It seems to me that there is no reason to wait

It seems to me??????????????? hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

Very fitting for an answer to a question about bicycles on the Sabbath.
One should rely neither on an individual opinion nor on the majority opinion. If you are qualified, then you should do what you think. If not, choose a rabbi for yourself. Relying on whichever lone opinion you feel like is not proper conduct (taking leniencies from here and leniencies from there).

And now seriously—
In Darkhei Teshuvah (Yoreh De’ah, sec. 89, se’if katan 1) he cites the book Mor Va’ohalot as saying that if one ate meat from an animal that is not kosher, he does not need to wait six hours. But if he ate carrion or trefah from a kosher animal, he must wait six hours. The reason is that every kosher animal is subject to the prohibition of meat and milk (see Yoreh De’ah sec. 87, paragraphs 3 and 6, and Pri Megadim there).

Glad to help.

So now, Dissenter, you answer.

Dear Dissenter, let me remind you again of my comment about nighttime blunders.
The question dealt with “meat that is completely non-kosher,” and plainly the intention was non-kosher species and not trefot, because with trefot there are meat-and-milk prohibitions, so why wouldn’t there be an obligation to wait?
And regarding milk with non-kosher species, it is a simple logical point that one need not wait, so why should I need to resort to Darkhei Teshuvah citing Mor Va’ohalot? Just think about it: if I thought one was obligated to wait, would I not wait just because Mor Va’ohalot says otherwise? You remind me of Tosafot, who derive that there are many stars in the sky from a verse (and they also don’t do that because of Mor Va’ohalot).
Glad to help in return.

Oh, that’s great!!!
Where is the Tosafot?

I don’t remember at the moment.

There is one in Sukkah 22b, Tosafot beginning with “kezuzah”: “Because the air-space, which is as wide as a zuz, appears small to him like an issar because it is far from him; and proof of this is: ‘and we were in our own eyes like grasshoppers.’ And a large star in the heavens appears small to us, as is proven in the chapter HaMokher et HaSefinah.”

Maybe that was it. 🙂

And opposite them, the Ran on the Rif at the beginning of Sukkah, in the manner of the sages of the East:
“I am astonished, for there is no doubt that there is no hour of the day when roofing of seven by seven, which is the minimum valid sukkah size, would prevent some sunlight from entering beneath it if it is twenty cubits high. And since this shade is needed to block the sun, as is evident from Abaye’s challenge, ‘If so, then one who makes his sukkah in Ashtarot Karnayim’ as stated in the Talmudic text, how can we say that up to twenty cubits a person sits in the shade of the sukkah? Can we deny what is plainly perceptible? Therefore I say, under compulsion, that the sages had a tradition that up to twenty cubits the roofing protects and reduces the heat of the sun for one sitting beneath it, so that he does not become as heated by it as if he were exposed. And there is proof for this in the Talmudic text, and I have elaborated in my novellae.”

Usually people also cite the Talmudic text: “And from where do we know that Babylonia is situated to the north of the Land of Israel? As it is written, ‘From the north the evil shall break forth.’” Maybe there one could look for explanations. But it seems to me there’s also a kind of sporting tendency like this in stories about unusual Torah scholars, that for everything they strove to find some clever proof from the Talmudic text.

There is a difference between sport-like pilpul and sharpening, and a statement of Tosafot made casually, as if merely speaking offhand.

By the way, apropos Rabbi Mazuz, I once heard from him that he claimed the Tosafists were unfamiliar with olives, and therefore, according to him, they attributed to them a size too large relative to an egg (unlike the Geonim and the early Spanish authorities). And he said that in one place Tosafot prove from a verse (or something else) that olives are bitter, and if they had olives they would know that on their own without proofs…
(And regarding Rabbi Mazuz himself, of course one should not ask why he didn’t go searching in books when olives were cultivated or traded in the region of France; he too brought his bread from the sources.)

With Heaven’s help, 14 Elul 5783

To Tirgitz — greetings,

In Provence in southern France, the ‘Picholine olive’ grows (see its entry on Wikipedia). In Provence, olive oil is more common than butter (see Wikipedia, entry: ‘French cuisine’).

Tosafot prove from the passage in Keritot stating that the swallowing passage holds the volume of a chicken egg, and one cannot imagine a person eating more than two olive-bulk measures of forbidden food at once, and from here they concluded that an “olive-bulk” is about half an egg. The Shulchan Arukh too, who lived in Safed, cites Tosafot.

