Chulin 54

Today's daff is daf nunal and we are six lines from the bottom of daf nuniml. So the gummor is at the tail end of a very detailed discussion about the tra mentioned in the Mishna that is rashi. The Mishno and explained quote the wolf or another similar animal attacked this animal with its fingernails and it deposited some venom into the animal. It burnt it and that's why it's a tra. Either way, the Gumar discussed this in somewhat detail and we just have a little bit more said because if the animal was punctured with a thorn, the animal is not going to be considered a tra unless it penetrated the which we saw is the area where the intestines are, the vertebrae is, it would have to go into that area in order for it to be considered a tra if however an animal actually caught it. [snorts] Even if there's no evidence that it actually punctured a hole into the of the animal, but rather what you see is redness, you see some swelling, as long as that's connected in that area, that would be enough to make the animal. He said as relates to a a Jerusale is if the area the flesh connected the name became redim if however the animal was attacked by it by its and so if the buser that surrounding the area becomes red that would not be enough to make it a but you would need that themselves should become the following the where the size of a mash makes the animal au that if there was a jerus that made the animal red and the size of the redness is a mashu that would be enough to make it a traa. If a neck of a mashu is considered a traa on the vashet, then redness of a mashu should be considered a when the point of attack was the vashet. However, a ka that has a ne that's the size of a mashu does not make the animal a tra. you would need that it should be severed or as we're going to see in the if the waser it's missing some of it the size of an iss an ancient coin that was used that too would make the animal a tra so BB's question was if the animal was a Jerus and the area that it became a drusso was the ko so what's the shear of the redness that you would have to have on the sim in order to make the animal tra by the veh He assumed it's for sure a mashu because if the neck of mashu makes the animal a tra on the vashid then redness of a mashu should make the animal a tra as relates to the tra of s on the as well but the ka where the or the nev would have to be more than au it would have to be a shear. Do you say that the redness would have to be like the as well or not? Or maybe a mashu just like redness of a mashu makes the animal a trait for when it's on the maybe the same is going to be true if it's on the as well says after the question he was the question he said doesn't matter if it's on the or if it's on the it's always going to be what's the reason for it because said we saw the way the animal kills its prey or renders the animal a tra by depositing this poison into The fact that this redness of a mashu means that a mashu of poison went in. Once there's a mash of poison that goes in, we assume it's going to spread and it's going to eventually kill the animal. So a ne of a mashu on the ko maybe won't kill the animal. Thus it's not considered a tra. But redness of a mashu on the we assume it means there's a little bit of poison. The nek is not going to spread but the poison's going to spread as a result. Even a mashu on the would be enough to make the animal a tra. He said the following said that requires again this is all a continuation to the previous the is where does the need to take place in the area that's if you have a picture they show you exactly where that is there and he and he commented he said wellim I heard from Raph differently that it means from the kappa literally from the spoon of the animal. We'll see what that means until the animal meaning told that when [snorts] said you have to do they meant a specific part of the animal you have to be the whole animal it means said I differently that the do is from its spoon quote unquote doesn't mean the calf of its hand which is translated as its shoulder shoulder blade. That's essentially the same area of the that was referring to. So why don't get all dramatic and he swore in the name that he heard that from Rav that that Rab said that it's the same place. If it means the shoulder blades if you draw a little picture you're going to see that that we're all talking about the same place. What it must means is it must mean not the calf of the shoulder of its hand but rather it's the calf of its referring to the skull until its thigh which is a much larger area and that's where [snorts] came from the comes he comes to he meets the great and they're sitting in and they said the following the same you have to do. So what exactly do you have to check? You have to check the area that's connected. So said I just came from Bville and I know Rav I'm a tal of Raph and I heard from Rav that the area that you need to check is same thing that had said in the previous Gmorrah. So turns to and he says man who is this Rh I'm hearing so much about apparently was hearing a lot about Rav was the god of I I don't know who he is turns to an interesting he says you don't remember that there was a who was he was also aid of is it coming back to you and then continued he said that all those years that Ra was. So he used to sit and I used to stand. In other words, was saying he was greater than me. He was on a higher he was considered more than I was. And what was he what was so great about Raf? He said he was great in everything. Rashi says Rav was great in Tyra. Rav was also great in that Rav used to that Rav used to observe. But the point is not you remember Rav Rav was he was from the from the superstars says got up and he said now I remember who he is. As a matter of fact, I remember he said the following if the of an animal slipped out of place and then the did and he's not sure if the was done before the ka slipped out of place or if he did it after the ka slipped out of place. If he did it before the ka slipped out of place it's a good if he did it after the ka slipped out of place the fact that the ka slipped that it was that would make the animal into a a tra. So said Rav that if you find that the trachea the of the animal is and it's called because it's impossible once the slips out of place to properly. So if you got a proper by definition it means that it was in place at the time of the so it must be first it was and then afterwards it was that says theor argued and he said if it's not true it's possible to do a even on a however when you