This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
0:13 All right, good morning. Good morning. Let us begin beginning by thanking all of our sponsors for this morning share to thank our sponsors for the month of family for dedicating all the this month's father Mr. 0:31 Mayor Ben Mosha, Justin and Abigail Rosemore for dedicating all this month with tremendous gratitude to the entire Kilawa as they go ahead and make their move to Florida and lay a soul in recognition of the entire Kahil. And as continue to fa for Basester, No, 0:57 Ben with tremendous gratitude for a year filled with family. Our week of learning sponsors meron and buria Samuel Mosha Benhana our sponsors and Sarah Steinberg in the schools of continued health and for an ultimate and of course we'll say as always we dedicate our learning 1:20 of all of which let us begin we have a lot to do today a really great daff ahead of us today today's daf is kues 109 and we are picking on um 108b which is 246 8 10 [clears throat] 12 13 lines up from the bottom say remember again yesterday 1:50 we really introduced to a number of fundamental concepts amongst so again a number of them were agreed upon the one major one that was the source of was this concept of what's On a very simple level, you have milk that goes ahead and falls onto a piece of meat. So, we already know the mechanism through which to figure out that case. Shishin, that's what we use. 2:14 If there's 60 times more meat than the drop of milk, then we're good to go. If there's less than 60 times more meat and then the entire piece of meat is tray. So, let's say for argument sake, you have a situation where there's less than 60 times. So, therefore, the piece of meat becomes tra. Now let's say now again we also know that what goes in must come out. So therefore again we know that in the same way things absorb 2:37 things also expel. What happens if so the piece same piece of meat that went ahead and absorbed the milk expelled the milk. Do we say that postmilk expulsion the piece of meat once again becomes mut or not? That's the if the milk comes out of the meat. Now the milk everyone is going to agree is going to be what? It's going to be what? 3:01 Problematic. Cuz what is that milk? That's milk with meat infusions, right? So the milk is going to be problematic. That's fine. But we're not worried about the milk. The sh is if somehow you were to extract the milk. The meat were to expel the milk. Does the meat become that's called it can be if it can't be squeezed literally if it can be squeezed out. So that's the 3:26 in fact it is a we learned if you have a drop of milk that fell on a piece of meat. So once it goes ahead and infuses taste into the piece of meat. So remember again that was the other concept that we were introduced to yesterday. 3:52 which means again that the piece of meat itself becomes fully trafe right no different than an actual piece of so and again I will say understand to a certain degree these concepts are are are connected right because again once essentially once becomes right in other words because 4:19 once you tell me that the piece piece of meat becomes like an aa just like can you change an aa can you change an aa can you change the identity of an aa can you extract the nea kite out of a piece of meat you cannot say by the way here in lies one of the tremendous distinctions another decision keep a running list of differences between meat and man right and here's another one you can't extract the neocite out of meat 4:43 but you absolutely could extract the neocite out of man sometimes man also becomes an aail Sometimes I do stuff in life and I so it might be again once always by man for I mentioned this yesterday by man is absolutely right 5:08 by man right that whatever comes in absolutely be extracted out and there's no such thing as a person who's permanently damaged I could always change myself so Then once you say then essentially is by definition a nonissue right because you can't you can't no matter what you squeeze out the piece of meat 5:30 still remains a okay so let's go back so if you have a drop of milk that falls on a piece of meat once it infuses taste into the piece of meat the piece of meat becomes becomes becomes totally Remember is of the opinion that is so any like mixture by definition is going to become 6:00 prohibited. So once the piece of meat becomes in a ve if it's in a pot with a whole bunch of other pieces of meat the entire thing becomes right because remember according to means we don't care about we don't care about anything by definition any like mixture is never going to be bottled that's no 6:26 we look at the entire mixture and we view ultimately again the milk as we look at it is it giving flavor in the entire pot or not. Okay. So bottom line bottom is suggesting that what's at play over here is the funament of so do we say that once the piece of meat absorbs the milk that's it. It's forever 6:51 it's forever forever damaged forever tra essentially and that's it or do we say no that technically speaking if the milk could be extracted although the milk ultimately again is going to be problematic so the piece of meat could be rendered back to its previous kosher status if you look at for just a moment Rash's on 7:14 the first wide side. So just to understand the way the understand right now is like this when you have the drop of milk that falls onto the piece of meat. So Rabihuda says the first thing we do is we look at that piece of meat. Look at that piece of meat. And essentially again if that if there's not 60 in that piece of meat then again that piece of meat is right. 7:48 Why is it tra? Why is it trafe? Because and is right those two concepts are going together. Once that piece of meat becomes it's unchangeable unchangeable. And even if somehow you were to extract the milk from the meat it doesn't matter. 8:12 You're done. Therefore, again, therefore, what am I going to look for now? If the rest of this mixture is just meat, it's just meat. According to we're done because according to the interestingly enough, what we're looking at over here is we don't look at the drop of milk visav the piece of meat. Rather, how do we look at the drop of milk? Visav the entire pot. 8:35 Now, why? But it's landing on a piece of meat. And the answer seems at least the answer that would like to operate with right now is because is and therefore even though that drop of milk is falling on a piece of meat, the pashas we know what's happening in that pot. The milk gets absorbed into the meat. The meat is the milk is expelled from the meat. So we're not 8:58 measuring the milk visav one piece of meat. We're measuring the milk visav the entire pot. So this is the that itself is a but it's important to understand that and are they're sister concepts. They're sister concepts because if you hold 9:22 is right that means that ultimately again the piece is a simple unchange unchangeable piece of again one more time just important to understand that number one distinction between meat and man right by meat there's a to say therefore which means once damaged cannot be 9:46 repaired true by meat or maybe true by meat absolutely unequivocally false by mane right whatever comes in I can get out I can get out and therefore again no matter how badly I damage myself we never say very important let's go back there so the says and that's the point of saying that is 10:19 beautiful. Rebi comes along and he qualifies the case. It's very interesting. So Rebi says I think when you did not stir the pot and when you did not cover the pot now what happens if you don't stir and you don't cover what happens then essentially the milk remains situated on that piece of meat. So therefore this position makes a lot of sense that again that 10:50 when what when you cover the pot or stir the pot because either way covering and stirring cause for the distribution of the drop of milk. Fascinating. So says my love sorry what does it mean if you didn't cover it or you didn't stir it [snorts] if you want to say that you didn't stir it at all you didn't cover it at all. 11:16 So I don't understand if you didn't cover it or you didn't stir it. So so what are you saying that it absorbed but it didn't but it didn't expel rather what it means is rather what's the case? The case is not where you didn't cover it or or mix it all, but rather again the milk falls on the piece of meat and what do you bless you and what do you do? What do you do? 11:40 Nothing. You leave it. Later on, you go ahead and you cover it and you stir it. Oh, okay. So then say that's where we're going to get into because again clearly when the milk is sitting on top of the meter say what's happening? What's happening? There's absorption. What's not happening? 12:01 Expulsion, right? Expulsion. But then subsequently, if you go ahead and you cover the pot or you mix the pot, now there's going to be expulsion as well. So that's say that's where we get into now because again everyone will agree in that case there's absorption without expulsion in the beginning. But then when you cover it and mix it there could be expulsion as well. 12:23 says, "But why is that?" But again, if you're talking about a case where it was ultimately covered even later on or ultimately mixed, if that's the case, then there should be expulsion of the milk as well because it's clear that again in this case holds and therefore again 12:53 Once that piece of meat absorbed that milk, that's it. That's it. Does not does not examine the possibility of expulsion. Why not? So say this is our fundamental top of now we can infer from this. 13:19 So here's what's interesting. We could infer from this who holds that even if you're stirring it from the beginning until the end right or covering it from the beginning until the end it's still it's still says but one second if you have a case of where the milk falls on the piece of meat and immediately after that happens you're stirring the pot or you're covering the 13:43 pot even Rabi Huda should hold that the piece of meat shouldn't become assur rather we should measure the milk how how ultimately looking at the impot in its entirety to which the says no it has to be a case where you didn't really stir it well so that again we have to be that that drop of milk was still situated on top of that 14:09 piece of meat or you didn't cover it properly as well and Rebi said before that we should follow the view of the ultimately that we measure we measure the milk against the pot in its entirety and not just the piece of meat that it fell upon when in which case when you stirred the pot or when you covered the pot. So the says, okay, 14:37 what's what's the case? What's the case of covering it and stirring it? If we're talking about a case where you stirred it quote unquote at the end but not at the beginning, which means that there was some amount of time where the drop of milk was just sitting on that piece of meat or you covered it in the end, but you didn't cover it in the beginning. In other words, the amongst those two cases is there is time in which the drop of 15:04 milk is literally just sitting on top of that piece of meat. Rebi said before that it would appear that we follow in that case rather we must be talking about a case according to the where you covered the pot. You stirred the pot right when the milk fell in. You covered the pot right when the milk fell in. And therefore again it makes sense that we're not going to measure the milk the piece but 15:33 rather we're going to measure the milk the entire pot. So I can confirm this hold. So I can infer from that that according to the Raban ultimately again if you covered it in the be sorry if you stirred it in the beginning and not and not sorry if you stirred it in the end not in the beginning or and said remember again ending refers to the moment that the milk fell on the piece 16:03 of meat. So you stirred it not at the moment the milk was sitting on the meat for a little while then sometime later on you stirred it the milk fell on the wheat meat for a little while and then sometime later you covered it says that according to ultimately again according to the sorry according to that would be so what do you see from here say this is fascinating so now this is all becoming 16:29 clear according to the say watch this case you have listen to this is I have milk that falls on a piece of meat. It's sitting there. It's sitting there for a couple minutes and I can say we know what happens when that milk falls on that piece of meat. Right? What what is my mind doing? I'm looking at one thing. 16:47 What am I looking at? What am I looking at? Shishimish in what? >> In the meat. Right? Because remember again in that moment the milk is situated on the piece of meat. Let's say five minutes later I stir the pot. Now what? Now what? Now what? So remember according to the Now what is we now look 17:09 at the drop of milk the pot in its entirety. Why? Why? Because the same milk that was absorbed now comes out. And therefore again the first piece of meat again. So let's say there wasn't shishin in that first piece of meat. So in in the first 5 minutes of this mixture, the piece of 17:36 meat was tra. Now when I mix the pot together, we assume that the meat is being expelled from the piece of meat. And now I can measure the milk against the pot. Assuming that there's shishim in the pot can get the p the drop of milk, we're good to go. And not only we're good to go, but the piece of meat that was originally traed five minutes ago is now what? Now what? is now. Why? 18:02 because and therefore as a result this is our fundamental in this case the case that we just said that's the best case to frame it right where again just to understand the meat one more time the meat drops on the meat sorry the milk drops on the piece of meat it sits there for five minutes because all right everybody's agreeing in the case where if the milk falls on the piece of meat and in that moment you stir the pot or 18:31 in that moment oment you cover the pot everyone agrees that there's milk dispersion and and again and he's going to measure the milk against the piece of meat the against against the pot against the pot the real shila is when the milk sits on the meat let's let's call it for 10 minutes right and then 10 minutes later you stir the pot or you cover the pot so now what 18:56 again that piece of meat is tra and forever tra Because because once the meat absorbs the milk, we're done. There's nothing more to talk about. So now when you mix it up, what happens when you mix it up? What happens when you mix it up? What happens when you mix it up? So now just you just to take this all the way. It depends. What 19:21 does it depend on? Do you hold the oron? If you hold the hudah and it's minino, then the whole thing is asser. If you're like that is then what? Then what am I looking for? What am I looking for? What am I shishim corresponding to what? To the piece right to the piece of meat which absorbed the milk. According to the when you go ahead and the drop of 19:46 milk fell on the piece of meat, I leave it there for 10 minutes. Now 10 minutes later I mix up the pot hold. So they hold now that piece of meat expels that milk into the pot. Oh, this is beautiful. I mean, it's not beautiful. It's right. But it's beautiful. It's beautiful because now I can measure that milk against the pot in its entirety. And if there's shishim in 20:11 the pot, then I will say, "What happens?" What happens? Everything Everything including what? Including what? Including the first piece of meat is now going to be mut. say, "Is that not the most beautiful and spectacular mahus you've ever made in your life?" Right? Such an again I can't I can't I can't escape it. It is such an elus. It is such an elus. So say you 20:36 know there's there's you know you know brings down a fundamental I mean I really have to get back to this right because so just there's a fundamental in general about if when a person did a let's say I did a bashem I did a last year in tough shin hey but I didn't repeat them in tough shimp do you have 20:59 to do chuva but aos you've done in your past that you did not repeat this past year it's a fundamental a very very intense and saying you know a lot I I think so much of that is do we say can can a person really ever rid themselves of their averos of their past 21:26 can I really ever expunge the negativity that my personalistic peace so to speak has absorbed and Again by meat it's a by people at the end of the day it's not a say by us whatever comes in you absolutely can get out and that is so important because we we often don't believe that and we often think that we are damaged goods because of the 21:49 negativity that we've absorbed but it's important to understand that by people we pass in no matter what's coming if you work hard enough and sometimes it takes a lot of hard work but if I work hard enough I can get it out I expunge my personalistic and I can get back to a profound state of incredible please. How do I know that is about 22:22 maybe everyone actually holds that maybe says maybe everyone holds maybe the says goes according to his reasoning holds is not bottle Maybe that's not maybe this is not a why are you framing the brace as 22:55 maybe this is just a maybe this is just a good old minino is never bottle can be bottled maybe that's it to which the says no If you hold in general, right, that ultimately again if you fine, if you want to set this up as a right and if you want to hold that ultimately in this case 23:26 and is really about statement makes sense, Right. Rebi who wanted to make the distinction in the cases between whether or not you initially cover it, mix it or later on cover it and mix it. If then Reb's statement makes sense. 23:55 But if you want to hold that in reality everyone agrees and then statement doesn't make sense. The wording of statement doesn't make sense. Rebi then should have said here we agree with the view of and here we don't. In other words, it's not it's not that here we say here's like rather just here we pass here we don't. 24:23 And the game says there's nothing more to talk about. They're both said is the equivalent of like a tamic mic drop, right? That's like like I'm out, you know, like that like that's it. Like nothing nothing more to talk about. which says the way of saying no this is not a about this is as we said before that this is the fundamental of 24:47 that's how the ends that this we just learned about is the fundamental of we end off the fundamental say how do we pass how do we pass we is asser again by meat not by man again So is which means when you have a piece of meat which absorbs milk that piece of 25:13 meat is forever. So therefore going back to our case because again it's actually a case of you have a drop of milk that falls onto a piece of meat. So once again if you immediately stir that pot or immediately cover the pot how do you how do you resolve the case? What do you look at? Right whole pot. Then I'm looking at shishim in the entire pot corresponding ultimately again to the one drop of milk. But let's say I don't 25:36 mix it or I don't cover it initially and I leave that drop of milk sitting on that piece of meat for 10 minutes for 10 minutes and then I cover it and then I mix it. What do I do? What do I need? and eat in the path corresponding to what the entire piece of meat because we hold that once that piece of meat absorbs it forever becomes by meat we pass 26:01 is I do also want to point out that we do not pass that is but right so even if you have a pot of all meat and you have that trap of milk that fell on that piece of meat and it sat there for 10 minutes so therefore that piece of meat is user You now mix it up. You just need 60 times more kosher meat than the piece of meat. So we pass 26:26 and again which is which essentially means is that's how he Okay. Incredible. Say now a new topic is an interesting case. talks about so we'll say let's say a person wants to eat udder udder right right good okay 26:50 tastes like chicken right so so you want to eat the udder you want to eat the udder of the cow the issue what's the issue with eating udder what's the issue the issue is milk absorption so how do you properly prepare an udder for consumption so what's actually very interesting Interesting. So what you have to do with the udder is you have to first cut it. 27:13 You have to first cut it before you go ahead and you cook it in order to ex allow any absorbed milk to first seep out before you cook it. So the says now here's what's interesting. What happens if you cooked the we're going to see by the way that in this context when the says cooking cooking actually means 27:37 roasting. We're going to see this. We're going to see this in Tulsa and Almond B in just a moment. Cooking means roasting. And the reason for that is because it can't mean Bishel because if you're because if it's bish, if it's cooking like with a liquid medium, then what ends up happening? It absorbs. Roasting and we're we haven't seen so we're going to get into this now, but roasting is the process that extracts. 27:56 So essentially the like this you want to eat udder, no problem. First thing you really should do is cut it, allow the milk to extract the milk and then cook it or then roast it. If you roasted it without cutting it, it's it's it's motor. You could eat it again. Now, why is that? Look at the bottom. So, so we're going to see something very 28:23 interesting. Why is that? Technically speaking, absorbed milk is not called milk. Not called milk. What's called in is milk which leaves the animal. If milk never leaves the animal, if milk is absorbed inside the animal, it's actually notically called. Now, we say we don't want you eating an udder, even with absorbed milk. Therefore, cut it 28:47 first and then roast it. But say if you roasted it without cutting it, you're fine. You're fine. You could we're going to say you could actually eat it because again, absorbed milk is notically considered milk. Another example of a problematic part of the animal is the LA. What about the heart? Now, what's the problem with the heart? The heart has absorbed blood. 29:08 So what how do you prepare a heart of an animal if you want to eat it? Once again cut it and say the notion of cutting is allow the blood to seep out and then you could cook it. I says what happens if you didn't cut the heart right but you roasted it ain't no overall love. You're not in violation again. Now here Rashi gives and this is fascinating. Rashi gives a very very 29:32 very important qualification about this. Rashi says over here second line up from the bottom of Rashi has believe oath Rashi says over here that inus the qualifies our Mishn as talking about what what type of heart the heart of foul foul heart foul heart which is much 29:59 smaller obviously than an animal heart says listen to Because in a in foul heart there's very little blood which is retained within the heart itself and there's not a kizayas of blood contained in the foul heart. Therefore again if you did not rip it if you did not tear it right you did not make you did not make you incision. Thank you. You did not make 30:25 incisions in it and you just roasted it like that. Even though it's not ideal, we know that you consumed less than a of blood and consumption of less than a doesn't trigger an isser. However, he says this is very important. However, say by an animal heart, if you did not make the proper incisions beforehand and you went 30:55 ahead and you cooked it and you ate it. Why? Why? Because we assume that absolutely you ate a kaz of blood. So this is I I have to tell you it's actually fascinating that the Mishna itself doesn't make such this explicit distinction because this is such a major distinction, right? You look at this and you assume, okay, you're supposed to supposed to make incisions in the heart to allow the blood to flow out before 31:20 you roast it. But if you notice that making incisions, it's fine. Rash says, "Hold up. It's only fine if it's foul heart because it's less than his eyes of blood in there." But if it's animal heart and you did this, okay, important distinction say, let's analyze. 31:36 [clears throat] So we'll say, let's go back to the udder first. What's that about the by? Because of the absorbed milk, what you're supposed to do is make incisions in the udder. Allow the allow the allow the milk to flow out and then you could roast it and then you could roast it. If you roasted it without allowing the milk to flow out 31:58 comes along and ra says not only are you not in violation but mut you're allowed to eat the udder. In other words, if I did not make the incisions in the udder before roasting it and I roasted it, not only is it mut, but again, not not only am I not in violation, but I am allowed to eat this udder. They both say this is where to comes along. I mentioned you before if you look at the 32:22 top three lines in toss says all of see again this is a little bit confusing because the the way it's framed is bish bish normally means cooking even with liquid medium says no no no these are all cases of roasting has to be cases of roasting you're roasting the udder over here and therefore say even if I didn't make the incisions and I just roasted the udder 32:47 whole it's I'm allowed eat it. I What about the absorbed milk? So again remember absorbed milk is notically considered milk. It's but expose factor if you already roasted it without the incisions you could eat it. I butishn is if you roasted the without cutting it and you then you ate it you're not over. 33:12 Not over sounds like you haven't been in violation of an you shouldn't eat it. to which it sounds like you're not in violation of anything but there's still an to which in reality there's not an isser either but since you wanted to make it uniform with the safe what do what do the safa say if you want to eat a heart of a foul 33:41 what do you have to do you have to also make incisions allow the blood to flow out low car if didn't make the incisions over. You're not in violation. Other words, if you didn't make the incisions and what? And you ate the heart. You shouldn't eat the heart if you didn't make the incisions. But if you did eat it, then what? You're not in violation. 34:04 So in the case of the heart, you should not eat it if you roasted it without making any decisions. But ultimately again, you still shouldn't do it. overall. It's an interesting distinction. The commonality over here is that both by the heart and the uter if you want to eat it, what should you really do? Make the incision allow the milk/b blood to drain. What happens if 34:29 you roasted it without making the incisions? So by the udder really you could actually eat it. Why? Why? Because absorbed u milk is not milk. Therefore expose factor by the heart. by the heart. It's important to understand absorbed blood is blood is blood. So therefore if you were to eat the heart you're not in violation of kes because it's not a 34:52 kazay of blood in the heart of the foul but ideally what you should not eat it's still to eat it right it's just expose factor if you did it you're not let's bring up let's bring let's bring us support to this you should cut it up right make the incisions allow the milk to drain and then cook it low what happens if you didn't make the incisions and you roasted it and you ate 35:19 There's no violation because remember again the milk is not milk when it's absorbed when it comes to the heart. You have to make the cuts allow the blood to go ahead and drain and then go ahead and eat it. If you did not cut it, it's very interesting. What can you do with the heart even after you roasted 35:43 it? Cut it and allow the blood to drain. So the says what do you see from here that really the says so again ideally the order say is cut it roast it let's say