The simple Peshat versus the Hazali Peshat

There's no need to apologize for questions. Anyone who has a question should ask it. It is difficult to discuss this in detail. In general, I would say that if it is an interpretation based on the method of the simplified version, there must be interpretive considerations (which we may not always understand, and we may not agree with). These considerations are a combination of interpretation and considerations in the text. On the other hand, the sermon, as you wrote, really does not have to conform to the simplified version. Now, in each case, we must discuss what compelled them to interpret differently from the simple interpretation (assuming it was not required). But these are local questions and of course it is impossible to discuss them all. I will only note that with regard to Figol, we are talking about the Darshak and not the Peshat. An explanation of the relationship between the Darshak and the Peshat on this subject can be found in David Haneska's article in the Ma'in 1977, example 3 (see ibid., p. 55). And regarding carrion: First, if an animal is devoured, then what is left to eat from it? Second, if you say that we eat what is left, the Hebrew Bible, Exodus 22:30, explains that there are prohibitions in the Torah regarding carrion and carrion, and if carrion is what is devoured by another animal, then it is like the prohibition regarding carrion. From this they learned that it is carrion in our sense.