do a onm specific appearance so what you could do is it could be mak what does mach mean? So we've seen enough gumaras to know what that means. You can compare. So you can do is you can sever another hole in the ka and then compare it to the one that we have. If they look the same then we'll assume that the happened after the if however they look different then we'll assume that the was a proper but the bottom line is said I remember now who rather I remember he's the one that said about continued along this and he said this whole is true only if the didn't grab onto the at the time that he did the If however he grabbed onto the when he did the then it's for sure possible for to be able to do a even if the even if the had slipped out of place either way so again the Gmorra is discussing Jerus where there's that you have to do what part of the animal do you have to do the apparently there were two opinions amongst the garra there was the ofk there was the sheita of that said he heard from Rav and said that he heard from Rav that it's a different shir the isapp what is mean. So the gummor's second explanation which seems to be the final explanation is it's from the skull of the animal until the thigh and the gum related a fascinating story about who here from who was a one of the he comes to and he says over a member from Rav and turns to he says man rav man who is voy I don't know who he is I mean rav was the god lad rav incidentally lived init and then he went to bubble often says bubble which is exactly what told him he says you don't remember was a of he was a and went on to say that he was greater than me the great was was greater than regardless so there's a lot of interesting that we could talk about as it relates to ra would seem to suggest that was greater than yet we know the says in that whenever there's we that we once upon a time spoke out. It's worth revisiting but not different day. says the garish after mentioned all the tra and Mishna mentioned 18 t the although it's not the mentioned in the but after the mishna mentioned 18 examples of the says this is the rule kind of the mishna holds that which means that an animal that has will not be able to And the Mishna said that this is a rule that anytime you have a animal that has a defect or a wound or a disease that will cause it not to be able to live that [snorts] is enough to make it a tra says the cloud we know is always so the says it's coming to include the schmita the seven am teachings with regards to tus what are the chefs So they weren't discussed the family of the hunter. You allowed to be a hunter. So they used to hunt animals and they would kill the animals by shooting an arrow into its sciatic nerve. And afterwards they would they would kill it. So they brought it to and they wanted to know if they're allowed to do what they're doing because being that they hid it in the sciatic nerve the animal's soon going to die and if it's soon going to die it's a tra but at the same time it's not one of the traers that I mentioned the Mishna it's not one of the chevita there was no bry of a ton of that included this said this was the question that they brought to they wanted to know this animals that they hunt could they eat it afterwards with a proposi said >> [snorts] >> on the face. We have the fish and nothing else was also a hunter and his family when they used to hunt. They would hit the animal in the kidney also. They ask the same is the animal a trade for what do you mean? At the end of the day, observe this animal's going to die. And if the animals die, then shouldn't that by definition make it a a says the it's true, but we have a mess that if you would cure it with some form of medic form of medication, it would live. And it's for that reason that it wasn't included in the traus. Which means incidentally that all the traers that are mentioned in the Mishna were tra for which there was no cure cuz if there was a cure then it would be like the sciatic nerve and the kidney where it would have been mentioned in the Mishna. The point is the reason that it was uta or the ka is because these were for which there was a raff all the mention the were and if the included and anything that considered a meant that the animal would die within and there is no for it those were the criteria the bottom line is that's why it's not mentioned in the mission of course this right here is the basis for the ram in the end that we've spoken out together in the D many times. Again, there's more to talk about, but we'll finish the D and we'll get to some very important raid. Either way, the the second. So, we had and now we have the as we're going to see the really mirrors to a degree the meaning there were a lot of traers mentioned in the Mishna but those tra had certain parameters. So for example, a hole in the trachea, does it make the animal a tra? Well, if it was severed, yeah, if there's merely a hole, not so we'll see this Mishna really mirrors the first Mishna, a hole the size of a masho in the garggeras in the in the trachea. That doesn't make the animal a tra makes the animal a tra. But when it comes to the ka it needs to be thus is not in the mission of eluch it's in the mission of elucheres or it was cracked. If the top and the bottom are intact and there's a crack that goes down the length of the garggeras that doesn't make the animal a tra. It would have to be along the width the garggeras would have to be severed. But you would need that it should be along the width of the circumference of the in order for it to be. But if there's just a crack going along the length of it, that doesn't make it a there has to be a point says the where if we're missing part of the it is a what's that the size of again everything here was discussed in very great detail earlier in the par [snorts] if the skull of the animal was bruised but it never penetrated the brain. So the membrane that encases the brain wasn't penetrated. So that's not a tra if it went into the but if it just damaged the skull then that wouldn't if there's a puncture in the heart didn't enter the chamber of the heart if the backbone broke but it didn't sever its spinal cord the liver was removed you still have it remaining the second and the third of the four stomachs of the animal respectively that has a hole, but it's the the hole is in the wall that separates these two stomachs. So there's the outer wall and the inner wall. The Mishna says if there's a hole in the outer wall, then that would be a tra. But if it's the inner wall, it's the it's the wall that connects or