Chulin 48

Today's d is and we are three lines from the top of so continuing to discuss the so on the bottom of the gum brought one of the more important members in said reading from the bottom of if you have two ears of the lungs that are attached to each other via an adhesion what kazal referred to as a cir less lubedika there's no point in doing aika the reason is because if you have this thea is certainly a tra as a result this animal is going to be off limits we mentioned is why is it that a renders the animal a traa rashi says if you have a it must be there's a nek and even if you testa and you can't find the nekv what we'll have to assume is that the nek was a scab formed to cover the nek. And as we've seen and will continue to see that a rhea that has a nek that gets sealed via a natural scab is still considered a neva and as a result the cir proves that the rehea has a nek which means that the animal's going to be a trait. The place learns a little bit differently. says that the is not indicative of the fact that there is a nev but rather it's indicative of the fact that there will be a nv and that's that even though right now there is no nek in the stating that teaches me that if you know that that if the animal continues its natural course that this animal will have a neck if that's enough to deem the animal to be a traer right now then ra immediately qualified as meaning two parts of the lungs that are attached to each other via this is considered a however that's only if the two ears that are attached to each other are not the ears that are in succession. So if you were to number the lung and one was attached to two or two was attached to three that wouldn't make the animal a tra. If it's 1:3 or 2 to 4 or 1:5, whatever, if it's in the way, that's where it'd be a problem. Either way, the Gmorra continues on that note on the top of what happens if the was attached to the wall of the chest that it's next to via a cir. So there's a cir on the but the circa is not between two parts of the rhea but rather it's between the rhea the lungs and the chest cavity the wall that's right next to it says in we don't have to be concerned meaning we don't have to assume that the is coming from the which then implies that either there is a neck of like or there will be a neck of like rather we have a right to be assume that the is presumably coming from the doen of the chest, it's not coming from the rhea and as a result it's not going to be a problem because a nek in the doen of the chest that doesn't make the animal a tra. So even if a cir is an indication of a nek it's only going to be a problem if it's on an organ where a nek would make the animal a tra. So a on the rhea is a problem. But if you have a cir on the dyphen it's not going to be a problem. What if the cir is attaching the rhea and the doen? So if it's coming from the rhea it's a problem. If it's coming from the it's not a problem. Says a phenomenal you don't have to be concerned. If however there were blisters on the rehea. So now we're ready. We have a little bit of a rea on the it looks like this is not such a healthy which now makes us believe that there's a a good chance that the is in fact coming from the if that's the case in that case you would have to be concerned. Without a rea you have a right to be toile we have a right to assume that this adhesion is coming from the chest cavity it's not coming from the lungs said I read from differently no you always have to be concerned what do you mean it doesn't make sense we're dealing with suffic trace of course he's supposed to go like any suffic so if you have a a and you don't know if it's coming from the or coming from the without question you would have to be concerned. So what do you do? Meaning how do we determine all he said was you have to be concerned. So we're going to have to run a set of diagnostics now to try to figure out if we can know where exactly the circles coming from said I heard from Shab. He explained what you're supposed to do is as follows. You take a knife that has a very very sharp fine blade and you remove the and you take a look at the you take a look at the lungs. If there's a ray in the assume it's coming from the dye and if there's no rises in the you have to assume that it's coming from the and it's going to be a tra we take out the next few words. In other words, what Raa said, he heard from Raab who was explaining was very simple. If you have a cir that's attaching the lungs to the dyen, you have to be so we allow you to make to run a test to see if there seems to be something fishy with the dyen in which case then you'll be able to assume that maybe it's coming from the but otherwise the status quo is going to be you're going to be left with a suffic and if you're left with a sophic you're going to have no choice but to say he said he said that even if you ran tests and it looks like there's something wrong with the which based on what the just said even according to who's but if it looks like it's coming from the then you can be said I'm still not comfortable with that I would still take the lungs I would run it through the lukewarm water as the described in detail on [snorts] and again on just to be 100% sure that this is in fact coming from the and it's not coming from the so at first glance it would seem to be a if you have a between the and the said you be you have a right to assume that it's coming from the unless you see something on the rhea that's suggesting otherwise. So for example there were blisters on the it was then you have to be concerned maybe it's coming from the but otherwise be said what do you mean be if you have a suffic if you see something wrong with the and even then the said I still would be it's only in that case that you would have a right to be now at first glance you would think he's right because so What'sman says you have a right to be why are you being what happened to the basic of so the truth is and the raj they all discuss in very great detail it's beyond the scope of what we're going to do right now but one mahal that do say and that is that when we say that if there's a that means either there was a nek or it means there will be an active is that a vi or is that only a suffic So some say that maybe it's not a vic maybe it's only a suffic and as a result of held that if you have another suffic and that's why it's going to be if you have a and you know for sure it's coming from the you have a suffic now no knows that would apply the rule to the right of even to the of stating that over here where we're not sure if the is coming from the or the is coming from the so it's a suffic if there's even a In there's a maybe no what you're left with even everybody agrees that you go the truth is that this is also in the we had earlier. So the just brought which is that even according to that says that you have to go when you have a between the and the and the was that you have to assume it's coming from the unless you find the with the on said that even if you found the on the still be I still want you to be 100% sure that this is clean in other words was a big because you already found the on And so why you checking the he wants you to be extra careful. He wants you to go ahead, cross your tees, dot your eyes. I want to be 1,000% sure that there's nothing wrong with this. So the said that said that I heard this mentioned in a completely different context. I think you have the wrong I think you're relating it to the wrong. I heard that he wasn't saying I heard he was saying he was going back on Ra's original. What was Rava's original? That's the we began the d with in the intro. If you have two parts of the that are attached to each other there's nothing you can do you can't be on that was he said he said no that where said the case of between two parts of where in that case it's dead on arrival there's nothing to do that's that is the of it was on that said no there's a way out you could do aika but the asks The obvious question. What's the obvious question? What are you checking for between the and the I understand the you're going to do a you're going to try to see could you find the nek? Could you not find the nek? If you find the nek, okay, you found what you were looking for. If you don't find the nek, then you'll assume it was coming from the and as a result, it's going to be a hassum. But in the case where it's two parts of the rhea that are attached to each other, what are you looking for? It's coming from the it's either coming from number one or number three. But what difference does it make? It's going to be a a says the it doesn't make sense what you and so what are you going to tell me? Maybe you won't find the nek at all. But as we've mentioned so many times, even if you don't find a neck, all that means, we'll have to assume is that it developed a scab, a chrome where the neckv was and a chrome that develops on top of a neck in the in a it's not considered that [snorts] this hole was plugged as a result of he said there's no way that could have said his regarding original but rather the way that brings it he must have said and not as a on the but rather as a in the case with the was between the and the way the mentioned it now was the said whatever reason even though suffic over here where there's a possibility that the is coming from the there's a possibility that it's coming from the we have a right to assume it's coming from the stating that say if blisters developed on the Then then you do have to be concerned. So nea is a tra it's one of the traers that are mentioned in the mish. What happens however if the do of the chest was it was plugging the the hole of the rhea so [snorts] there is now we keep on saying that if the rhea has a nev and then a chrome develops on top of the neckv it doesn't undo the nek that's not what is talking about was discussing where there was a hole in the rayo and then naturally the dyson of the of the chest it's pressing against the nekv so really there's there from a practical standpoint the nek isn't affecting the livelihood of the animal So what does say it's going to be cauter? So Frank Gomorra in the case where you have a between the and the even if there would even if you have blisters on the rehea that just means that the is coming from the rhea okay in the worst case scenario there's a nek in the rhea who cares if there's a nek in the rhea at the end of the day the doen is plugging that hole through this adhesion through this cir the doen is attached to the rhea and as a result it should be a mood point now if another would say We'd have no problem with that. The problem is how could be the one that said this. Meaning the Gomorrah feels that in his phenomenal it doesn't understand that if there's a between the and the but it was so now ready there seems to be circumstantial evidence that it's coming from the now you have to be concerned frankly why in the worst case scenario there's a and even if there's av where the is and even though it's a little different it's through the okay the is attaching the to So as a result it's being plugged. So the like you have to say when said that the makes it that's only if it's in its natural form but this was not natural meaning it's not that it's just the basic natural healthy anatomy of the animal where you have the hole is in a place where it's pressed against the chest cavity and as a result we don't look at it as a negative. we have over here is is there's a a part of the chest cavity that naturally should not be plugging the soul. It's just attached to it via this via this adhesion. As a result, it over here said what is the soar says it would have to be in the splits between the of the lungs between those ears in one of those areas that's if the hole was there and it's pressed against the consider otherwise not elaborates on this point. If you have a hole in the hole, it's going to be cautious. This is only true if the was embedded. It was imshed inside the the only then that it's considered that it was again because it has to be say let's say it wasn't inshed in that way. my what's a tra it's going to be a traman agrees that a nevo makes it a tra even if it's in between the cracks of it doesn't matter where it is he's just saying that if it's inshed properly then it's the and in that case it's going to be okay but the ask you see a nev is considered a ne so why does it help that it's ensh the garra is assuming developed before it became enshed in the baser And if that's the case, why don't we say that once the nev developed at that point there's nothing that can undo it. The time we learn the is discussing the tashmish of a man. So the Gmorra says that if he has a nefle he becomes apostle gets the of a the reason is because says because the is the and is a is a person that's what happens if after there was a in this man's that nev was plugged he's not a anymore cuz now he could Even though the nek was a problem, now that the neck is not there anymore, it's not a problem. And then the bright says this is an example where when there was a nek was a problem, but now that the nek is no longer there, it's not a problem anymore. Says this is an example of a nek that was plugged with a plug can under the nek. It sounds like it's coming to something that if there's a nea and then it gets plugged afterwards, it's not going to be a problem. So what's says a nekv in the that gets immeshed in the bus is not a problem to the extent that it's av why does it it getting inshed why does that help so says I hear what you're saying is something and even though it's two completely unrelated here we're dealing with says but it doesn't matter the still likes that parallel but says theor and I agree with the but it's coming to mind something else coming to You're right. There is a time where in the cannot be plugged. That's if it was plugged via a chrome that develops a membrane, a scab of some sort that's not considered undoing the neck. And that's the in that's a ne that could be undone. But an alpha is not but not every time an is not. It depends how it was plugged. If it was plugged via chrome there, the is a chrome. If however the ne was plugged because it got enshed in the like it was there. It's going to be okay one more. What would happen now if according to there was a hole in the lungs and now the lungs positioned itself in a way where the of the chest is it's it's plugging the hole said even though a chrome that develops on top of the neck in the it can't plug that hole but if the dyphen does that could what would happen if now there was a neck of in the doen of the chest now the chest got developed a hole so ordinarily that would not be considered a trafa but being that over here you already had a Traa, you had that nek. It just so happens that the nek doesn't bother me right now cuz it was plugged via the if you now have a ne that you have a neo it should be a problem. So theor was said why isn't it then mentioned in the Mishna interesting listening or somebody should have mentioned it of this nik of that all the nikav that we had 8 n there was a whole list of them how come nobody mentioned now you'll tell me is not a tra depends if there's a neo then a nephen would be a nek ask gives the obvious answer but first the question If there's a hole in the m in the gallbladder if the liver is blocking the hole so that there's no impact with this hole it's not considered a tra would happen now if there was a hole in the liver obviously would be a traa if that's the case listening so how come we don't mention a hole in the liver hole in the liver not mention the talked about if you remember if it was completely removed or there's a left over but a hole in the covet is not a problem a hole in deliver should also what do you have to say the words are but if you look at Rashi says what we mean to say is is that if there's a hole in the and the of the is plugging it and now there's a hole in the doen you're right it's a tra it's a tra though because of the nek in the dhen of course not it's a tra because of the ne and the if there's a nek in the m in the gallbladder the liver is blocking it and now there's a a hole in the cover animal's going to be a tra Why? Because of the hole in the liver? No, it's because of the hole in the m. So at the end of the day, it comes down to it comes down to it's just of it's for that reason. It's not a new tra that's why it's not mentioned in the so at the beginning of the mentioned aa that has blisters which can cause a lot of problems. The context was but it was a cir that was attaching the rhea and the of the we're not sure if the cir is coming from the rhea is it coming from the if there were blisters on the rhea that establishes a ray in the rhea and we assume that it's coming from the ray but the context of the blisters rendering the animal a trafa is whether it was a circa it's not the blisters that make the animal a tra it's the cir that makes the animal a The blisters is just our way of knowing that the is coming from the thus that was makes the animal a but the says wanted to know what happens if you would have blisters on the without any how would you look at it that so you have a there's no all there is funny I ask him the same I also hold this caution. They're not sure about it. If it's filled with pus, it's a tra if it's filled with pure water. It's going to be but mugl pus comes from blisters. And you see that what pus a blister is a problem. He told him back he says it's true. Mal mugl is but it's not talking about lungs. Doesn't say the word ray over there. That's discussing kidneys. So blisters on a kidney is a problem. But blisters on the lungs is not a problem. Was once following in saw pieces of meat. They were and they were there were blisters on it. So he told him want to know from if it's kosher or not. So he turned to him and instead of asking him directly this says tell me is not hungry maybe he wants a piece of meat says just so happens I have no money on me told him he says you know I have a I have good terms with these vendors I'll give if you want I'll I I can buy on credit [laughter] and I'll take care of you told him I hear you're right you got me I'll have to be honest with you because when like this would come with blisters on would be brought in front He would send it to because he had that he himself didn't hold that way. In other words, I heard from that thought that really should be a problem. But being that he didn't have a mess on it, he didn't want to ask him that it's a problem. At the same time, he couldn't say it's mut because he have that it's either. So he used to send people to who had a messiah from a lot of names on this stuff who had a messiah that it was okay. So said I heard from that he doesn't have a clear messiah this way clears that way. As a result I'm not going to tell you it's at the same time I can't tell you it's I can tell you what used to do but the reason I'm not buying meat is not because I don't have money. I don't need it from your credit either. I'm simply not sure what I'm supposed to do. Similar story. Rob said he used to follow. Some say it was in the shook of the raoni says kandi are also blisters but they're a little bit bigger than the blisters that we had in the previous gar and made an interesting observation used to follow and you had all the m the butcher stores were selling meat where the lungs had blisters on it and it wasn't he didn't start screaming he didn't say anything why didn't he say anything must be elder was okay interesting says They used to walk says these are even bigger blisters and he wouldn't say anything and again that this was not considered a pro. So before we go just to exhale for a moment with something light and then we'll get into some of the more intense at the very end of the d. So the gammorra had mentioned something interesting. discussed where if the lungs have a nev it's going to be caution this is aesh because we've been saying many times in the of that a nek in the where a develops on top of the nek that doesn't undo the nev but at the same time said that if the nek was undone because it's now in meshed that's different and that's going to be caution said the raven qualified. He said it's only it has to be literally part of the meat of the animal. But if it's just that the is right next to where the ne is that in and of itself won't be oh okay. So Ibraas brings he brings from who said that is not like that even [snorts] though Ravina said that the only time the being the would undo the neck is if it's said no in other words is it's always going to be caution. Now obviously there's a real traous implication to this but that's not the part of this that we're going to go into has a different problem says he doesn't understand how like we know ra was from the last ra was the author of the raashi is always like is always like would go ahead and pass like it's we always ask him like raino says vashma I'm so bothered with this that you have to say I don't think this is you're right. There's a raven that's mentioned throughout. One of the most often mentioned in is raash who happened to but I don't think this is ra I think this is somebody else. I think this is a different ravino. this ra we don't necessarily paskin like and that's why not like but you're right if this was the ra of then would have no right to pas like then says I think I have a riot why because says that after rais that means there's an exchange here between rais and ravino and says that if you know a little bit of the chronology of that there's no way that rais and ravino shared in exchange. There's no way they could have spoken to each other. And it's based on a well-known gar says passed away on that day was born. The day that Rebi died was born to teach me. So the mentions that incredibly makes it that the day that a saddic passes away another saddic is born. And these are literally the great sadik of all time. It says we know that Ravino was a contemporary of Raashi. In fact, Ravino was a Talmet of Ravashi, but they were contemporaries. Ravino and Raashi says that even though Ravino was a contempor was a Talmet of Raashi, still the [snorts] is like Ravina not like Ravashi because Rav lived in for some time. was above and therefore we pass like we don't pass just to give you an idea how far we go to passing like Ravino that even connected his rebi raashi the greatashi is like ra but either way ra was a contemporary raashi ra was a contemporary of and the garra says that no raashi that means raashi never saw rava the day the raashi passed away that was the day the ra the day the rava passed away that was the day raashi was That means Ra and Raashi never saw each other. If that's the case, it makes sense says Ty is just logical that Ravo and Ravino also never saw each other because Ravoa was a contemporary of Ravino was a contemporary was even a Tal a little younger presumably that Raashi if that's the case how could it work place it's not a not the same person it's two ravenas and maybe that's how he knew it was a different raw different says it turns between the rush says what says as well and the rush He adds one more and the context is really not what we need now but when a person finds a and now it's right in the beginning so if he finds a he's supposed to say the rush says he sends you to this rush right here. But either way, so it says the rush raino and are talking. How could Raa be talking and Raashi was a contemporary of Ravino? So if Raashi was born the day that Raa passed away, Raashi and Raa could have never shared an exchange and from Ravino and and Raa could not have shared exchange had says the rash exactly what says that it must be there were two ravenas truth is if you look in the so there are many ravenas mentioned in but all the raven that are mentioned in not ra just going through the you have ravula raziki ra but raenuti But he has two stam raven does say one he calls raad and the second one he refers to raino raino is the raino that's as in raashi but he has another raad who what's the raad says says just one. If you remember, we spoke about this once, not this this, but we spoke about this idea of that was a little while ago, but then we spoke about it in the context of the says I had a minute ago that said the he said that he meant the pompad and they had an exchange, you know, and who were the rash over The garra says the wereud and the asks in other words if roa says that he met the sabi the pmpadisa that means roa met rahuda how could roa have metud that says the day the rabuda passed away that's the day the raba was born so it doesn't says the roy I think you have to say a very big kadesh and that is that pa you learn the gum that this is some coincidence that happens. Right? That's an oxymoron. But that the day that a passes away, a new should be born. But it says the I don't think that's what it means. I don't think it means it's the day that he was born. I think what it means is we know that when a person is he becomes a new person. He becomes a he's a you have this idea of not literally this is the day I was born but this is the day that I was born again so to speak this is the day of the rebirth says that's what the gumar means the gumar doesn't mean on that day it means the god and nobi rebi was he became the next god and rebiuda and rebu not that never saw Yehuda he did see Rhuda but when Rhuda passed away so till now it was Rhuda was the god of now who's the god now is the god of but it doesn't mean that never sawud say it means in the sense of that he was that because he's a new person. He's a if that's the case, that's what he means. He says over there that says that the says that was of and everyone's on this change the no one knows how to give with this. How could you say the raash was of the garra says he says that's only if you take the literally but if you don't take the literally then it's not going to be so he was and then when the passed away was born it's also because if you hold that means literally and the rush like quotes in the end of the he brings it above then it's all good. How could you say that is a contemporary raashi is a contemporary of but like says it's just a he was a soash was a to the contrary they were contemporaries you have either way this would be a little bit of a maram to that if you want you can take a look in the margles margles He has a little bit of an on this right here. An animal. The now goes in. He's inspecting the animal and he found a mat, a needle inside the lungs. So at first glance, that would seem to be a very big problem. But amazingly there was no puncture in the lungs and being that there was no puncture in the lungs. So it's not a nika but at the same time there's a needle there and it got there somehow. So the question is how did it get there? So the emp is that before we see the gar inside just there there's really two possibilities two things could have happened either the needle came in to the internal organs of the animal in the conventional way. How does a person swallow? Through his veset through his esophagus. So went through the esophagus down into the digestive tract and somehow from there it made its way out into the rhea. If that's the case, some vital organ had to be punctured, right? How else did it get into the ray? How else did it get into the ray? So obviously it punctured the fact that you don't see it, that could just mean that a chrome developed. A crumb that develops mock in a chrome and as a result you're going to have to assume that this animal is going to be a tra. But the truth is there is another possibility. The other possibility is is that maybe it went down the ka. It went through the trachea. And as uncommon as that is, it is a possibility. Right? The Gmorrah says a person shouldn't talk while he's eating. It is possible. Again, it's unlikely, but it's possible. So maybe it made its way down the trachea. If it did that, it could have gotten into the rhea via one of the bronchial tubes. Refer to your picture exhibit something. And if you take a look at that, it's possible that it went in in a more natural way. It didn't puncture the veset. It didn't puncture the rail. It just went in without making any punctures. based on that it would be okay. So really whether this has to be a problem or not depends on how it made its way down. Another issue that you have to is that the Mishna says a nea would make the rhea problem but also in the neka would also be an issue. We had this earlier. So the virtue of the fact that there's a neck a needle inside the animal's rhea that means it's it's taking up space. It definitely made some sort of in the rhea itself. So really there's two things you have to think about. Number one, is there a nek in the because otherwise how else did it get in? So you tell me I don't see it. That doesn't mean anything. Number two, maybe there's a concern in the nek. So really you have two of the traus over here that need to be taken into consideration. So what's the says it's they all said it was big says you forget first glance I think the is like this maybe the sh was whether we look at it as now what do you mean the says is a problem but that's only maybe says everybody agrees that is not considered over here is not whether it's not a it's not a why not we had this on that's not considered a what then is the sh the was do we assume that it came in through the or do we could we assume that it came in through the now again the much more reasonable assumption would be that it came in through the vashet and if that's the case there for sure was a hole in the I we don't see it a krum developed which doesn't make it not. So what gives a right to be how do they have a right to say it's the reason is because at the end of the day there's no in front of us and Rashi says that although it's true it's more that that's what happened but the fact that it's that it went down the we have this in that scenario because there is no hole. So therefore with in this case we assume that it came through the and therefore it's going to be cut there was a piece of and they found a now this is very important there wasn't a full animal see after they sh the animal there's a who goes and he does aika on the entire animal that's not what happened here this was already in the flashkashef they already had a piece of meat they're in the butcher house now and they the meat has the the ray so they can inspect the ra the have aole that did not have a hole. All you're looking at now is a piece of soami. They brought it to thought it's so they asked then how can you tell me it's says that has a neck of it that's don't you see from there? So they told him that why would you say it's how could you say it'sn't there a problem of okay so then they they were looking for so they sent it to he also wanted to be again the same they ended up bringing it back to they still didn't have a a time said already it's going to be a problem I heard There are other aban that are okay with it. Told him who are those other that he was referring to and says is going to be okay. Now kept on asking from that it should be an issue. The didn't answer it but we know the answer. The answer is that is really for whatever reason says the didn't feel that it was important to answer that at this point but we know the answer. So at the end of the day though that included in them is says are we always passing like they will mash so they ask at the end of the day at the end of the day why is it that you're saying that if you find the in a piece of it's going to be didn't and say it's said it it means that's the so at the end of the day you're going so what did he tell him said no says they there was a I don't have a me if the ray was in front of us we'd find the nek meaning what was the whole logic behind the they said that even though it's more that it came through the vash and really there was a hole in the but we have the ray in front of us and we don't see a nek so because we don't see a nek in the that's what allows us to assume the slightly unthinkable and that is that maybe it came in through the ray but that that it came in through the the ka it came in through the trachea but over here we don't I I don't have the ray in front of me. Could be. If I had the ray in front of me, not could be. It's likely if I had the ray in front of me, I would see a hole in the I would see a hole in the in the raya because the way things usually get into an animal, the way an animal swallows is through its vasha like people, not through the you breathe through your trachea. You swallow through your esophagus. So it's no shas. They said it's okay because there was a reas in the fact that there was no hole in the so presumably came through the ka as unlikely as that may seem to me. But in terms of when you don't have the in front of you certainly you have to assume it came through the and the way it got into the was by making a nev that's why over here it's going to be right clearly we're saying that if the was in front of us and there was no would be which is said if you have the simp of That's this vessel of the rehea this blood vessel the inc of that has a hole in it now is we look at it as a why do we look at it as a tra why don't we assume that it all happened through the and it's going to be okay so the gmorra says there it's the reason we look at it as being a tra is because it's pressed against its one of the bronai that are next to it and it's for that reason that we look at it as being a problem says is that true that if two things are pressed against each other we look at it as a traman said we learned regarding the intestines just the opposite we learn the of the intestines coming up here it's just the opposite if you have two coils next to each other one of them has a nev we assume one protects the other one not the other way around comparing one type of tra to another type of you You can't compare it. This is one of the important that you can't compare, right? We had you can't compare to other you can't compare any traers. So it's true. Two things next to each other in this context is a problem. Two things next to each other in context of of the intestines there to the contrary there it's going to be okay. One final there was a that was found in the large bronchial tube of They brought it to these that had that if you find a inside it's going to be betrayed and they didn't want they didn't want to say why not they don't want to say it's because they're always concerned that the way an animal swallows is through his so if you found a now in that in the animal presumably it came through the the vash it made its way into the some somehow it punctured a hole so they certainly weren't going to be m but at the same But they didn't want to say it's why not in the case where the mak was found in the lungs they said it was. So how come it's if it's found in this bronchial tube that's attached to the lungs why over here is a mut said if it's in the lungs so then it's actually more that it came from the into the lungs. But if you find it in this tube then just based on the mitas that's a very unlikely scenario. But what makes more sense is to assume that it came in through the ka I mean even the rau are acknowledging the fact that there's no hole in the so now you have it in this bronchial tube there's no hole in the it makes more sense even according to them that it came in through the ko it didn't come in through the vet ex so we learned today in somewhat greater detail the of on the short on the bottom of and today we saw the the more extended version of it. As we mentioned when we learned to the first time that the are really from a practical standpoint the most important as it relates to in fact says as follows in the beginning of a live so even though we're learning and we've come into contact with so many different types of traus but at the same time after you an animal you don't have to go searching for tus you're allowed to assume that the animal doesn't have a The only body part that you have to go proactively and check is the you have to go ahead and check if there's aarily is an uncommon thing. As a result that they don't have you don't have to check when it comes to the then you have to check and the reason is because for an animal to have a is actually common it's not uncommon you don't have a you don't