On the tzad that you wait one hour, it's based on the time it takes for food to begin digestion. Is there a difference between whether one has just a little bit of meat, which takes shorter to break down, or whether one has a full meal, which takes much longer to break down? If not, why?

On the tzad that you wait six hours or three hours or no hours, as discussed in the aforementioned article, it's because of some calculation of waiting between meals. Does this apply if one's not waiting between meals, but rather waiting after a fleishig snack to a milchig meal? If not, why?

  • 2
    Probably לא פלוג
    – Heshy
    Dec 9, 2016 at 16:19
  • Why would a snack be different?
    – Double AA
    Dec 9, 2016 at 16:26
  • 1
    That's not the only reason given by those who wait one hour, FWIW. You can ask according to it if you want, of course.
    – Double AA
    Dec 9, 2016 at 16:27
  • 1
    "no hours [is] because of some calculation of waiting between meals" Huh?
    – Double AA
    Dec 9, 2016 at 16:27
  • @DoubleAA No hours is because the meal just has to be over, and immediately afterwards you can eat milchigs.
    – DonielF
    Dec 10, 2016 at 22:49

1 Answer 1


Kitsur SA 46, 9:

אָכַל בָּשָׂר אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ רַק תַּבְשִׁיל שֶׁל בָּשָׂר, לֹא יֹאכַל מַאַכְלֵי חָלָב עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶה שֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת. וְהַלּוֹעֵס לַתִּינוֹק, צָרִיךְ גַּם כֵּן לְהַמְתִּין. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁהָה כַּשִּׁעוּר, אִם מָצָא בָּשָׂר בֵּין הַשִּׁנַּיִם, צָרִיךְ לְהָסִירוֹ. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַמְתִּין אַחַר כָּךְ, רַק יְקַנַּח אֶת פִּיו וִידִיחוֹ, דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁיֹאכַל מְעַט פַּת וִיקַנַּח בּוֹ פִּיו, וְגַם מְדִיחוֹ בְּמַיִם אוֹ בִּשְׁאָר מַשְׁקֶה. ‏

... Even if someone did chew meat for a child, he needs to wait, even if he did already wait and afterwards he finds filaments of meat, he needs to extract them, and to wash the mouth e. g. by eating bread and drinking some drink. And there is no need to wait again.

From the above stuff we see that the KSA states that the rule of waiting after meat consumption is not dependent on the amount eaten. If I remember correctly the Haflaa states that if he swallowed the filaments which were between his teeth he has to wait a second time from that time.

In SA those halachot are in Yore Dea 89 (the quoted KSA is from the RMA on sayf 1). There are two reasons that imply a long time meat. The first is the fact that meat is fatty and is adherent and has a persistent taste (the understanding of the Gemara independently of the Chiddush of the second reason, according to the comment of Rashi ), the second reason is the fact that meat is stringy and residues of meat can remain between teeth. The second reason is not linked to amount of meat. For the first it is less obvious.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .