Comentario citado sobre Levítico 5:7

And it is likewise when he dedicates them. When a person brings a bird offering as a hatat, he also brings one bird as on olah (Leviticus 5:7). When he separates them and declares which is the hatat and which is the olah, he must first designate the hatat and then the olah.

According to Rabbi Yose Hagalili, the same is true if the ruler, or king, accidentally transgressed one of these commandments. The reason is that a sliding scale sacrifice is not applicable to a king, for a king never becomes poor. Leviticus 5:7, 11 state, “But if his means do not suffice”. Since this can never be true of a king, who always has financial means, Rabbi Yose Hagalili concludes that the entire law and sacrifice is not applicable to the king. In other words, the king is not simply in the category of a rich person, because rich people can become poor, while kings do not. Rabbi Akiva disagrees and says that the king can be liable to bring a sliding scale sacrifice for all of these sins, with the exception of oaths of adjuration. Since the king cannot judge or be judged, testify or be testified against, he is considered outside of the framework of the regular legal system. If someone adjures him that he doesn’t know testimony and he swears that he does not know testimony, but in reality he does, he is not liable for a false oath. This is because even if he had admitted that he knows testimony, he cannot testify in a court of law (see Sanhedrin 2:2).

And the ruler is similarly [exempt] - A king who accidently transgressed one of these commandments does not bring a goat and is exempt from bringing any sacrifice, because it is written, “And if his means do not suffice” (Leviticus 5:7,11), meaning one who is poor. A king and the high priest will never be poor.

As one might have thought - that is to say, this verse is necessary for the following reason: I might have thought to say: Just as in a case where a lottery is not used to sanctify [an offering], such as with "nests", about which is written "one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering" (Leviticus 5:7) -- if he cast a lot upon them, they are not thereby designated, and he is able to change [their designation], as we have established in Tractate Yoma: "Nests become designated only upon either the owner’s taking of them, when he initially purchases [ and consecrates them for his offering], or upon the priest’s actual performance [of the sacrificial rite upon them]." (Yoma 41a:2)