you roasted it without cutting it no problem I mean not ideal but rather then cut it before you eat it now and allow the blood to drain so the say it's only 36:08 yet say what where you don't see that by where where don't you see that by the udder right by the udder we don't say that if you inadvertently roasted the u without cutting it first then cut it after the roasting. You don't see that it's only by the heart ultimately again where if you roasted it first then cut it afterwards but ultimately again by the if you 36:32 roasted it first without cutting it you do not need to cut it afterwards the logic being what that really the milk that the milk that we're talking about in the udder is not really problematic from the beginning right it's not really problematic at all to which the says well maybe Thea maybe what it's saying is like this the heart exposac even after roasting it you can go ahead and take care of it by 36:55 cutting it but maybe the udder maybe the u even if you cut it is still problematic other the I will say others have a different version of this that by the udder that by the udder if you did not cut it and allow the milk to drain and you roasted it and then you ate it ultimately Again, although you're not in violation of anything, if you eat it, it's user. 37:23 Shouldn't eat it. Shouldn't eat it. A different version. So, let's bring a bracelet that supports this or a statement that supports this. Love. It's true. If you failed to make the incisions on the udder and then you roasted it and ate it, you're not in violation. 37:41 You're right. You're not in violation of anything. But it's still you shouldn't eat it because absorbed milk is still called milk. To which the says it's not true. In reality, it's not at all. In other words, although ideally you should have cut up the udder first, right? You should have made the incisions first before roasting it. If 38:04 you roasted it without incisions and then ate it, there's no at all. No at all. But since we needed to write the end of the Mishna that by the heart you have to go ahead and cut it up in order to extract the blood if you didn't cut it over. So again if you cut if you didn't cut the heart you roasted it and then ate it. 38:27 You're right. You're not in violation. Why not in violation? Because there's le because remember we're talking about the heart of a foul. there's less than a kaz of blood in the case of the heart although you're not in violation of anything it is user to eat it right really you shouldn't eat it nevertheless so therefore to create kind of symmetry we just use the same mush ultimately 38:53 again by the udder so say so again what we're holding right now is the following although both by the udder and the heart the the procedure is the same cut it When we say cut it up, we don't mean cut up to pieces rather. Right. Right. Make incisions in it. Allow the milk/blood to drain and then roast. What happens if you roasted these items without the incisions? So see what is saying is like 39:17 this by the udder totally mut totally. What's the logic? The logic being is that the milk that was absorbed in the udder was never only okay you already roasted it eat it by blood. By blood. Even though again we're talking about a small heart of a foul and therefore again there's not a kaz of blood. Therefore there's no isser there is still an isser. So therefore 39:41 again by the heart if you failed to go ahead and if you failed to go ahead and make the incisions and roasted it technically if you ate it are you in violation of anything? Maybe not. But should you eat it? Absolutely not. 40:01 So says like this by the you should go ahead and cut it up. Allow the milk to drain. If you didn't cut it up, right, you're not in violation of anything. By the heart, cut it up. Allow the blood to drain. If you didn't, if you didn't make the incisions, so by the heart, there's a remedy. Even after you roasted it, make the incisions, you could still allow the blood to drain and then you could eat 40:27 it. It's only the heart that after the roasting that you still requires still requires the incisions. But it's clear from here that the udder if you already roasted it does not require any incisions to which the well maybe it's the heart that you could remedy it through the incisions after the roasting. 40:53 Then maybe maybe what the is saying is the utter if you if you go ahead and roasted it without the incisions maybe it just remains you have a brace that supports the original reading of this listen to this sorry this is more explicit watch this what does it say if you ended up cooking an udder without draining it of its milk i.e 41:19 You went ahead and you cooked the udder without the incisions. What's it's don't do it like this. But if you did it like this, you cooked it without making the pre the initial incisions. It's motor. So is very interesting. Ka is the stomach. Now here's the difference between the stomach ultimately again and the other. The stomach ultimately often 41:46 has milk sitting inside of it. So because it has milk sitting inside of it, that's a different thing already, right? And therefore, again, if you cooked, if you went ahead and you you you failed to empty out the stomach of the milk, you know, we're going to do a stop over here for today. We'll pick up with with tomorrow. We'll make this distinction. 42:07 We'll get to resolution ultimately in the case of the as well as the case of the heart. Everyone, what a d. What a zoom. Have a great day. Yeah, also just a reminder at the show at 6:55.
Expand transcript 6,429 words
