Musar for Menachot 109:9
אמר רב פפא שמע מינה דחקינן ומוקמינן מתניתין בתרי טעמי ולא מוקמינן בתרי תנאי
Must we then say that in the case of the first clause there is no priest present whilst in case of the second clause there is a priest present? - Yes. In the case of the first clause there is no priest present but in the case of the second clause there is a priest present.
Shenei Luchot HaBerit
לא תאפה חמץ . The prohibition to bake the part of the מנחה set aside for consumption by the priests as leavened dough which is derived from 6,9 is rooted in the above mentioned principle of אין קטיגור נעשה סניגור, that the advocate for the prosecution cannot also act as counsel for the defense. The offering which symbolized the sin must be totally burned without it being allowed an opportunity to develop mildew, etc., which could be the case while the dough rises before being baked. Hence the Torah insists that all of the dough be baked only as Matzah i.e. unleavened bread or cake. Traditionally we equate Chametz with the accuser. Thus far Rabbi Menachem Habavli.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy