[א] "לא תאפה חמץ" מה תלמוד לומר? לפי שנאמר "לא תעשה חמץ" (ויקרא ב, יא) יכול לאו אחד על כולם? תלמוד לומר "לא תאפה חמץ" – אפיה בכלל היתה, ולמה יצאת? להקיש אליה. מה אפיה מיוחדת מעשה יחידי וחייבים עליה בפני עצמה, אף אני מרבה את לישתה ואת עריכתה ואת כל מעשה ומעשה שיש בה שחייב על כל אחד ואחד לאו בפני עצמו.
1) (Vayikra 6:10) ("It shall not be baked with leaven. Their portion have I given it of My fire-offerings; it is holy of holies, as the sin-offering and as the guilt-offering.") "It shall not be baked with leaven": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 2:1) "It shall not be made of leaven," I would think that there was one negative commandment for all of them (i.e., for all of the operations that go into making it); it is, therefore, written: "It shall not be baked with leaven." Baking was in the category (of "It shall not be made of leaven.") Why did it leave that category (to be singled out here)? So that it serve as the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as baking is characterized by its being a particular act and subject to liability in and of itself, so I include its kneading, its rolling and all of its particular acts as being subject to individual negative commandments in and of themselves.
[א] "לא תאפה חמץ" מה תלמוד לומר? לפי שנאמר "לא תעשה חמץ" (ויקרא ב, יא) יכול לאו אחד על כולם? תלמוד לומר "לא תאפה חמץ" – אפיה בכלל היתה, ולמה יצאת? להקיש אליה. מה אפיה מיוחדת מעשה יחידי וחייבים עליה בפני עצמה, אף אני מרבה את לישתה ואת עריכתה ואת כל מעשה ומעשה שיש בה שחייב על כל אחד ואחד לאו בפני עצמו.
1) (Vayikra 6:10) ("It shall not be baked with leaven. Their portion have I given it of My fire-offerings; it is holy of holies, as the sin-offering and as the guilt-offering.") "It shall not be baked with leaven": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 2:1) "It shall not be made of leaven," I would think that there was one negative commandment for all of them (i.e., for all of the operations that go into making it); it is, therefore, written: "It shall not be baked with leaven." Baking was in the category (of "It shall not be made of leaven.") Why did it leave that category (to be singled out here)? So that it serve as the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as baking is characterized by its being a particular act and subject to liability in and of itself, so I include its kneading, its rolling and all of its particular acts as being subject to individual negative commandments in and of themselves.