Answer: According to what I explained, it is fine. Misah of Mechusar Begadim is not from an extra verse, rather, because we find that a Zar is Chayav Misah. Therefore, we say that we do not learn Misah from this that the Torah called him a Zar.

Question: According to Rashi, who says that we learn from them through Mah Matzinu, it is difficult. They are Sheloshah Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad!

Answer: Rashi explained that likewise, we could have said that a Zar, and one who did not wash his hands and feet, are Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad, for Misah is not written explicitly regarding Mechusar Begadim. It is only because he is a Zar. The Gemara mentioned one of them (Mechusar Begadim. It could have mentioned Zar instead.)

Rebuttal: One cannot say so! We find Misah written explicitly about Mechusar Begadim in Parshas Tetzaveh!

Conclusion: However, you are forced to say that Rashi's Perush is primary, for in Sanhedrin (83b) it explicitly learns that there is Misah for Mechusar Begadim, for he is a Zar, for when their clothes are not on them, their Kehunah is not on them;

Implied question: Misah is written explicitly in Parshas Tetzaveh (about Mechusar Begadim)!

Answer (Ri of Orlins): It is written about [Mechusar] Michnesayim;

The verse "v'Chagarta [Osam Avnet...]", from which we expound in Sanhedrin (83b) that when their clothes are not on them, their Kehunah is not on them, and they are Zarim, is needed for other Bigdei [Kehunah];

We could not learn Michnesayim from that verse, for it is not written in that Parshah.

Question #1: However, according to the opinion that includes Michnesayim from "v'Zeh ha'Davar", Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon (it teaches that the law of the previous matter applies), this is difficult. Why did the Torah write Misah regarding Michnesayim?

Question #2: According to Rashi, a Zar, Michnesayim and one who did not wash are Sheloshah Kesuvim!

Explanation: David was Mekadesh the floor, like Rashi explained;

Even though Shlomo built the Beis ha'Mikdash, David was Mekadesh it, like it says below in our Sugya "when David was Mekadesh..."

Support: In the Yerushalmi, we say that David is a king, and Gad is a Navi (both are needed to be Mekadesh the Azarah).

Explanation (Rashi): [David] was Mekadesh it with two Korbanos Todah, and Shir.

Rebuttal: This is wrong. The Azarah is not made Kadosh with two Todos, rather, with Shirayim of a Minchah, like it says in Shevuos (15a).

Explanation #1: [The floor] is Mekadesh the person who does Avodah there. He cannot serve elsewhere. "Klei Shares" are Bigdei Kehunah. They are Mekadesh a person to do Avodah;

Just like Klei Shares may not have a Chatzitzah interrupting between them and [the Kohen], for it says "Al Besaro", like we said above (19a, also the floor).

Bigdei Kehunah are called Klei Shares, like it says above (13a) "[Kabalah] must be with a Kosher Kohen and Klei Shares."

Explanation #2: Rashi explained there that it is literally Klei Shares. Nothing may interrupt between the Kohen and the Kli Shares during Kabalah, like it is written "v'Lakach ha'Kohen" - the Kohen must take with his own body.

Question: Why is it different here, that it is considered a Chatzitzah, and also above (19a) we asked "we already know [that it is Pasul] due to Chatzitzah", and regarding the [Kohen Gadol] who used to wrap his hands in silk (Pesachim 57a)? This shows that taking through an intermediary is not called Lekichah...

In Sukah (37a), Rava said that taking through an intermediary is called Lekichah!

Answer: There, we do not discuss when he wrapped his hands in a scarf and took a Lulav. Surely that is not called Lekichah;

Rather, he wrapped a Lulav in a scarf and takes it. Rava brings a proof from taking Ezov (hyssop) in such a way.

Support: We must say so due to the Sugya there. Rava himself said that Min b'Mino is not a Chatzitzah. This implies that Min b'Eino Mino is a Chatzitzah;

Question: What is the reason? Taking through an intermediary is called Lekichah!

Answer #1: Perhaps Rabah taught one of these [teachings].

Answer #2: According to what I explained, it is fine. When he wrapped a Lulav in a scarf, even though it is not totally connected, it is like a handle, and therefore it is considered Lekichah.

Question: The Gemara in Yoma (58a) is somewhat difficult. It says "if he placed a bucket in a bucket, what is the law?

What was the question? In such a case, taking through an intermediary is called Lekichah. The outer bucket is a handle for the inner!

Answer: If he holds the outer by its walls, that he moves the inner via it, indeed this is Lekichah, due to the reason of [the outer is] a handle;

However, what is the case here? He carries the outer from its bottom. It does not help at all for the inner (also without the outer, he would be taking the inner).

Implied question: Amora'im argue in Bava Metzi'a (95a) about whether the verse is expounded Lefanav (about what preceded it), but not Lifnei Fanav (about what preceded the matter that preceded it), and we ask from our Mishnah there...

Why couldn't we say that the Mishnah (which does not expound Lifnei Fanav) is R. Shimon, who does not expound [here] Lefanav?

Answer: There, the reason is due to Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon. R. Shimon agrees in such a case, like it says in Menachos (19a). R. Shimon's reason is "v'Hevi'ah" - Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon;

Regarding "v'Lakach... v'Nasan" we do not say Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon to learn Kabalah from Nesinah, that it is with the right hand, like Rashi explained there that "Etzba'o" interrupts between "v'Lakach" and "v'Nasan".

Implied question #1: In Kidushin (15b), it connotes that all expound the verse Lefanav without Vov Mosif Al Inyan, for it asks that we should equate Mezuzah to Talmud Torah!

