Halakhah su Levitico 5:8

But there is nothing that will clarify the difference between a negation and a prohibition to you besides the content of the statement. Indeed it will surely not be clarified by the word, for the word for negation and prohibition are the same in Hebrew; and that is the word, lo. So one learned must understand the content of the statement. And then he will quickly grasp which negative statement is a negation and which negative statement is a prohibition, according to our preceding explanation. And [the Sages], peace be upon them, already alluded to this matter. And that is in that which we find disagreement about a certain negative statement, as to whether it is a negation or a prohibition. And that is His saying regarding a bird sin-offering (Leviticus 5:8), "pinching its head at the nape, and he does not sever it." For behold our tanna - and that is the tanna that speaks in the mishnah (Zevachim 6:4) - holds that this is a prohibition; and therefore said that if he separated it, it is disqualified. And according to this, this negative statement would have to be a negative commandment. That is that if he severed it, it is disqualified - as if he brought leaven or honey [on the altar]. But Rabbi Elazar (ben Shimon) holds that this negative statement is a negation and not a prohibition; and that His saying, "he does not sever it," is intending to say, one does not have to sever the head, but rather one can cut it in any way that it might be. And hence - according to his opinion - if one severed it, it is [still] fit. And accordingly, they said in the Gemara, Zevachim (Zevachim 65b), "Rabbi Elazar ben Shimon would say, 'I have heard that we sever the bird sin-offering.' [Then] what is [the meaning of], 'he does not sever it?' He does not have to sever it." And they asked about this and said, "But from this - concerning a pit, about which it is written (Exodus 21:33), "and he does not cover it," is it also the same?" And the answer was, "There, it is written (Exodus 21:34), 'The one responsible for the pit must make restitution' - it is implied that he needs to cover it." Behold it has been clarified that they took a proof as to whether it is a negation or a prohibition from the content of the statement. And from it, it has become clear that His saying, "he does not sever it," is a negative commandment - according to what is written in the mishnah. And it has [also] become clear that His saying with a bird burnt-offering (Leviticus 1:17), "And he shall tear it open by its wings, he does not sever it," is inappropriate to count as a negative commandment - as it is a negation. And according to everyone, if he severs it, it is [still] fit. For it is because He said with an animal fire-offering (Leviticus 1:12), "And you shall cut it up into sections," that it would enter your mind that a bird burnt-offering is also like this. So He said that you do not need to sever it, but just tear it. So if he severed it, it is [still] fit - as is explained in its place.

Not to sever a fowl sin-offering: That the priest not sever the head from the fowl that comes as a sacrifice - and that is what is called the fowl sin-offering - when he cuts (yimalek) it, as it is stated (Leviticus 5:8), "and he shall malak its head across from its nape, and he shall not sever." And the understanding of melikah (Rashi on Zevachim 65a) is that the priest plants his fingernail across from the nape - which is the bone that is called the neck-bone - and cuts the bone with his fingernail until he reaches the benchmarks, and [then] cuts the benchmarks (the esophagus and the trachea) with his fingernail, or the majority of one of them. And this is the slaughter of the fowl sin-offering. And the priest needs to not cut it all completely until the head be severed from the body. And about this is it stated, "and he shall not sever." We have already said in the commandment of building the [Temple] (Sefer haChinukh 95) that we do not have the ability - nor does one whose 'small finger is thicker than our loins' - to find an argument about the details of the sacrifices even from the angle of its simple understanding. And it is enough for this work of ours to make known a little explanation about the content of the sacrifices more generally from the angle of the simple meaning. And I have already written above (Sefer HaChinukh 95) that which I have known and heard.