separates the these two stomachs, it's that wall where they join a neck over there would not make it a spleen was removed. The kidneys were removed in the lower jaw was removed. If it's a female animal and her womb was removed, the lung shriveled, but it shriveled. Not what about a glued an animal that was flay. It doesn't have its skin. Everything is familiar to us already. Regardless, this is a Mishna example of things that you could have had, you know, maybe you should make the animal a making it clear that even though these are wounds, but they're not considered defects that are to the point where the animal's going to die with thus they're not, but rather the what does that mean? says, "Okay, they're arguing about something, but they're arguing. If the ball of the thigh bone slipped out of place, it dislocated said we had this right in the beginning. The first of that would make the animal a said that the way read the mission is as follows. When the Mishna says and then it lists 18 it's daft it's da these 18 mentioned the mentioned then it said but then the kind of realize that which is inclusive I think will be of as well so it's but it will be more than the it's also going to be of the damuli because it's similar to Natuli. There are things in the Mishna that are tra because something was removed. This too the thigh bone that pops out of place it was removed from it socket from where it belongs. So it's similar to thus said. So the purpose of was to go not like just the opposite. And we wrote and then he felt there are masses which he really wanted including never included. It wasn't one of the 18 and he didn't think it would be included in the because but it's only going to be things that are similar to the things that are mentioned in the Mishna. And the Tana felt that Ra's case where the bone just slips out of place not similar to anything mentioned in the Mishna. It's not similar to all the tra mentioned inn because of a hole that they have and it's not similar to the things mentioned in the Mishna that are tra because they were severed because nothing severed and it's not similar to the things that are because nothing was removed because nothing was removed. Therefore, therefore, he had to write and and it's in the words that you know how so. So, it started off with what does that mean? What does it mean? And what's says if it's these are the and whatever is included from the master's case is not going to be considered a tra if it's then it's just the opposite. It's as opposed to something else that's not we're coming to be something that's really going to be a tra. What's that other thing that would really be a tra? It's incidentally we've spoken that in the past again not for this morning but there's a that says 11th son famously that lost 10 children and the says he had an 11th son his name was Raasna and he sent Ravna to go learn by we spoken about this but either way in this ra was coming I thought it was gishmat first but then I realized it's just the opposite wasn't making the like his son but not like either and on the topic of again the thigh bone popped out of place said it's if the ligaments tore even if the ligaments to it's still going to be unless the ligaments completely decay they go head it's going to be considered a it's going to be caution only if that happens to become a tra so a nevash a ne means a mashu makes the animal into a traa what about in the ka it would have to be severed but there's another way for the ka to become a tra and that is if we're missing a piece of the ka how much has to be the size of an isser that's a coinal I'm assuming that means Italian so an Italian coin that's the the the sheer of in the is for it to become a zer you who never saw the isali I guess it was out of circulation amongst these so he said I'll give you another coin a different maram for you to know what exactly the shir is and that is so the dinina that's something that apparently the was familiar with Rashi says Aurora too. That's where it's from. But regardless, that's the coin that you can use to know what the size of a of a is that would make the another. It's like the small that you'll find amongst the is a coin that was used in the money changer said I was once sitting down. I was doing my job. I picked my head up and lo and behold I saw Barnaf the son of the blacksmith. Who was the son of the blacksmith? The great was his father was a blacksmith. Some reason referred to him here as the son of a blacksmith says I look up and I saw the great imagine shows up to your office and he said what did he want? He wanted and the reason he wanted it was he said because he's learning said twice so far was a big so he was doing some field work some due diligence. So he went to the money changer because he needed this coin to determine the sheer says so my first reaction said was I wanted to stand up for the god walks into your office right but he didn't let me told me he didn't let me get up he said it's that if somebody's doing a job he has a responsibility to his employer and As a result, he can't be mafic even to give to the god to give to is that true when used to come up to bring to the so all the all the people that were working they would stand up for the yidden that were bringing and they would say and they would tell them right they would start serenating them. So this money changes not allow stand up for what do you mean the everyone used to get up all the would stand up for the people that would bring to himself explained yeah you're allowed to get up for the bring heard this and he commented he said you see how it is it is a mitzvah that's done in it But imagine you can get up for someone that's doing a mitzvah of has to be done in a specific time. So you can stand up for someone that's doing a you can't stand up for me. It's not a maybe it's not that the is not what it means. What it means is is apparently we had to incentivize and motivate people to want to give because it was a wasn't easy. a big flut. So what we did is we make people feel good and we will mazic them. This was all said they should be able to do it in the future. It was a special carve out in this really is not let us stand up for anybody. He's not let not for and not for a mitzvah. It was just to encourage and give to the people that were making this arduous track up to the mik to go and and give the mitzvah of to the it was to them that we allowed the balm to stand up for them exhale. So we're a little bit of a on some raid from last week. So last week we spoke about the trees of the rehea. We got into kosher, glat kosher, glat bio. What kosher and glat kosher meant once upon a time. What kosher and glat kosher means today. It's a very diluted version of it. Cuz even what we refer to today as glat is not 100% glat. Once upon a time it would not have the standard of gl. He spoke out what the truh brings his is the somebody told me on chabas that quote quotes this a lot. He said quotabud who said that even though the took on the and as opposed to the kas of the is andra but at the same time there's one big ka that the bay ash have and that is when it comes to kosher and glad kosher when it comes to the and said the ashkinaz would have taken on all the to have the of rather than take all the of the at the expense of the of not being with and he says the reason is and say there's more issues with that one more issues with that one that you would have from all the but he says but either way either way so that was that whole the whole issue as it relates to to kosher and glac kosher. But there's another very important thing that we started talking about a little bit at the end of the week and that is as it relates to a neckv in the stomach of the animal. So just a little bit of a background as it relates to a contemporary issue that the have been dealing with really over the last 20 to 25 years that is that everybody knows the says so just like you're not allowed to eat a non-coosher animal. You can't eat the meat of a non-coosher animal. You can't eat anything that comes out of the non-cooser animal. So you can't eat the meat of a khazer can't eat the milk of a khazer either. You can't eat the meat of a tra You can't drink the milk of an animal that's a tra either. It says in the Torah, a guml is a non-coosher animal. It says it twice once to tell me that you're not allowed to eat the meat of the guml and then the second time to tell me you're not allowed to drink the milk of a gum. to if that's the case the is of is not only nega the meat of a tra but it's any milk that would come out of a tra as well and it's with thatic background that a big shila emerged and that is that today animals are not allowed to just roam the fields and eat grass and and graze in the wild the way they did once upon a time today everything is commercial and Really, if you're familiar with the way they breed animals today, it's the the the best description you can give is think of Awitz. They they put them in concentration camps. They force feed them foods that are very unnatural for them. Animals get sick. They develop diseases and it's a very big mess. One of the common issues, one of the common side effects that animals get because of the way that they're fed, is that very often their fourth stomach, the abame, what we know as the ca will slip out of place. So the cave is supposed to be in the back of the animal on the right side of the animal. Sometimes it's going to slip to the left, sometimes it's going to slip above. It's because of the acids that build up in the animal and the animal has again it's choking it. There's there's just no way for it to deal with it in a natural way. And it's a problem. It's a problem because the animals life is put at risk. And obviously for monetary reasons, the the people that are raising these animals have to find a way to to fix it. So there different procedures that have developed over time that are implemented today by the veterinarians so that they can maximize financially the most that they can get out of these animals. One thing that they do is they'll sometimes they'll feed it, they'll pump it with drugs. So they put drugs and some can correct the problem. Sometimes they need a good chiropractor gives it a good crutch and by doing that they can also make but some of the things that they're forced to do which apparently in most cases they have to do an invasive operation. Now there are different types of invasive operations. However, some of them require making a hole in the actual stomach so that the gases can come out and then everything can be put back in place. If that would happen to an animal, the animal would become a because one of the tra mentioned in the Mishna is a so if the ka has a negative that makes the animal af. So based on that it would seem that any animal that had this operation done to it the operation that involves making a hole in the abism inside the ca that animal would become a tra. Now, being that so many animals have this and we don't know which one did and which one didn't, anytime you take you drink the milk of an animal, you have to suspect that maybe the milk is coming from an animal that had this operation done. And if that's the case, the milk that you're going to be drinking is going to be I mean, it seems like something very reasonable. Now, as it relates to the meat, it's not a problem because when the she's going to know what he's looking at. There's no issue as it relates to the meat. It's never going to play itself out in a practical way because the animals you're going to look, you're going to suspect. So, once upon a time, you only had a chaka. So, now you have to check maybe a little bit more. That that's something that's very easily identified. It's not a big deal. That would never pose a major earthshattering uh shin revolution in terms of the way Jews eat. But as it relates to the milk, that's already an issue. When you buy a milk in in a container, you know what the the history of this animal was. How in the world are you supposed to know if the animal had this operation done or if the animal didn't have this operation done? And based on that, you should have to be concerned that maybe the milk that you're drinking came from such an animal, an animal which is a tra. We just said just like you're not allowed to eat the meat of a tra. So too, you're not allowed to eat the milk that comes out of an animal of a tra. This condition where the abomism of the animal slips out of place is what's known as either a DA, a displaced abism or an LD, a left displaced abomism. That's supposed to be on the right and it ends up slipping to the left. Regardless, this was the Shila that being that in modern times animals are suffering from this condition called DA or LDA and sometimes they're being treated in a way where we're making a hole inside the ca. Do we have to start getting being concerned that maybe the animal the milk that we're drinking is coming from such an animal which is going to make it into a so just two hakas to [snorts] the shila and then we'll speak out a little bit of the number one this shila is a modern