Reference for Chullin 225:15
ת"ש מסיפא דסיפא
It may be that the second clause was put in to make clear the reference in the first: lest you might think that the first clause refers to where the clean fish was salted and the unclean was not, leaving us to infer that where both were salted it would be forbidden, he therefore adds the second clause, where the clean fish was salted and the unclean was not, which shows that the first clause speaks of the case where both were salted, and even so it is permitted.
Jastrow
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jastrow
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jastrow
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy