Comentario sobre Levítico 14:21

ועשרון סלת אחד‎ AND ONE TENTH DEAL OF FLOUR — for this lamb which is a single one he shall bring one tenth part of flour to accompany its drink-offering.

ואם דל הוא ואין ידו משגת, And if he is poor and he cannot afford (3 sheep as the respective offerings). Why did the Torah have to repeat, i.e. tell us that the meaning of "he is poor" is that "he cannot afford," etc.? Perhaps the Mishnah in Kritut 27 may clarify this for us. We are told there that "if someone set aside a sheep or nanny-goat as the offering he had to bring, and said animal becomes disqualified for the altar by developing a blemish, and the owner also became poor during the interval, he may sell the animal in question and offer a bird -offering with the proceeds of the sale." The Talmud derives this ruling from the word מחטאתו written in the Torah in connection with the sin-offering reserved for the very poor people. There would be good reason to argue that seeing that in the case of a מצורע the Torah had not made provision for a meal-offering by the very poor people to take the place of either the sheep or the birds as the case may be, it is not in order to use words exegetically which were written in a situation that is quite different. [The sin-offering dealt with there is one brought by a person who committed the kind of sin which carries the כרת penalty or worse, if it had been committed knowingly, something that certainly is not the case with the מצורע who brings a guilt-offering. Ed.] It would have been reasonable to suppose that just as the Torah did not allow a very poor מצורע to offer a meal-offering as his guilt-offering, so it would also not allow him to make the kind of substitution discussed in connection with the sin-offering in the Talmud in Kritut. The Torah therefore writes the extra words ואין ידו משגת, to tell us that the substitution for two turtle doves would be in order also in the case of the מצורע.

One tenth as its drink-offering. [Rashi is answering the difficulty] that it did not need to say “one [tenth fine flour].” It is fine that it mentions “one lamb,” that is understandable, since a wealthy person brings three animals it emphasizes that the poor person [brings only] one. But regarding the tenth, we cannot say this, since the tenth is secondary to the animal it only needed to say “a tenth fine flour.” Therefore, we need to say that the explanation of the verse is: “One tenth (ephah) fine flour, for this lamb, which is a [single] one.” Accordingly, the word “one” is connected to “lamb” and refers to the word “one” written by the lamb (Gur Aryeh). Meaning: Rashi is answering the question: Why is it different from above where it requires three tenths but here one tenth? We cannot say because it decreased the [amount of] lambs, for this is fine [regarding] the lambs, because it requires in their place turtledoves or young pigeons, but nothing was required in place of the tenths at all. On this Rashi answers: Since the tenths are only brought only on account of the lambs and not for a meal-offering on their own, therefore, he brings only one tenth (Nachalas Yaakov).