Kiddushin 36B

״והקריבו״⁠ – זו קבלת הדם.

“And the sons of Aaron should present,” this is collecting the blood.

והזאות. הזאה דהיכא? אי דפרה, ״אלעזר״ כתיב בה. אי דפנים, ״הכהן המשיח״ כתיב בה. אלא הזאה דבן עוף,

The Talmud discusses the Mishnah’s ruling that women do not perform sprinkling: To which sprinkling is this referring? If this is the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer, “Elazar” is written with regard to that action (Numbers 19:4), i.e., this sprinkling is performed by the deputy High Priest. If even other priests cannot perform it, certainly women cannot. If this is referring to the sprinkling performed inside the Holy of Holies, the phrase: “The anointed priest” (Leviticus 4:16), is written with regard to that rite, and consequently there is no question that women are ineligible. Rather, it is referring to sprinkling the blood of a bird-offering.

דאתיא בקל וחומר מבן צאן. ומה בן צאן שלא קבע לו כהן לשחיטתו ⁠– קבע לו כהן להזאתו, בן עוף שקבע לו כהן למליקתו ⁠– אינו דין שיקבע לו להזאתו?

The Talmud explains that this is derived through an a fortiori inference from a sheep offering: If with regard to a sheep offering, concerning which the Torah did not establish a priest for its slaughter, since it may be slaughtered by anybody, the Torah nevertheless established a priest for its sprinkling, as the verse states: “And the sons of Aaron, the priests, should sprinkle its blood” (Leviticus 1:11), is it not logical that with regard to a bird-offering, concerning which the Torah established a priest for its pinching, an act parallel to slaughtering a sheep, the Torah likewise established a priest for its sprinkling? This proves that the sprinkling of the blood of a bird-offering can be performed only by priests, not by women.

חוץ ממנחת סוטה ונזירה. אמר ליה רבי אלעזר לרבי יאשיה דדריה: לא תיתיב אכרעך עד דאמרת לי להא שמעתתא: מנין למנחת סוטה שטעונה תנופה? מנלן?! בגופה כתיב: ״והניף את המנחה״! אלא: תנופה בבעלים מנלן?

§ The Mishnah teaches that these mitzvot apply specifically to men but not to women, except for the meal-offering of a sota and a nazirite woman, which these women wave. R' Elazar said to R' Yoshiya of his generation, i.e., the amora who was his contemporary, not the tanna with the same name who lived earlier: Do not sit down until you explain this statement to me; from where is it derived that the meal-offering of a sota requires waving? The Talmud expresses surprise: What is the meaning of the question: From where do we derive it? It is written in the chapter dealing with a sota itself: “And he should wave the meal-offering” (Numbers 5:25). Rather, the question is as follows: From where do we derive that the waving is performed by the owners? Perhaps only the priest waves it?