Summation of question: (Why is he Machshir Zerikas b'Smol for all Korbanos?) He should require the right hand for Zerikas Asham Metzora!

Letter of the law, we should have said that both Kabalah and Zerikah of Asham Metzora are with the right hand, just like putting the oil, had the Torah not returned it [to be like other Ashamos and Chatas] through "ka'Chatas ha'Asham";

Granted, this explains Kabalah. However, Nesinah (putting the blood on the corner of the Mizbe'ach) in Chatas itself is with the right hand. We should say that also in Asham Metzora, it (Zerikah) must be with the right hand!

Answer (Ritzva): Since the Torah returned it and wrote "ka'Chatas ha'Asham Hu", and we expound that it is like other Ashamos, we can say that it totally returned it.

Question (Ritzva): According to the opinion that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah can teach through a Hekesh, R. Shimon should require the right hand for all Ashamos, through the Hekesh "ka'Chatas ka'Asham", or from the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah..."!

Note: Here Tosfos cites "ka'Chatas ka'Asham" (Vayikra 7:7) written regarding Stam Ashamos. In the next line he cites "ka'Chatas vecha'Asham" (Vayikra 6:10) written regarding Minchah.

Answer: R. Shimon must hold that Zerikah of Asham is [even] with the left hand, for it says "ka'Chatas vecha'Asham", and we expound according to R. Shimon (Zevachim 25a) that if one wants to offer it with the hand, he uses the right hand, like a Chatas;

If he wants to offer it with a Kli, he [may] use the left hand, like an Asham.

This must refer to Zerikah. If it refers to Kabalah, R. Shimon holds that even a Chatas may be received with the left hand, like it says explicitly in Zevachim (24b)!

Explanation: This is according to R. Yehudah. R. Shimon expounds this for another Drashah in Shevuos 13b. "V'Lakach Es Shnei ha'Se'irim" equates Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach to the inner goat.

Citation (13b): Just like the inner goat does not atone for Yisre'elim for other Aveiros [only for Tum'as Mikdash], also the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach does not atone for Kohanim for other Aveiros.

Citation (cont.): R. Yehudah holds that the Hekesh teaches that they must be equal in appearance, height and value.

Question: What is R. Shimon's source that they must be equal [in these ways]?

Suggestion: Ein Hedesh l'Mechtzah (a Hekesh is never partial). We equate then in every way.

Rejection: If so, how did the Gemara know that R. Yehudah learns the Hekesh only for appearance, height and value? We should say that he [also] learns the Hekesh oppositely [from R. Shimon], to equate the inner goat to the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach!

Just like the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach does not atone for Yisre'elim for Tum'as Mikdash and Kodoshav, also the inner goat does not atone for Kohanim for Tum'as Mikdash and Kodoshav!

Suggestion: We would not need a verse for this. We learn this there from "Asher la'Am."

Objection: In any case we can ask this! Why do we need "Asher la'Am"? We can learn from the Hekesh, like I explained, that Kohanim do not get Kaparah through the inner goat!

Answer: We could say that R. Yehudah does not learn such a Hekesh, i.e. just like the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach does not atone for Yisre'elim for Tum'as Mikdash and Kodoshav, also the inner goat does not atone for Kohanim for this;

This is because we cannot learn similar matters, i.e. just like Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach does not atone for Yisre'elim, also the inner goat does not atone for Yisre'elim.

However, R. Shimon expounds such a Hekesh, even though the matters are not so similar;

Also, even though we could expound it for something else, i.e. for appearance, height and value, he also learns this, since Ein Hekesh l'Mechtzah.

Likewise, he should expound that Kohanim do not get Kaparah through the inner goat for Tum'as Mikdash and Kodoshav from the Hekesh of Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, for Ein Hekesh l'Mechtzah;

Summation of question: If so, how does he explain why we need "Asher la'Am" to exclude Kohanim, like it says there?

We establish that Beraisa there like R. Shimon!

