Bearing in mind that the Torah (in Parshas Tzav) has already informed us that an Asham must be Shechted on the north side of the Azarah, why does it see fit to write "ve'Shachat es ha'Keves bi'Mekom asher Yishchat Es ha'Chatas"?
Rashi: Because, since the Asham Mitaher differs from other Ashamos in that it needs to be placed by the Sha'ar Nikanor, 1 we might have thought that it is Shechted there, too.
See Sifsei Chachamim.
"Ki ka'Chatas ha'Asham hu la'Kohen". Which Chatas is the Torah referring to?
Rashi: It refers to Chata?os in general.
What does the Torah mean when it writes "Ki ka'Chatas ha'Asham hu la'Kohen"? Why does it need to tell us that?
Rashi: It teaches us that regarding all Avodos ? over and above the Shechitah - that require a Kohen, this Asham is like a Chatas. Otherwise, we might have thought that, since some of its blood is placed on the ear, thumb and big toe, it must be Shechted in the same location - in front of Sha'ar Nikanor.
Oznayim la'Torah (citing the Sifra): To teach us that the blood of the Asham Metzora must be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach like a regulat Asham. 1
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that it says "bi'Mkom Asher Yishchat?" lest we say that it left the Klal? It would have sufficed to write 'where the Chatas is slaughtered' or 'where the Olah is slaughtered.' Why does it say both of them?
Zevachim 49b: Since it did not suffices to say 'where the Chatas is slaughtered', this teaches that something learned from a Hekesh (Chatas was learned from Olah) cannot return to teach through a Hekesh. 1
I do not know why Moshav Zekenim left this difficult. (PF)
Rashi writes that Asham Mitaher left the Klal of Ashamos? We should say that it teaches about all Asham, to put blood on the ear, thumb and toe!
Riva: Something that left a Klal teaches about the Klal only when it is similar to the Klal, like I said above (refer to Shemos 12:15:153:2).
