Why does the Torah compare the Emurim of the Chatas Par Mashi'ach to those of the Shelamim - seeing as the Torah mentions them all here?
Rashi #1: To teach us that a. like those of the Shelamim, they must be sacrificed Lishman, and b. like the Shelamim, they bring Shalom to the world.
Rashi #2 (citing Zevachim 49b): We learn from here that we cannot not learn a Hekesh from a Hekesh 1 in the realm of Kodshim,
Zevachim, 34b: We learn from here that, like the Shelamim, the Kohen renders Pigul the Par Kohen ha'Mashi'ach if he performs any of the Avodos having in mind (either to eat the Basar or) to pour the Shirayim ot to burn the Emurim (Avodos that pertain to the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon) after the time that they may be eaten.
Chulin, 117a: We learn from here the reverse - Shelamim from the Par Kohen Mashi'ach) ? that the Emurim of Shelamim (even though they are Kodshim Kalim), 2 are subject to Me'ilah, just like the Par Kohen ha'Mashi'ach.
Oznayim la'Torah: Just as one is careful not to confuse the parts of the Shelamim that are brought on the Mizbe'ach with those that ar eaten, so too, should be careful not to confuse them with the parts that are burnt outside the camp.
Riva: We learn Se'irei Avodah Zarah from Par Kohen Mashi'ach. Had the Torah not written the Emurim here - and we would have learned them from the Shelamim, we would not have been able to learn through a second Hekesh to Se'irei Avodah Zarah, and the Torah needed to equate them to teach us that we do not learn one Hekesh from another. If so, there is no source for Rashi's first explanation. Refer to 4:10:1:1.
See Torah Temimah, note 39.
