וְאִם־לֹ֨א תִמְצָ֣א יָדָהּ֮ דֵּ֣י שֶׂה֒ וְלָקְחָ֣ה שְׁתֵּֽי־תֹרִ֗ים א֤וֹ שְׁנֵי֙ בְּנֵ֣י יוֹנָ֔ה אֶחָ֥ד לְעֹלָ֖ה וְאֶחָ֣ד לְחַטָּ֑את וְכִפֶּ֥ר עָלֶ֛יהָ הַכֹּהֵ֖ן וְטָהֵֽרָה׃ (פ)
Jika ia tidak mampu menyediakan seekor anak domba, ia harus mengambil dua ekor burung tekukur atau dua ekor anak burung merpati, seekor sebagai kurban bakaran dan seekor lagi sebagai kurban penghapus dosa. Imam harus mengadakan pendamaian bagi perempuan itu, dan ia menjadi tahir.
German Commentary
und das andere als ihr Pflichtopfer. wenn sie eine arme Frau ist, s. Lev. 12, 8.
Ibn Ezra
When the sun sets he will be ritually pure The subject of this sentence is obviously the abovementioned ritually impure man (compare, “the kohen will make an atonement for her, and she will be ritually pure” [12:8]). The word “day” is nowhere mentioned in the verse. However, our Sages, of blessed memory, have handed down the law that he should not eat food until dark (even after sunset), and they used this verse as a mnemonic by saying “the day clears away” [literally: the day becomes pure] [Berakhot 2a]. See my comment on the passage “to other people” [Exodus 21:8] for a similar device [the reference is to an earlier commentary on Exodus, known as the Perush Haqqaṣar — Translator].
Siftei Chakhamim
On it the purification depends. For in every place regarding to the sin-offering it is written: “The kohein will atone for him and he shall be forgiven.” [You might ask:] Why does Rashi bring the verse at the end of the section (v. 8) and not the verse preceding it (v. 7): “and atone for her and she will be cleansed”? The answer is: This verse (7) does not prove that the sin-offering comes for atonement, for perhaps the burnt-offering comes for atonement. The other verse (8), however, demonstrates this well, since it is written: “And one as a sin-offering...” which implies that the sin-offering comes to atone. Another answer: Because the verse placed the burnt-offering before the sin-offering, and it placed it first “only for [the purpose of] reading [the Torah scroll].” However, this poses a difficulty: For what practical difference does Scripture place it first? Rather, it is to juxtapose “and he will atone” to “sinoffering” to teach that the atonement depends on the sin-offering. You might ask: Let the Merciful One [in the Torah] write [only]: “And he will atone” and it need not say, “And he will bring it,” and it would imply the one upon which the atonement depends! This is no difficulty, for Scripture had not written “and he will bring it” I might think that “he will atone” refers to the burnt-offering as well, since it is written regarding the burnt-offering (1:4): “And it will be favorably accepted from him to achieve his atonement.” However, now that it is written, “And he will bring it,” which implies one [of them], it is more reasonable to establish it as [referring to] the sin-offering that atones, since he is obligated to bring it to atone, and to exclude the burnt-offering that although it atones, he is not obligated to bring it as atonement. Even when the burnt-offering is obligatory, it comes as a present (Gur Aryeh).