Maimonides wrote that an olive-bulk is less than a third of an egg, and Rashba wrote that an olive-bulk is less than a quarter of an egg. Perhaps they would explain the passage in Keritot to mean that it is not the normal way of eating to fill the entire swallowing passage, and therefore, even though physically there is room there for more than two olive-bulk measures, eating more than two olive-bulk measures at once is uncommon.

Best regards, Pish”l

And see Rabbi Chaim Navon’s article, “How Many Olives Are in an Olive-Bulk?,” on the Da’at website and the Asif website.

According to what I wrote, there is no need for his explanation of Tosafot. Even if they knew olives, they would still bring a proof from a source for their bitterness.

Greetings, Pish”l. I don’t know. That’s how I remember Rabbi Mazuz’s words, and maybe I misremembered, or maybe he was mistaken, or maybe what he said stands. And it is ironic if Rabbi Mazuz inferred from the sources an incorrect factual assumption (that there were no olives in France) on the basis of his assumption that Tosafot would not infer obvious factual assumptions from sources.

Rabbi Michi, that’s why I ended with an ellipsis. But in any case, proving simple facts of reality from verses is probably unusual in the Talmudic text and in Tosafot, and presumably someone knowledgeable or skilled at searching will find that in many other places the Talmudic text and Tosafot used real-world knowledge as a given without bringing a scriptural source for it, even though such a source exists. And the places where they did bring a verse are exceptions within the larger set of places where they used factual knowledge. So in my opinion, this proof of Rabbi Mazuz’s can join others, if he has them.)

Otzar HaHochma led me to the source of the matter in Beit Ne’eman, part 1, Orach Chayim section, siman 25. It seems I distorted the matter (though my memory still insists that I heard with my own ears what I wrote).

There Rabbi Mazuz argues that Rabbeinu Tam’s view about the time of nightfall contradicts reality in the Land of Israel and is therefore rejected in Jewish law. He goes on to bring quite a few examples in which the words of medieval and later authorities were rejected by other Torah scholars on the claim that they were mistaken about reality (and that this does not impugn their honor, etc.). And there, in section 9 (page 137), he writes as follows:

“Tosafot in Yoma (80b) wrote in the name of Rabbeinu Tam: ‘The dried figs here are stated without pits,’ etc. But this did not seem correct to Rabbi Isaac, for dried figs do not have pits, since they are pressed figs, etc.; see there.
In the book Shiurei Torah by Rabbi Avraham Chaim Naeh (page 223), he wondered about Rabbeinu Tam: how could he think that dried figs have pits? He then cited Mordechai on Pesachim (sec. 591), that figs grew in Spain but not in France [and so too it is written in the book Sha’ar HaShamayim, third treatise, gate 2, folio 10b, that in the district of France, because it is close to the end of the sixth climate zone, hot-climate fruits such as figs, olives, and pomegranates do not grow there]. He then cited the book Tosefet Yom HaKippurim by Rabbi Moshe ibn Chaviv, who strained to explain Rabbeinu Tam’s words and in the end concluded with a question; see there.
And I also saw it written that for this reason Tosafot wrote (Hullin 103b and elsewhere) that an olive is about half an egg, because they were not familiar with actual olives, whereas Rashba in Mishmeret HaBayit (96a) wrote that an olive is less than a quarter of an egg; see there. And see also Tosafot Pesachim (36a) and Eruvin (18b), who wrote that the fruit of the olive is not bitter, only the tree is, see there. But this is not so in reality [10].
And not like Rabbi Isaac ben Pinchas in Sanhedrin (24a), who cited the words of Tosafot in Pesachim and Eruvin; he lived close to our time, about two hundred years ago, and did not know that olives are naturally bitter. That is astonishing.

[10] And in the journal Or Torah, Av 5774 (sec. 130), Rabbi David Barda brought supporting tannaitic sources for our words, that the medieval authorities were not familiar with olives. See there. And I note that Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote explicitly in Shabbat (50b) that the olive is bitter, and these are his words: ‘To split olives on the rock to sweeten their bitterness’ [read: ‘their bitterness’]. End quote. Perhaps there were places in France where olives did grow, or he had heard so, etc.”