וְהִזָּ֞ה מִדַּ֤ם הַחַטָּאת֙ עַל־קִ֣יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ וְהַנִּשְׁאָ֣ר בַּדָּ֔ם יִמָּצֵ֖ה אֶל־יְס֣וֹד הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חַ חַטָּ֖את הֽוּא׃
און ער זאָל שפּריצן פֿון דעם בלוט פֿון זינדאָפּפֿער אױף דער װאַנט פֿון מזבח און דער רעשט פֿון דעם בלוט זאָל אױסגעקװעטשט װערן אָן גרונט פֿון מזבח; אַ זינדאָפּפֿער איז דאָס.
Rashi
והזה מדם החטאת AND HE SHALL SPRINKLE OF THE BLOOD OF THE SIN-OFFERING [… AND THE REMAINDER OF THE BLOOD SHALL BE WRUNG OUT] — In the case of a burnt-offering of a fowl Scripture requires only the wringing out of the blood (Leviticus 1:15), whilst in the case of the sin-offering it requires sprinkling and wringing out: standing quite near to the altar, he grasps the nape and makes the blood spurt out and thus the blood spurts forth in a jet and goes in the direction of the altar (cf. Zevachim 64b).
Rashbam
והזה מדם החטאת; he takes hold of the body of the bird and sprinkles from a distance, squeezing out the rest of the blood; if the offering is a total offering, there is no sprinkling of the blood; all of it is simply squeezed out. (Leviticus 1,15)
Siftei Chakhamim
For its sake. This was explained above (Rashi 4:24) regarding the sin-offering of a leader. Rashi repeats it [here] because it is dealing with bird sinoffering and above it is dealing with an animal sin-offering, and [one cannot learn from the other because] they have dissimilar aspects. Therefore, he repeated the explanation here.
Rashi
חטאת הוא IT IS A SIN-OFFERING — These apparently redundant words intimate: if the sprinkling and wringing of the blood are done for the purpose of (i.e. having in mind that it is) a sin-offering it is valid; if it is not done for this purpose (i.e. that the officiating priest has another sacrifice in mind) it is invalid (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 18 9 and Rashi on Leviticus 4:24).