Shiloh but it's similar to something that goes back hundreds of years we mentioned in the end of one of the shirim last week that there's a there's a big mus in the garra the that when the Mishna describes the and the which part of the car is the and which part of the car is the Mishna says an animal that has a neck a ne of in the animal becomes a tra if however the nek is in the it doesn't become a tra you would need a rupture in the in order for the animal to be a trauma brought after a whole bunch of different opinions what exactly the keris haki is and what the is the in brings two one he says is is what the gumar refer to as that when they cut open the animal so is going to be able to see some of the caris is going to be exposed to him so the part of the caris that's exposed to him that's the part that's considered the kisapim everything else is considered the then the brings another that says no the entire kis is considered the kisapim It's only the car. It's this meat that covers the top of the car that's considered the car. According to the first, it's a very big. It's only the part of the car that you can see when you tear open the animal where would make it into a tra. According to the other any part of the car, a neck would make into a tra on the side of the old tours. They have There's certain seasons in certain geographic areas where the animal sometimes gets bloated. That's the term bloat. It gets bloated sometimes with all the grass that it eats. And so that animal shouldn't die because apparently this becomes very dangerous for the animal. They make a hole in its in its room and that's the first stomach behind the animal. And they remove a lot of things from it and it ends up healing and it ends up living. They do the same thing for the candles. Now they're making a hole in the car and the animals living. How's the animal live? The animal should be dead. You see it lives. must be that where they the part of the caris where m they make this hole is not really part of the caris it's not the part of the kis where a neck of a mashu would make it into a traa now if you're going to tell me like the second shot in the Torah that the entire kis is considered the part of the car where neashu say with this must be that no is like the first shot in the only meat the part that's exposed to the that is considered the kis as it relates to mash the part in the back neck the bottom line is is he from the from the it must be now the back right here says that he saw over here he says how could you bring from the and he says should forgive the ones that printed this on the side of the because they're being people by thinking that theor is like the first in the course you can't bring from the mitsas because we know like the raam says in So the box says I don't know how in the world we're bringing any from this right here. What's the terret? The terret as we spoke to already last week that this that we say you can't bring from the mits because maybe that's said something. So you can't go ahead and this is important for the trua that we're about to speak out. This is all if said something is you say but the mat says the animal lives. So that already we don't want to hear from that. But over here there's no va here. It's really a sophic. We're not sure what's the car. Is this the car? Is that the car? And even though it's a suffic but at the end of the day when it comes to a sophic there the place can say you could be based on the mater and the and the there's a whole list of so that's part that's what the so again there was an idea where they were making some sort of operation that goes back hundreds of years. But just to be clear, that's not the Shiloh right here. Why is that not the Shiloh? That was being done in the Kis. This is being done in the cave. The cave is much more common than the Kis because the Kis the Keris and this the it seems like it's according to this at the very least that the part of the where they made this hole didn't make the animal a trad but at least it was being done in in a controversial part of the animal. A part where it's not so clear that the animal would be a tra. ca there's no pani and there's no the entire ca is considered an area where a neck of a of au would make the animal a traa thus thus the question thus the question how you allowed to drink milk today why aren't we worried about now the truth is that there's a tru for there's always a tru fora now the chuva that rais wrote was in 1952 and in 1952 there was no condition known to the farmers and the vetinarians as a displaced or a left displaced. The sh that was sent to was really the discussion of this on the side of the Torah. It was sent by Schwarz in Kansas City. Either way, he writes to Raosa that he heard that there are veterinarians that they'll go into farms and they treat animals that suffer. doesn't explain exactly what it is, but it seems like he's describing this condition of bloat that that had on the side of the Torah is discussing where animals they eat too much grass, it gets stuck in the get stuck in the rin in the kes and they have to release some gas. So they're going to make a hole in the car somewhere in the back how much this case and he asked from he said from what he understands this is happening and there's doctors that are are going into different farms and doing this and I think there's a lot of meat in circulation that are coming from animals where this was done and he asked for does that mean that we suddenly have to stop being concerned cuz I don't even think the are aware of this so then I'm looking for it. So the reality is I don't know all the media circulation maybe it came from such an animal maybe this should pose a this should pose a real issue and he gets involved immediately he says you have to know is that part the caris is it not the caris but of course we go and not like the first on the tour we go like the second part of that the entire caris is the caris so if that's the case even if it's in the back of the caris a nective in any part of the caris makes the animal so this is something you have to worry about says the answer is no and the reason is the parish. Of course, everyone knows that, right? Anyone that ever learned the first knows, but truth is not so posh. And goes through a a fest over here because the classic case of the parish ruba parish is when you found a piece of meat. So, you found a piece of meat and you don't know where the meat came from. There's 10 possibilities because there's 10 stores. Nine of the stores sell kosher meat. One sells