Midrasch zu Wajikra 5:8

5) "umalak" ("And he shall pinch, etc."): I might think from anywhere (i.e., even from the throat); I, therefore, reason: "melikah" is written here, and it is written elsewhere (in reference to a bird-offering [Ibid. 5:8]: "And he shall pinch its head alongside its oref" [the back of the head sloping to the nape]). Just as melikah there is alongside the oref, so, here. — But, in that case, why not say: Just as there, he pinches but does not sunder (the head from the body, pinching only one of the shechitah signs, gullet or windpipe), here, too, he pinches but does not sunder! — It is, therefore, written (in negation of this supposition): "umalak its head and he shall smoke it upon the altar, and its blood shall be wrung out on the wall of the altar." Can this possibly mean that after he smokes it he wrings out his blood! It must mean that he pinches it in the manner that he smokes it, viz.: Just as in smoking, the head (is smoked) by itself, and the body, by itself — so in melikah, the head by itself and the body by itself (i.e., the head is severed completely).

5) (Vayikra 11:46): "This is the law of the beast and the bird": In which law is the beast similar to the bird, and birds, to the beast? A beast confers tumah by being touched or being carried, and a bird does not confer tumah by being touched or being carried, (but only by being eaten)! A bird confers tumah upon one's clothing (if another stuffs it) into his esophagus; and not, a beast! In which law, then, is the beast similar to the bird, and the bird, to the beast? We are hereby being taught that just as a beast (is slaughtered) by shechitah, so birds (are slaughtered) by shechitah. — If so, (why not say, then, that) just as a beast required two (shechitah) signs (to be severed), so, a bird, requires two, or the greater part of two? It is, therefore, written "This" (i.e., only in this respect (shechitah in general) that they are similar, but not in the other). R. Elazar says: In which law is a beast similar to a bird, and a bird to a beast? To teach us that both (are rendered fit) through the throat. — If so, (why not say, then, that) just as a bird (is "pinched") opposite its nape (viz. Vayikra 5:8), so a beast, opposite its nape; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 5:8) "its head" — the head of a bird opposite its nape, and not the head of a beast.

5) (Vayikra 5:8) "and he shall bring them": A bird (that became defective) cannot be redeemed (and replaced with another bird with its monies). ("And he shall bring them) to the Cohein": The burden of getting them (to the Cohein) is his. "And he shall sacrifice the one for the sin-offering first": What are we taught hereby? If that the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering in all of its operations, is this not explicitly stated (Vayikra 5:10): "And the second one he shall make a burnt-offering as prescribed (Vayikra 1:14)"? Why, then, need this be repeated? To serve as a prototype (binyan av, see Hermeneutical Principles [Vayikra 1:3]) for all sin-offerings accompanied by burnt-offerings: