וְסָמַ֤ךְ יָדוֹ֙ עַל־רֹ֣אשׁ הַשָּׂעִ֔יר וְשָׁחַ֣ט אֹת֔וֹ בִּמְק֛וֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִשְׁחַ֥ט אֶת־הָעֹלָ֖ה לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה חַטָּ֖את הֽוּא׃
און ער זאָל אָנלענען זײַן האַנט אױפֿן קאָפּ פֿון באָק, און אים שעכטן אין דעם אָרט װוּ מע שעכט דאָס בראַנדאָפּפֿער פֿאַר גאָט; אַ זינדאָפּפֿער איז דאָס.
Torah Temimah
But the offerings themselves, the women do indeed bring them. The explanation is not that women may not, but rather that they are not obligated, as is explained in Chagiga 15b that women would indeed lay their hands on [Rambam 3:8 Laws of Offerings does not make this point explicit]. But as emissaries of their husbands they indeed would be prohibited, as will be explained in verse 4, on the phrase "he lays his hand", and see Tosafot on Mas. Rosh Hashana 33a. Similarly, the gemara exempts women from all of the various actions of the offering - the waving, approaching, kamitza, incense offering, slitting, blood-receing, and springkling - since for all of these the verse states "the sons of Israel/Aaron" and the sages extrapolate this to mean, "and not the daughters of Israel/Aaron." Tosafot question this, and ask why the sages needed to exclude women from all of these [based on these verses]; they should already be excluded based on the broad principle of "positive time-bound commandments", as these actions only take place during the day, as we learn in the verse at the end of Parshat Tzav. But I do not understand this; what did Tosafot see to ask such a question?! The essential act of bringing an offering itself only happens during the day, and yet once we have seen that the Torah empowers women to bring offerings like men, then clearly the Torah has obligated them in the mitzvah of offerings even though it is a time-bound mitzvah! And therefore, one in fact would've assumed that they are similarly obligated in all of the constituitive elements of the offering, and there would not have been a logical reason to exempt them from the details when they are obligated in the general action.... And as for the general principle that women are obligated in offerings like men: the source is in Torat Cohanim, Parshat Emor (22:18) - איש איש מבית ישראל ומן הגר בישראל אשר יקריב קרבנו לכל נדריהם וגו', בישראל לרבות נשים ועבדים - And similarly explains the Rambam in Hil. Korbanot, 3:2. "Men, women, and slaves all bring offerings." The Kessef Mishna writes by way of finding a source for the Rambam, "It is obvious that the Torah equates men and women for every rule of the Torah, and we've already said that women do not lay their hands, nor perform the wave-offerings, etc - only men do these things - this implies that women do, however, bring offerings, and every mitzvah that a women is obligated in, so too are slaves." Behold, according to the source in Torah Cohanim that we cited - it is shocking to see the lenghty description [of the Kessef Mishna], who is trying to find a source for the words of the Rambam based on talmudic inferences. But the source is plain, obvious, and well understood! He should have simply noted the citation in the Torat Cohanim, and nothing further.
Rashi
אשם הוא IT IS A GUILT OFFERING — it remains (הוא) a guilt offering until its appelation is removed from it. This teaches regarding a guilt-offering the owner of which has died, or the owner of which has been atoned for by another sacrifice, (e.g. if that originally destined for that purpose was lost and afterwards found), — that although its value (i. e. the animal bought from the proceeds of its sale) is destined to become a burnt-offering for the unemployed altar (lit., for the altar's summer time when there were not sufficient obligatory sacrifices for the altar), yet if one slaughtered it without a special designation) before it was condemned to pasture) it is not fit to become a burnt offering. — Scripture does not, by these words, intend to intimate concerning a guilt-offering that it becomes invalid if slaughtered not as such (but as some sacrifice other than a guilt offering — שלא לשמו) i. e., in the same sense as they (the Rabbis) explained the word הוא that is stated of a חטאת (Leviticus 4:24; cf. Rashi thereon), because in the case of אשם the limiting words אשם הוא are used only after mention of the burning of the fat pieces (not as in the case of חטאת, where חטאת הוא is stated after the command of slaughtering) and could therefore at most be taken as limitating the act of הקטרה in the sense that if this has been done שלא לשמה the sacrifice is invalid; this, however, is not a fact because הקטרה is not essential, and it itself (the אשם), even though the fat pieces have not been burnt at all, is nevertheless valid (Zevachim 5b; Menachot 4a).
Ramban
THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SIN-OFFERING. In Seder Vayikra He commanded concerning [the offerings in the following order]: the burnt-offering, the meal-offering, the peace-offerings, the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, [the reason for this order being] that at first He spoke about the freewill offerings [namely the burnt-offering, the meal-offering and the peace-offerings], and afterwards He mentioned those offerings which are obligatory upon the sinner. Here, however, [in Seder Tzav] the explanation is given first in connection with the burnt-offering and meal-offering, and only then about the sin-offering and guilt-offering, because He wished to explain the laws of the most holy offerings [in one group], since there is one law for them all, as He said [above in Verse 10] with reference to the meal-offering, it is most holy, as the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, and only afterwards He explains the law of those offerings which are less holy [namely, the peace-offerings].
Now in this section [dealing with the sin-offering] He added many new laws. [The verse] This is the law of the sin-offering teaches that there is one law for all sin-offerings,51See Note 16 above, that the term torah or torath (“law” or “law of”) at the beginning of a section, denotes inclusion, while hi denotes exclusion. So also the word zoth (this), as it says here in this case, zoth torath … (this is the law of …), means exclusion. meaning that even the blood of “the inner sin-offerings”52Sin-offerings were of two kinds: (a) those whose blood was sprinkled on the outer altar, and are therefore referred to as the “outer sin-offerings.” These included most of the sin-offerings. After the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats, the meat was eaten by the priests, (b) The second group was called “the inner sin offerings,” because their blood was taken into the interior of the Sanctuary to be sprinkled in front of the Veil overhanging the Holy of Holies, as well as on the golden altar (see above, 4:6-7; 17-18), and on the Day of Atonement also in front of the ark (further, 16:14-15). These sin-offerings were wholly burnt outside the camp [and later, after the Sanctuary was built, they were burnt outside the city of Jerusalem]. — Now here in Verse 20 Scripture states the law regarding “the outer sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [zoth] ‘torath’ hachatath (this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering), and the word torath denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering. [if sprinkled upon a garment] must be washed off [in a holy place]. I might think that this applies also to a sin-offering brought from a bird, Scripture therefore says zoth [‘zoth’ torath hachatath (‘this’ is the law of the sin-offering) — and the word zoth denotes exclusion]. He also states here [in the verse before us], in the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered shall the sin-offering be slaughtered before the Eternal, thus indicating that all sin-offerings must be slaughtered only on the northern side of the altar, since in the section of Vayikra this was stated only with reference to the sin-offering of the prince53Above, 4:24. and of the individual;54Ibid., Verses 29, 33. therefore here [in this section] they are all included — the sin-offerings of the public and “the inner sin-offerings.”52Sin-offerings were of two kinds: (a) those whose blood was sprinkled on the outer altar, and are therefore referred to as the “outer sin-offerings.” These included most of the sin-offerings. After the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats, the meat was eaten by the priests, (b) The second group was called “the inner sin offerings,” because their blood was taken into the interior of the Sanctuary to be sprinkled in front of the Veil overhanging the Holy of Holies, as well as on the golden altar (see above, 4:6-7; 17-18), and on the Day of Atonement also in front of the ark (further, 16:14-15). These sin-offerings were wholly burnt outside the camp [and later, after the Sanctuary was built, they were burnt outside the city of Jerusalem]. — Now here in Verse 20 Scripture states the law regarding “the outer sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [zoth] ‘torath’ hachatath (this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering), and the word torath denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering.
The Rabbis have further interpreted: Most holy, this comes to include the peace-offerings of the public,55Peace-offerings could be brought only by an individual, and they were considered of a lesser degree of holiness. Only once a year, namely, on the Festival of Shevuoth, were peace-offerings brought by the public (see further, 23:19). These were considered among “the most holy offerings.” Offerings which were most holy were slaughtered on the north side of the altar, and could be eaten only by male priests, within the Court of the Sanctuary, during the same day and night; those that were holy to a lesser degree were slaughtered in any part of the Court, and could be eaten by any person, within the enclosed city of Jerusalem, for two days and the intervening night. The thanks-offering and the Nazirite’s ram, though holy to a lesser degree, could be eaten only the same day and the ensuing night. teaching that they may only be slaughtered on the northern side of the altar, as all offerings of the most holy degree are required to be slaughtered on the northern side. Hi (it is) — ‘it is’ the most holy, comes to exclude the thanks-offering56Further, 7:12. The thanks-offering is a form of peace-offering, and is therefore holy to a lesser degree. and the ram of the Nazirite57Numbers 6:14. The ram of the Nazirite is a peace-offering (ibid.). [thus teaching that they may be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple Court, as their holiness is of a lesser degree]. He further commanded here to give the meat of the sin-offerings to the sons of Aaron58Verse 22. — that is, to the males and not the daughters of Aaron — and commanded them to eat it within the Court of the Tent of Meeting.59Verse 19. In addition He mentioned [in this section] many new laws concerning absorption [of the taste of] the sin-offerings [by the vessels in which they are boiled].60Verse 21.
Now in this section [dealing with the sin-offering] He added many new laws. [The verse] This is the law of the sin-offering teaches that there is one law for all sin-offerings,51See Note 16 above, that the term torah or torath (“law” or “law of”) at the beginning of a section, denotes inclusion, while hi denotes exclusion. So also the word zoth (this), as it says here in this case, zoth torath … (this is the law of …), means exclusion. meaning that even the blood of “the inner sin-offerings”52Sin-offerings were of two kinds: (a) those whose blood was sprinkled on the outer altar, and are therefore referred to as the “outer sin-offerings.” These included most of the sin-offerings. After the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats, the meat was eaten by the priests, (b) The second group was called “the inner sin offerings,” because their blood was taken into the interior of the Sanctuary to be sprinkled in front of the Veil overhanging the Holy of Holies, as well as on the golden altar (see above, 4:6-7; 17-18), and on the Day of Atonement also in front of the ark (further, 16:14-15). These sin-offerings were wholly burnt outside the camp [and later, after the Sanctuary was built, they were burnt outside the city of Jerusalem]. — Now here in Verse 20 Scripture states the law regarding “the outer sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [zoth] ‘torath’ hachatath (this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering), and the word torath denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering. [if sprinkled upon a garment] must be washed off [in a holy place]. I might think that this applies also to a sin-offering brought from a bird, Scripture therefore says zoth [‘zoth’ torath hachatath (‘this’ is the law of the sin-offering) — and the word zoth denotes exclusion]. He also states here [in the verse before us], in the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered shall the sin-offering be slaughtered before the Eternal, thus indicating that all sin-offerings must be slaughtered only on the northern side of the altar, since in the section of Vayikra this was stated only with reference to the sin-offering of the prince53Above, 4:24. and of the individual;54Ibid., Verses 29, 33. therefore here [in this section] they are all included — the sin-offerings of the public and “the inner sin-offerings.”52Sin-offerings were of two kinds: (a) those whose blood was sprinkled on the outer altar, and are therefore referred to as the “outer sin-offerings.” These included most of the sin-offerings. After the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats, the meat was eaten by the priests, (b) The second group was called “the inner sin offerings,” because their blood was taken into the interior of the Sanctuary to be sprinkled in front of the Veil overhanging the Holy of Holies, as well as on the golden altar (see above, 4:6-7; 17-18), and on the Day of Atonement also in front of the ark (further, 16:14-15). These sin-offerings were wholly burnt outside the camp [and later, after the Sanctuary was built, they were burnt outside the city of Jerusalem]. — Now here in Verse 20 Scripture states the law regarding “the outer sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [zoth] ‘torath’ hachatath (this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering), and the word torath denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering.
The Rabbis have further interpreted: Most holy, this comes to include the peace-offerings of the public,55Peace-offerings could be brought only by an individual, and they were considered of a lesser degree of holiness. Only once a year, namely, on the Festival of Shevuoth, were peace-offerings brought by the public (see further, 23:19). These were considered among “the most holy offerings.” Offerings which were most holy were slaughtered on the north side of the altar, and could be eaten only by male priests, within the Court of the Sanctuary, during the same day and night; those that were holy to a lesser degree were slaughtered in any part of the Court, and could be eaten by any person, within the enclosed city of Jerusalem, for two days and the intervening night. The thanks-offering and the Nazirite’s ram, though holy to a lesser degree, could be eaten only the same day and the ensuing night. teaching that they may only be slaughtered on the northern side of the altar, as all offerings of the most holy degree are required to be slaughtered on the northern side. Hi (it is) — ‘it is’ the most holy, comes to exclude the thanks-offering56Further, 7:12. The thanks-offering is a form of peace-offering, and is therefore holy to a lesser degree. and the ram of the Nazirite57Numbers 6:14. The ram of the Nazirite is a peace-offering (ibid.). [thus teaching that they may be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple Court, as their holiness is of a lesser degree]. He further commanded here to give the meat of the sin-offerings to the sons of Aaron58Verse 22. — that is, to the males and not the daughters of Aaron — and commanded them to eat it within the Court of the Tent of Meeting.59Verse 19. In addition He mentioned [in this section] many new laws concerning absorption [of the taste of] the sin-offerings [by the vessels in which they are boiled].60Verse 21.