGHT NOW THIS second this second it's it's a whole new thing and this new thing and that is a where a person can distance himself so much FROM HIS ORIGIN THAT HE HAS NO [laughter] ANYMORE HE HAS NO anymore literally he's not connected he has no relationship to where it is he came from anymore there such a and musk was the example that gave just to read ONE HE SAYS I LOOK at who cares. It's being nice to it's not that's doing it. It's not dam right which wouldn't even matter if it's but the bottom LINE IS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO with those in this is something that 100% is going to be M. And then he brought was because said that it's posit to me that if you would have a kat of is that would fall into bing would literally consume the iser to the point that the is would become a piece of dvash it's posit to me that if somebody would want to go ahead and eat the dvash you'd be able to eat it I don't care what's in there I don't even care about that thing is gone it's not anymore and if somebody would want to eat would want to eat it and you know just like It's you'd be able to eat the so if you want to eat the musk you could eat the musk. After the rush brings he just fears ice with a few words and he says that's what he says. He [snorts] said you know had what's kind of is that I mean who said that that's the case? So it says the rush if you take a look at the mad that was written by the over here on the says that I disagree we know there's a cloud that when something happens it means that it has it has a real and that's for sure was coming from. So this idea that the rush from it's not fair because he had always been in such and if that's the case I don't think the rush is right when he said needed because was coming from and that is something that's very powerful when it comes but the bottom line is this is this is the this is the of this was quoted by all the preesh over there in I saw says that even the Russian worked with this mean the Russian never blatantly was with even the rush himself worked with this and the bottom [laughter] line is this is something that there's no question has and that is that there's a concept there's a concept of of now just to clarify how's this different than the first half of the how's this than right it's two completely different things is talking about where I have no I have but it's the kind of mole nobody would eat it it's not something that you would eat so it's right it's we're not debating whether it's or not but the question is that's and that's the whole debate do we like do we pass this is something else what we're saying is not it's not because it's not that's a different this There's much more than that. This may would be too because over here what we're saying is IT'S THAT WAS the of the that's what was going on over there. But either way, this is the All right. So for the next part, you have to be sitting. Ready? You're sitting or you're standing. Hopefully sitting. This comes up in another place. I mean, this is mish mindboggling. It really is. If you if you misplish mindboggling. So we know that once upon a time we had Shamishk. We also know that once upon a time we had the So what was inside the it's so there were five ingredients in the there was murderer are there was kin basm there was kim there was k and then there was zas and the terra del delineates exactly what does she or what exactly is mar means it's the type of mar but what exactly is m right what is the of the truth is also in the it's one of the right was in the it was also in the so what exactly is if you take a look at the in the par of his says and included in the is the ram himself mosque you want to know what it is it's mosque where's this ram this ram is in it's in perf says the ram this So you want to know what is mosque. Then brings that quotes this and he asked a whole bunch of cautious. One of the cautious that he asked is how in the world are you taking moss that comes from a non-coosher ANIMAL AND YOU'RE PUTTING IT into the shees and you're putting it into the TO THE WHAT'S GOING ON OVER HERE? AND the Ramban said it doesn't bother me so much understood that the must didn't come from the actual D. It came from a certain leos like some pus and therefore it's not really part of the kaya. It's perished by like we saw in the and it's for that reason it's not it's not included in the this asks on these deriv asks on the says he says my brain can't process this what in the world he says I have a different basi and he goes on he says the that the Ramban already brings in terms but the Ramban and the way the Ramban express this is the Evan Ezra and Raven not worth standing but this was THE Ramban himself defends it tooth and nail that in there was this of musk EVERYBODY WAS M WHAT'S GOING ON OVER HERE HOW CAN IT BE AND tried wiggling ing out in terms of the but if take a look at the cast in his writes [snorts] who cares RIGHT NOW IT EXTRAPOL IT COMPLETELY CHANGED ITS NATURE. And if right now it smells good and it was something that practically speaking was very convenient and seemed very to put INTO why shouldn't that be a big what's the OF THE IT'S SO THIS OF IT GOES SO V IT WAS IN THE YOU can't even say it's out of your mouth almost but it was in the by the rabbit says I can't process this and said the same thing but the defended it and it boils down In other words, there's this unbelievable and that is is that there's a and I don't care where this thing came from. If right now it's this is going to change everything at this point it's going to be completely different. So let's go back to where we started. It's getting late early. And that is so we set this up talking about the history of the cautious of Coca-Cola, specifically glycerin, which is one of the ingredients, which is an animal byproduct. And then we talked a little bit about gelatin, which is very much, which is also an animal byproduct. One comes from the fats, the other comes from the collagen, which is the protein. But same difference, you have now parts of a non-coosher animal. And how is supposed to treat this really [snorts] at first glance and this is the first sh as it relates to understanding the s of jalatan a little bit there would be two to throw out there to debate and both of them would have in it a where if you wanted to be you'd have very very much the first is there's no question in the world that the gelatin and the glycerin is not and if it's not roy that is that once something's at that point is going to be and even though it's and even though with his grace that when it comes to this but they all said that it can't be that this night is so because the mag already said that the to be make like and the Rajba said him a furish and the set him a furish and not just that it there's so many ri seemingly at first glance of and it's for that reason the status of this glycerin and this gelatin there would be just based on the fact that it's not but there's another reason to be and that is let's say we're gonna of let's say we're going to be like because at the end of the day and who has the plates right you can't be maker like in all these places and then all of a sudden now when he says I'm going to be maker like some of the other no we live and die with the and if that's the case said it's but on top of that you're going to say come on you're going to you're going to take something that came from and you're going to put it into your pride you're going to put it INTO YOUR MOUTH THEY PUT IT ON THE IT WASN'T [laughter] A IT WAS A THEY PUT IT ON THE AND YOU'RE RIGHT THE the the said I can't fathom it I can't even fathom it but at the end of the day it's what the Rambam says and it's what Ramban SAYS WAS AT THE END OF the day this was the of this is a concept of right the po can say that if somebody doesn't want to rely ON HE'S A BAKER because in the same that says says there's a there's a concept called there is such a there's a real thing called is to be and to be able to play around with the clip because so maybe this is over here but the bottom line is the bottom line is is two to be number one I see it as a piece of I see as a piece of kazer but it's going to be m number two it could be the chemical processing of it physically alters it to such a level that we're at a point where it's 100% padash and being that it's kadashan I can't even view it anymore as being the iser and if that's the case that too would be a to be the bottom line is two is ostensibly to be now again we can't do raid bite part two without doing raid bite part three because if we walk away from here we're all going to be in a lot of trouble so we're not stopping over here this again is very much not this is not the way the came out I hope I'm not spoiling it for anybody but this is not the way the came out but I just want to end with one little twist and that is you know I was going through this ch from the about the shukus of the dagto and you know I just figured I wonder what this fish even was right alvar Balazen. Some people call it hoen or probably balazin. So I looked it up and I triangulated my information. I looked it up in multiple sources. You know what the hen was? You ready? It was a sturgeon. That's what it was. The housing was a sturgeon. Can you believe it? The bladder of THE STURGEON. REPLACULA. So what's going on over here? It's a pellar, right? So I remembered a few weeks ago I got an email and it came from uh someone who listens to the shar who happens to be a uh a very he's a member of of one of the big cautious organizations in America and he sent me an email very respectfully saying that we misspoke a little bit during the share because if you remember at the end of the sturgeon rabbite at the end of the sturgeon rabbite I said you know we're not for the fact that uh the came out not like the Prague not like Yehuda and Mulandal and Rabus you'd be sitting at a and you would say pass the beluga caviar with the beluga vodka. So he wrote to me and he says you have to be careful when you say something like that because not all sturgeon was created equally and even the beluga caviar would still be not kosher. At the time I didn't appreciate it but I looked back up I had a feeling this is where he was coming from. You know what Israel was? Take a look at because if you look it up, this housing wasn't just any sturgeon. It was the beluga sturgeon. This is not where he was coming from. So at the end of the day, we got to be careful. But not all sturgeon was created equally. Even if you're going to be that's why we put out the disclaimer, you ask your local rabbi. But I just thought in a twist of irony, this is talking about surgeon. Now I know what was going to say. Maybe this is a ride, right? Because you remember that WAS THE WHOLE WHY IS he writing about this of the bladder of the sturgeon. So maybe this is a we know they didn't even want to hear it. It was you talk about something they couldn't hear this even for one second. The mahal is because not all sturgeon I mean could it be didn't know it was a sturgeon? Who knows? Very fascinating very interesting. But the bottom line is this is the this is a beluga sturgeon making its way into Coca-Cola together with gelatin. One big seed. But here's the bottom line. This is only part two. Tomorrow we are going to do a very important part