Implied question #2: And in Rosh Hashanah (9b), all expound the verse Lefanav, and they argue about Lifnei Fanav and afterwards!

Question #3: Below is even more difficult! R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon says that wherever it says "Etzba" regarding Nesinah, if he deviated in Nesinah, it is Pasul. [If he deviated] in Kabalah, it is Kosher;

E.g. "v'Lakachta mi'Dam ha'Par v'Nasata Al Karnos ha'Mizbe'ach b'Etzba'echa." He holds that the verse is expounded Lefanav, and not Lifnei Fanav and not afterwards. He should say Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon!

Answer #1: Perhaps R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon does not expound Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon.

Answer #2: We do not expound Vov Mosif Al Inyan Rishon in order to expound Lifnei Fanav.

Version #1: [Zerikah with the left hand is Pasul] even for other Zevachim, and R. Shimon does not argue! Abaye said that he argues in a Beraisa.

Explanation (Rashi): He did Zerikah with the left hand for other Korbanos, but R. Shimon agrees that Chatas requires the right hand, like the Beraisa above (24a) teaches.

Question (Ri of Orlins): What was the question, and why does R. Shimon argue in a Beraisa [about other Korbanos]?

Granted, it is written only Kehunah. In any case, we should learn from the Hekesh "Zos ha'Torah", which we say below (98a) and in Menachos (83a) that just like Chatas comes only from Chulin and during the day and with the right hand, also all [Korbanos]!

[The Gemara] asks that we know the right hand from Rabah bar bar Chanah, who taught that wherever it says 'Etzba' and 'Kehunah', the right hand is required;

It answers that [the right hand] was taught needlessly (we know it from Rabah bar bar Chanah, and not from the Hekesh). Alternatively, (the Tana, R. Akiva,) holds like R. Shimon, who says that 'Kehunah' requires 'Etzba' [to obligate the right hand, but 'Kehunah' by itself does not].

Inference: This explicitly shows that R. Shimon learns other Korbanos from Chatas!

Version #2 (R. Tam): The text does not say [here] "behold Zerikah", for this is not a Mishnah anywhere. Rather, the text says "behold Melikah." This is a Mishnah below (68a);

Citation (68a - Mishnah): Any Pasul who did Melikah, his Melikah is Pasul, and it is not Metamei the clothes of one who swallows it. If he did Melikah with the left hand or at night...

The Gemara brought [this Mishnah] abbreviated. The Gemara often abbreviates Mishnayos. Scribes erred, and wrote "Zerikah" in place of "Melikah". We do not learn birds from the Hekesh of Zos ha'Torah;

However, Zerikah of other Korbanos is properly Pasul with the left hand. We learn from the Hekesh of Zos ha'Torah, like it connotes below (98a).

Also in the coming Beraisa, the text says "if he did Melikah with the left hand, it is Pasul, and R. Shimon is Machshir."

Answer #2 (R. Tam): Even if the text says "Zarak", we can say that the Tana of (who expounds) Zos ha'Torah, who learns the right hand from Chatas, holds like R. Shimon, that Kehunah requires Etzba;

However, R. Shimon does not hold like him to learn the right hand in Zerikah of other Korbanos from Chatas, because we do not learn Zerikah from Haza'ah (of inner Chata'os, about which the Torah taught that the right hand is required).

Question: Initially, when [the Gemara] asked "behold Zerikah, that R. Shimon does not argue about it!", perhaps this is because he learns from the Hekesh!

Answer: [The Gemara] gave a better answer, that he argues in a Beraisa.

Question (against R. Tam): Even if the text in the Beraisa says "Malak", you are forced to say that it is true that R. Shimon is Machshir Zerikah with the left hand, like is proven below (25a) and above (11a);

Citation (11a): What is R. Shimon's reason? If [the Kohen] wants to offer [the Kometz] in a Kli, he may take it in his left hand, like an Asham. This refers to Zerikah of an Asham, for he does not discuss Kabalah. Even for Chatas, R. Shimon does not require Kabalah with the right hand!

Note: Above (11a), the Gemara said so to explain R. Eliezer.

[R. Shimon] said above "was Yad said regarding Kabalah?!..."

Answer: He must answer that this Tana (who expounds Zos ha'Torah) holds like R. Shimon in one way (that Kehunah requires Etzba, but he requires the right hand for all Zerikah, unlike R. Shimon).

Question: Also according to R. Tam, that the text says "Malak", we learn the right hand for Melikah in Chulin (22a) even according to R. Shimon, since it says "veha'Sheni Ya'aseh Olah ka'Mishpat";

We expound "like the Mishpat (law) of Chatas Behemah, which comes only from Chulin, and during the day, and with the right hand";

Also there, it asks that we learn the right hand from Rabah bar bar Chanah, and answers that [the Tana] holds like R. Shimon, that 'Kehunah' requires 'Etzba'!

Answer #1: Melikah, which corresponds to Shechitah, we do not learn. There it discusses Haza'ah, which requires the right hand, but from a Hekesh we do not learn birds from Chatas Behemah. Therefore, we need also "ka'Mishpat" there.

Answer #2: That Tana holds like the Tana who argues with R. Shimon above, and disqualifies Kabalah with the left hand, because he expounds the verse Lefanav and afterwards. He establishes "Etzba'o" written regarding Chatas also regarding Kabalah;

According to them, we properly learn Melikah with the right hand from Chatas. We cannot learn Kabalah, for it does not apply to birds, and we learn Melikah;

However, R. Shimon, who says that if he did Kabalah with the left hand, it is Kosher, and he requires the right hand for Chatas Behemah only for Haza'ah, also for Olas ha'Of, he would not require the right hand for Melikah, rather, only for Haza'ah.