have a that it doesn't have a and it's for that reason you have no choice but to check the later in goes into somewhat detail as far as how is it you're supposed to check it says the Right after the shacks the animal. So they hang the animal up on its hind legs and now comes in. He sticks his hand into the behemoth. You should do it quickly. And he feels around the ray. Again, he only has to check the ray. You don't have to check any other part of the animal. You're not checking the cable, the keras, the hems, the basis. The only thing you're checking is the ray. So he takes his hand and he feels the outer part of the if he feels that something detached meaning there was a little bit of friction he had to go through something then clearly there was a there he takes the out and now he has to do another exam if he sees that in fact it was a circle he'll be able to see it he must say then he'll find it'll be the be on the wall of the ray it will be on the wall of the dyen and then he knows it's a problem if he can easily tell that it's not a circle then the knows this then it's going to be a caution says the only time you should ever be if you feel anything even if you inspect it and you see it's really not is only if it's a and you have to make sure that the person doing the says this would seem to be the basic Just based on the we learned that an animal that has a raya with a it's a problem. It's a how do you know if it has a you have to check. This is the one tra you have to proactively go ahead and check. The is going to stick his hand into the ray while it's still in the animal. He's going to feel around it. If he feels that there's something sticky, a little gooey, there's something there. So he pulls it out. He can see in a second if it's a or not. Gives you a little sim to know how it's a circa. If it's a then [snorts] the is we assume that it's it's a problem. There's no more to do like said and the animals going to be a tra stating that says the however there are those that are meaning the not the he's the inspector. So he just took the rhea out. There was clearly a circle. It's not just rear. It's not like a little foam that just is easily going to be removed. There's something there, right? So he takes it out according to the it's a problem. It's a says there are those that are m to rub it and to squeeze it a little bit. They say as follows if you have a real even if you rub it the whole day it's never going to it's never going to break. And it's for that reason. What they do is is they'll start rubbing it and they'll see if it's going to snap, if it's going to come off, if it's going to come off then they say that's not a rear. It's only a rear. So according to the only way you can have an animal doesn't have a if you know for sure it's a rear. There's a very obvious difference between a rear and a cir is the bad version. The rear is the okay version. But it's easy to the naked eye you'll know it. So as a result says of what you're looking at is it's attached to the it's over done. There's nothing to do says there are those that are there are those that they have that you can rub all day and it's not going to come off. So even if it's attached to it but rub it start working with it a little bit and if it comes off that's that it's not really a says even though this is a phenomenal that's the meaning amongst the and you should not be because at the end of the day they have what to be but at the same time says you have to make sure that He has to make sure that when he does this he does it properly. He shouldn't do it with force. Then the continues and he says there are people that they do this with all the circus except for the that was the rose that's on that's that's on that part of the lung. Additionally, there are those that and there are those that I'll make with this I think you should be with this and in fact I'll go even further says and I don't think you should rely on this to any that's mentioned before. So for example that was man days on the bottom don't rely on this cooler when it comes to that being that it's a we had the ram that's in the this is I think that's more than a that we only know that's not but the bottom line is says I've seen this that people start rubbing and feeling the the and if it comes off or if it snaps they think that's a I don't really like it that much but at the same time it's already and stating that says I think you shouldn't rely on it for that's so if you're dealing with two or the that's on the the rose ear of the lung I wouldn't rely on it for that either but at the same time says the I've I've observed I found that nobody pays attention to this and the reality is that they rely on this even for the I think the proper thing is is to be said unless he dealing with then says something very important he says even the ones do this. They only do it for the older animals. But for younger animals, for younger animals, they don't rely on this. And the reason is because there's a that being that the animal is so young. So the even if it was a real would maybe remove it. But the bottom line is is we have over here and the right now after the he's going to inspect the how this inspection works. According to the B if there's a cir it's over done unless it's a rear which would be very easy to identify it's 100% going to be a problem there happen to be a few exceptions in the BF's world but there but high level according to the way he says it in is that if there's a it's automatically pro says a tremendous he refers to it as a doesn't love it he says and that is that they do they rub this again and again to see whether or not this is going to it's going to come off. The assumption is that if it snaps to the cir that's a that it's not a real that's a that it's not a real says some people are only for certain circus the ones that are not others are even for the ones that are you could tell the thought that this was a it's a tremendous with regards to the circ that are in the but at the end of the day gave us a koa and in theory if somebody wanted to jump on this this is something that we can rely now it's interesting to note that this is And like most really is the the comes from a rush. But regardless the follows the raj was from the great the follows the rush who was from the great but the bottom line is is two is two so to speak how you're supposed to check the on the now a few things. The first thing is is that it's interesting to note that as it relates to and as you would expect the follow and the follow and therefore there was a that was certainly prevalent like Ramas said he observed it in Kraka where he lived where people relied on this mishmush but the process of mishmush changed it was altered it evolved with time and the way it's done today is not but it's what's referred to as kilov. So kilov is a little different. What the can do today is they try to peel off the they peel it off with a fingernail or with some implement and the assumption is that if the peels off that's a that's not a real that's a very said rub it and if you can rub it and it's going to snap that's a that it's not a but to peel it off maybe it's it's a but you just somehow have an ability to to peel it off and the truth is that when this minig of kilos that's what it's referred to by the pisk started a tremendous tumml a tremendous tumo broke out and if you want to take a look in the safer bas the base of it was written in the 19th century and it's considered the magnumopus of hus specifically this is the the he was a kadm and either way the brings a little bit of the history I'll just read to you from what he says about 100 years ago so if this is being written in the 19th century it's so 100 years earlier sometime in the 18th century And it started as far as he knows in the city of Prague. They try to remove the with their fingernails and the assumption is that if it comes off that's a that it's not a real and they were all they had a big problem. Who would these were? He says in fact the primag wrote that any that relies on assuming that the doesn't have a because he was able to peel it off with his fingernail is unbelievable and they wanted to remove these they said if they're going to rely on this it's a very big problem now They felt not that way. It's interesting. Sounds like they used power. There was some nepotism involved and they were able to somehow use their influence to make it that would not lose their job. And that's why the m somehow got out. Listen to this. People don't even remember that there was one. This was so controversial says the people forgot about it because of that the people that knew the rest of the story they knew that this is very controversial that the hel that any that packages his meat and sells it he's being they felt they had to be he says the first person that was going he Rabbama Margolus say his uncle and basically he said as far he said that from the fact that the peels off so easily that's a that the is not coming from the lungs but rather it's from a piece of flesh that must have caught on to the outer membrane of the lung something developed there that created the and that's why it's not an issue meaning said that obviously there's a rationale and the rale is is that a is a problem when it comes from the inside of the lung because then you assume nik that's why it's a problem but let's say something attached itself to the outside of the lung and then from the other circa developed it wouldn't be a problem and he said that's where this is coming from and there was precedence from it a story that's brought down in the croom of rhinos that's a whole another story but the bottom line is that there's precedence for such a concept that if you know for sure that the s is not coming internally but it's from some external superficial part along then it's not going to be a problem and it was based on that that they wanted to go ahead and be it's interesting the wrote a trua about this. It's called and he starts off as follows regarding the everybody was very bothered by this. I don't understand the incidentally right here brings a lot of this rate. He [snorts] said I wasn't happy with this. So I read what he wrote about this when he was on the people that rely on this and says he's so happy that he was able to be says it always bothered me how people were able to do it and he sees that there's a there's a good mahal and then he quotes the this mahalik of the of which is approximately what we just mentioned. And at the end says if someone wants to be with this [snorts] but let do whatever needs to do. So in his chuva was m based on what he heard from the base of Frank. It's interesting always held and here the was okay with this kilo which at first glance sounds like a kadesh right based on is whatever but the point is is the came around to reframe. So I'll just read to you what the fears at the end he says and this is what we rely on even though the at the end of the day they couldn't reach a consensus to remove the it's you can't say they're all doing something wrong. We're gonna go now and we're gonna be on you saw that everybody's eating not possible and he says the truth is if you look at animals today most of them says I want to ask you a question says right that's what the says right in the beginning how can you say it's not true if a deems an animal a trace then beerus right in fact the say it's not possible says the it must be that these are really not and it's a to the ones that are and at the end he says as follows the is like the ones that are being very interesting someone that's going to be on him and as a result let's not be matur let's be me let's have an and we're going to rely on the mak and that's the reality the reality is today the people that follow the they rely on they don't just say because it's a that's it then on arrival but rather they do testing the discuss the testing of mishmush today the testing that's done is the testing of kilov despite the fact that if you go back historically it was something that was considered very very controversial either way we'll Stop here and yes will pick up part two