The notes to the gemorrah try to explain that one can eat fish that was put in a hot fleishig plate with milk because of nat bar nat but one cant eat fish put in a plate used for kashering
Abaye says this is heter(meat),this is issur(blood) rovo said no thats not the reason
The notes say meat and fish is 2x weakened flavour but the dam is only 1x weakened flavour ????
Its exactlty the same process the t of the dam goes into the klei and then comes out onto the fish this is the same double weaked as by the meat
Please explain
Thanks
Shmuel
I understand that you are asking on Abaye and not Rava. First, we must understand what it means that a double-weakened flavor is permitted. After all, there is still some flavor there and it should prohibit eating it with milk. However, the Poskim explain that since, before it came into contact with the milk, it had twice been weakened (having entered the utensil and then exited into the fish), it cannot now be called "meat" any more and would not disqualify the milk.
In contrast, blood is already prohibited even before it entered the utensil, and Isur -- once established -- is much more difficult to remove. Thus, even though it is doubly weakened, one cannot eat the fish from the kashering plate as the Isur is there and will not be removed so easily.
This is the first explanation (Tosfos, Rashba). The second explanation of Nat Bar Nat (based on the Ramban, Ran, and Ritva) is that even though there is still "meat" in the fish, it does not have the power to affect the milk since it was weakened, and even though the milk gives milky taste to the fish, the Isur of Basar b'Chalav is only when both items give flavor to one another. In contrast, blood is intrinsically forbidden and therefore even a doubly weakened (or even triply weakened) flavor which does not influence the taste of the fish would suffice to prohibit the food eaten with it, since, technically speaking, there is still blood there.
Yoel Domb
thank you very much Yoel. i understand the Gomorrah exactly the way you have explained it but my problem is with the Artscroll notes. twice it goes into a long explanation about the"" once wakened flavour"" and the twice weakened flavour""
the mechanics of wakening is going into the kli and coming out into the fish and that is an identical metzious. so why by blood does the notes call it a "" once weakened flavour""?
thanks
p.s. are you related to Cyril Domb?
Shmuel Kemeny
I think that Artscroll is trying to explain the concept of Nat Bar Nat itself and not the difference between fish and blood. At least that is how I understand the Hebrew version of the Artscroll notes, which first discusses what a doubly weakened flavor means and then explains as I did why blood should be more stringent than fish even though both technically have doubly weakened flavors. I did not see the English edition so I am not sure what you are referring to.
Yes, I am a son of Cyril Domb, Zichrono Li'Vrachah.
Yoel Domb