non- kosher meat. So you're saying that you assume that it came from the store that sells the koshi. But if you have au let's say you have au you have a mixture right now of 10 things list in front of you and now something was pish from that taru. Do you say kapish maruba parish? In the classic case of kapish there was never a taru. There were 10 stores. There were 10 fast food stores. That's where they were. You found a hamburger on the floor. You're just not sure which which which place it came from. Here when you have a voice here it's very different here you have to come up to and you have to come on to a tour and who ser himself in another toin and a rush and a shock this is but the bottom line is came out at the end of the day and based on that he wasn't worried because he said it's true I hear there's a there is a chance that some of the meat in circulation is coming from such animals cuz nobody's looking out for But at the same time it doesn't bother me because at the end of the day but again was written about the in the similar to what was discussing on the side of the and who gave us a modernday a modern day as it relates to that sha where the animals were treated for bloat. He said don't worry about it cuz it's a and parish stating that stating that this whole will not work for the question of the DA and the LDA very different first of all this issue with the displaced abism what was writing a chuva to in this year in Kansas City was the condition of which was a there was a muted mute of animals that this was an issue with so it was very easy to just reject it by thing called the paraph what we're dealing with is something that's a lot more how so again anytime you you start relying on statistics you're going to hear a whole bunch of different stories but railski and his famous trua that he wrote on this issue says that it's anywhere between 5% and 15%. The u website says anywhere between 1% and 9%. Whatever it is it's it's a it's a real number. It's a it's a significant number. It's not something that happens every now and again. The number is definitely something very real. So number one it's something that was a lot mushik. Number two, what we're dealing with is happening in the ka. It's not happening in the car. The kis is for sure more because the caris there is a in the where they make the ne is not even a tra which means that the whole tra is a sh of a safer. It's not a sh of a va with suffic you could be more make if you're dealing with a vi you certainly it's going to manifest itself in as you go through the chuva and as you deal with the shila but there's a much bigger problem and this is really the punchline of the problem and that is is that when we deal the shil that we're dealing with was the milk forget about the meat the meat we'll check for we don't have to worry about the meat we're worried about the milk problem with milk milk is a so what happens is picture a farm they produce milk so they milk the cow and then they milk the next cow, they milk the next cow. They do it very, very commercially, not the way you do it, you know, you did it when you were a little kid and you went to the farm. So, this is done in a very different way, but they're pumping out gallons, hundreds of millions of gallons of milk and then they put it into a big vet. It all becomes nisar. Now, you have in that now milk that's kosher and milk that's non-coosher. The ones that came from kosher animals, kosher milk, the ones that came from non-coosher animals, you have a two liquids that are in one big mixture. What's that as it relates to when you have a you can't just be you have to so you have to be position. So now you're going to need 60 times kosher milk versus the non kosher milk. The problem is if 5 to 15% or even 1 to 9% of these animals have this condition you're not going to have shishim. Shishim would be 1.63%. It would have to be 160th kosher non-cooser to kosher. You don't have that. The numbers are too high for that. And if that's the case, you don't have. So if you're dealing with an animal that walks out of a herd that's to this Rabbi Schwarz in Kansas City, but [laughter] to this in 1952, but but here we were milk. Milk is in the voice. It's we're nowhere close to if that's the case, we have a problem. And when this issue came out in the mid1 1990s there was a major tuml and immediately everyone said nobody drink milk nobody drink milk right almond milk soy milk that's it you are allowed to drink milk from a cow because we were concerned there was a major issue had a had to sort this out and the truth is that really where this shila plays itself out today today in 2019 is that the companies check for this and if the companies they and this is probably the most tedious aspect of what they need to do and that is they have to determine which cows had this procedure, which cows did not have this procedure. It's not so simple to figure this all out. And because it's not so simple to to figure this all out, they they have to put a lot of work into it, but that's what they do. And they make sure that the milk that they're bottling and they're putting their stamp of approval on is from a cow that didn't have this procedure done. What about So this is really 2.0. So you had the issue there a chuan this is the the age old you have to be worried about is the milk from a kosh animal maybe it's the milk of a maybe it's the milk of a dog maybe it's the milk of a of a non-co that you have the prees and you have and you have that you have which also said and that really takes place in the battlegrounds of threw everybody for a loop But he said, "What does that mean?" But the bottom line is that's that whole shila of do you have to assume that when you buy a bottle of milk, if you buy a bottle of milk [laughter] from from a from a store that doesn't have a hash on it, but there's a picture of a cow on the bottle. Are you allowed to assume it really comes from a cow or do you have [snorts] to assume maybe it comes from the for some other animal you know to drink? That's Shila number one. But this is a whole different shila came from a cow. But maybe it came from a cow that had a displaced abasin. And if it did and they did, they corrected it with this procedure, this invasive procedure where they moved the ab making a hole inside the cave. They made the animal to a trifer. So it's very could be a cow that's smiling on the cover. At the end of the day, there's still a problem. The problem is you have an issue here based on the on the issue. So again it went from being a to really becoming a