Answer: There are three verses in which the inner goat is Hukdash to Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. R. Shimon holds that one of them teaches appearance and height, for these are equal (there is no reason to learn one more than the other);

He uses one Hekesh to teach value. One is extra to teach about Kaparah, and expound that just like Yisre'elim do not get Kaparah through the inner goat for other Aveiros...

It is not a total Hekesh, for we do not totally equate them. We do not say "just like this is not Mechaper for Yisre'elim, also this is not Mechaper for Yisre'elim";

We should not much such a [partial] Hekesh. However, since the verse is extra, it suffices to make a Hekesh for one matter.

If so, had it not written "Asher la'Am", we would not have equated the inner goat to the Mishtale'ach and the Mishtale'ach to the inner goat;

Rather, we would equate only the inner goat to the Mishtale'ach, but not the Mishtale'ach to the inner goat, to say that Kohanim do not get Kaparah through Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, since it atones for so much.

Support: This also answers a difficulty.

Question: Why do we bring there (Shevuos 13b) "v'Lakach Es Shnei ha'Se'irim"? We should have brought the first verse [that equates them], "ume'Es Adas Bnei Yisrael Yikach Shnei Se'irei Izim"!

Answer: I explained that we need the first verse to teach that they must have the same price;

Since that verse discusses money, for we learn from it that it is [monetarily] of the people [therefore we expound from it to equate their price].

Had the Torah written only two verses, we would use one to teach that they are equal in value, for it discusses this, and the other for the Drashah there, to equate Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach to the inner goat;

However, we would not expound at all that they must be equal in appearance and height, since we do not find other Zevachim that must be equal in appearance and height;

However, since the last verse is extra, we expound that they must be equal in appearance and height.

Question: Still, why do we need "Shnayim"?

Even had it written only 'Kevasim Bnei Shanah Temimim la'Yom Olah Tamid', we would have expounded that Kevasim refers to two, and la'Yom teaches k'Neged ha'Yom (opposite the sun)!

Answer: Had it not written Shnayim, we would have expounded "la'Yom" on the words after it, i.e. "la'Yom Olah Tamid; Es ha'Keves Echad Ta'aseh ba'Boker";

I.e. the morning lamb must be slaughtered k'Neged ha'Yom, but no more (i.e. the afternoon lamb need not be);

Since it did not say 'Olos Temidim', one might have thought that only one Olas Tamid a day must be k'Neged ha'Yom;

Therefore, it needed to write Shnayim la'Yom to teach that both are k'Neged ha'Yom.

Explanation: It seems that letter of the law, we should have slaughtered in the first ring;

However, Chachamim did not want it to be so close to the Mizbe'ach without an interruption, lest the animal excrete.

The prevalent text: This is Rashi's text. However, in Seforim it says "Shnayim" is Me'akev.

Question (Rashi): What is the source to be Me'akev (that they resemble each other)?

Answer: After "uva'Yom ha'Shabbos Shnei Kevasim...", it says Olas Shabas b'Shabato. This is like something that the Torah repeated to teach that it is Me'akev. (Si'ach Yitzchak - the singular "Olas" connotes that they are like one.)

Implied question: In Shabbos 114a, we expound it differently, to teach about Chelev of Shabbos, that one may offer it on Yom Tov or Yom Kipur, according to the opinions that permit [only] on Yom Tov or [even] on Yom Kipur?

Answer: We expound it also like a repetition to teach that it is Me'akev, for the verse does not leave its simple meaning.

Suggestion: Perhaps the entire verse is only for this Drashah (to make it Me'akev)!

Rejection: If so, it should not have written like this "Shabas b'Shabato." Rather, it should have repeated it in a different way. (Si'ach Yitzchak - it should have omitted "b'Shabato".)

Question: The Gemara asked above "if so, also regarding Temidim..." I.e. if this is true (we expound that they must resemble each other), it should have been taught somewhere [regarding the Tamid]!

If so, also Musafim, if they must resemble each other, this should have been taught somewhere!

Answer: Only above, this was a proper question, because the entire order of [offering] the Tamid is taught in the Mishnah in Maseches Tamid (29a). It should have been taught there;

However, the order of [offering] Musafim is not taught anywhere.