question and that is if somebody eats why isn't there an issue that he's putting something that may be tradition. But the truth is the truth is that before everybody gets excited you have to really take a step you have to take a step back. The reality is speak to any who there is a very high percentage of animals that turn out to be fact whether it's related to the or whether it's some other form of but the reality is is that there's a very decent amount some people say 20% 40% 50% it depends on the geographic area in the United States of America it's a very amongst like older animals bulls like the tougher animals where they take salami and like the tougher meats usually come from older animals the numbers as high as rebelski writes in the cafer in his English he said as high as 95% he said he's he did the research he said one out of 20 is kosher it's unbelievable so the the the amount and this historically was never like this is right it's because of the way they feed the animals today these are these are animals that are being you know manufactured in factories they're not being they're not allowed to to to graze the way they used to now if you go to South America and different places where you're getting cheaper meat it's inferior meat but like Uruguay and uh Chile and some of these places the numbers switch a lot most of them are are really really but the reality is is that so many animals when they realize so if that's the case how you allowed to drink milk forget about how you allowed to drink milk and the reality of situation is that they're milking animals incidentally the animals that they milk are not the same animals that they slaughter right it's it's oh us one second these are dairy animals but a second you don't know if it's the tra cuz you're not checking it. So being that you don't know and but YOU KNOW FOR A FACT YOU HAVE TO BE delusional not to realize the mitas and that is that a good percentage of animals ARE TRA IT'S A fact speak he's going to tell you that. So if that should be true for the dairy animals as well right of course it's posit no one's arguing the mat no they do go on second so the question they do it's so the question is this whole LDA is a is a issue with the dairy animals right so so the question is this at the end of the day you know there's a good percentage of the milk that came from a and it's all and it's and you need and it's not one point say it's the numbers aren't going to work. So at the end of the day every single milk it doesn't matter how is you have an issue. The issue is why are you worried about a right? It's a good kasha but it's a it's a kasha. The reason the is because we have a and says and we're allowed to be not only are we allowed to be but we mentioned already last week the end of that springs from that someone that's not he's not he doesn't believe doesn't believe there's there's a truth somewhere that says THAT THE SAME THAT SAID YOU'RE not letting it say you give me it's the same it's the same And says that even if it's a I think it's that even if it's a Muslim I'm afraid you're going to find out later that we ate was a doesn't matter you didn't need cuz a you're not let go right is a real okay so we're relying on so what's the problem so instead of it being let's say 25% because of the displaced abime now it became 30%. Right? Right? So what's what's the whole I mean after you take a step back I hear it sounds like a a very threatening question but the problem is isn't that true for every animal is and the reason it's because the only time you're allowed to assume on is if there's rely on there's no way to be mav theas thus you have a suffic but if there's a way to be mavar you can't rely on re is when I don't know I have no idea so is this animal a tra how am I supposed to know so you rely on a r but when you there's a way to know whether this animal's a tra or not before you shacked it or before you milk it then of course you're not allowed to go ahead and rely on r if an animal has a sir in its lungs there's no way to know you'll know when you shacked it these animals are dairy animals you're not shocking these animals you can milk it assuming the ro and that's why it's not going to be an issue however when it comes to this displaced abomism to the extent that the animal had a procedure done you would know it had a procedure done because you'd see a scar the best surgeon in the world is going to leave a scar so as you're going to see something so there's a way to be mav. SO IF THERE'S A WAY TO be mavar, go be mavar make you know. That was the crux of the question. The crux of the question was based on the fact that number one we're dealing with the kas. It doesn't matter where they make the hole. A hole in the cave automatically renders the animal a tra. Number two, we're dealing with a double that's needs to be you would need 60 times hat to connect the all the statistics prove that you don't have 60 times hat to connected the Iser and number three is that you could be mirror and the reason you could be mid is because just look and see if it has a scar. If it has a scar you know that it was treated for for this condition if it was treated for this condition then you're done. So even though yeah you're sitting in a supermarket you can't be m the cow but the reality is you're relying on on a situation that's that technically is actually vir and if that's the case it should be a problem stating that wrote a chuva the chuva is printed in he really wrote two chuvas on this issue he sets up the matas very very clearly everything I just said comes from primarily from rabulki shuva but I just want to give you the hakama that he writes is true. We're not going to have time to go through all of it. Maybe we'll do a part two tomorrow, but he he begins as follows. I just want you to know it's more to me than what's he referring to. That's a slang that the used when they wanted to describe something that's so posit all the milk the cheese all the other dairy products that come out of the farms where animals had this procedure done. You don't have to come out. It's me. It doesn't have a say. You don't even have to be as now I'm going to explain to you why. And Raelski says as follows. We'll see. Maybe we have a little bit of time. So the first thing Raelski said was like this. He said he researched all the different invasive procedures that they do. This is very interesting. He said not all the invasive procedures involve making a hole in the cave. Some do but not all do. Which means that really we thought that it's to be mav where the animal had this procedure done or didn't have this procedure done. It's not true. You can't be mav because the only thing that you would be able to be mav is if the animal has the scar. But just because the animal has the scar, it doesn't necessarily mean they went through the ka. In fact, most of the times they didn't go through the CA. They didn't go through the CA. So, you'll say, "What do you mean? Speak to the farmers. Don't they keep a record?" No. He says that the USDA or the government agency that regulates this does not require them to take a record. So, he spoke to them. They don't have records. Why would they keep this record? They have to know exactly what the procedures was done. What? He has his medical records of this the Bahama that's going to be slaughtered in 9 seconds and be sold all over the world. What's the point? They don't keep records. They keep records. If a procedure was done or if a procedure wasn't done, that's all they know. And you're right, you could be m that something was on. You could see it on the animal, but you have no way of knowing. So he says at the end of the day, before he even starts his truth, he says the whole thing is based on information. That's a we assume that it's it's no way to know what was done. And if there's no way to know it's done, you're right. There's a good chance that it's coming from this animal. And on that this surgery would make the animal into a tra that would be a problem. But at the end of the day, it's no different than all the other milk that you drink. Well, every time you drink milk, it's coming from an animal where there's a very decent chance the animals are right. You have the same right. We thought here you can't rely on the r. Why can't you rely on the r? Because here you can be m you can't be mav. You can be mav. You can get some of the information, but you're not getting all the information. I mean that you're not getting all the information. And takes it even further. He says if that's the case even if the even if the farmer would tell you I know they did it in the invasive way he wouldn't even be believed is not and you can't even believe him the bottom line is this is this is like his that he says that the whole thing is a mistake he wrote a 10-page chuva and there's 10 or 15 that he says just mention one and we'll end here and that is we had many times the mentioned that a sha gabya that a krum that developed on the inro. What does that mean? That means a lungs that has a hole and then a scab developed on top of the on top of where that hole was. So the is in it doesn't make the animal into a traa. Stating that it doesn't make it doesn't correct the problem of traum it's still considered an animal that has a hole in its lungs and as a result it's going to be a tra. stating that stating that the Gmorra said that what happens if the has a hole the and it's it's it's connected the the muscles the the walls of the animal. So that would be considered a good hole. So it's interesting a hole and now a scab develops on top of the hole is it's still going to be considered a tra [snorts] that has a hole where there it's not going to be considered a what's the difference? So the [snorts] emphis is a rashi. There's a rashi where rashi seems to be himself says number one that if there's a hole in the rail and now developed that you know why it's not a a good steamer of the hole cuz it's not going to last. Then Rashi says what about the the hole that's connected the why is that okay so because that was there but as soon as as soon as the hole was there it was already connected the so it was never if you think about it Rash seems to be himself because Rash is saying that the reason the scab is not a good ste is why is because it's not going to have a k it's mashma if it would last let's say you knew it was going to last 20 years then it would be good and the animal wouldn't be a tra anymore the problem is it's a misgay but then Rashi says that The reason when the it is a good ste BECAUSE IT WAS THERE RIGHT AWAY THE MINUTE THE ne was it's never a ne was a ne and there was nothing plugging it no the was it right away there it's needed the steamer to be there and the point is not is its not and says there's rashies all over the place rash days where rashy talks about says it sounds like the point is it's not going to kill And then when he talks about again says the point is is because it was there. So which one is it? It's not the same thing. It's not the same thing in says that the is that the reason is because it doesn't have a but if it would have a it would be okay. You listening as it relates to the sh the says no shak says you need that that the steamer should be there because when the steame is there it was never a but if the steame wasn't there that it's not in other words you have a if a part of an animal has a and now you closed up the nek and that that thing that closed the nek is going to have a it's going to be there is that enough to make the animal not be a trade for is not enough to make the animal not a tra according to T it would seem the animal's not a tra according to the shak it would seem that the animal is a tra says Rambellski if that's the case I'm going to tell you cuz we spoke at earlier that the shak and the pre and the marshall all said that every time you have a suffic a suffic is this a tra or is this not a tra what's the look at the mas does it live that means it's going to be okay does it not live it means it's not going to be Okay, these animals after they have a neck of they're stitched up and after they're stitched up the stitching remains. Belowki says everybody knows people that have had surgery, everyone's had a surgery, they know they close you up, they close you up. That's not going to unstitch. It's definitely a steamal. It's definitely something that's going to remain. And if that's the case doesn't make it okay, it doesn't not make it okay. Shakaz now inski held that the shock really held like the taz and it's not really but again that's getting into the detail of the but keeping it 20,000 ft said at the most it's what do you do when you have a din when it comes to doesn't live these animals all live if they all live then this is of this is that we came full circle they live when it's a SUFFIC IT'S A GOOD if that's the case that would be that it would not be a very at the end of the he reiterates everything that he wrote in the beginning that it's posh him that this was a very big tommo but he doesn't even hear a sh again it's it's after either way that issu and we will stop