Commento su Levitico 5:7

AND IF HIS MEANS SUFFICE NOT FOR A LAMB. Scripture has been lenient towards these sinners by allowing them to bring an offering of either higher or lower value. It is possible that the reason for the leniency with regard to the offering in the case of oaths [i.e., the “oath of testimony” and the “oath of utterance”, as explained above] is because the punishment is not excision [were they to be done wilfully]. In the case of defilement of the Sanctuary and the holy food [He mitigated the obligation of the offering] because the person who did it erred whilst engaged in performing a religious duty, for the priest who eats the holy food or enters into the Sanctuary to prostrate himself or to bring an offering is engaged in performing a religious duty, and his intention is towards Heaven. Therefore even though he sinned on account of having forgotten his state of uncleanness, Scripture gave him more ways of atonement.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that the reason why one [of the two birds brought by the poor man in the offering of higher or lower value] was a burnt-offering, is so that it should be offered on the altar in lieu of the fats of the animal sin-offering [brought by the affluent person].³⁵⁰I.e., in view of the fact that nothing of the bird sin-offering is burnt on the altar, while the fats of the animal sin-offering are burnt thereon, Scripture therefore required that the poor man who cannot afford the animal offering, should bring two birds, one for a sin-offering [which is the required offering in this case], and an additional bird as a burnt-offering, to take the place of the fats of the animal sin-offering. He has explained it well.

ואם לא תגיע ידו די שה, if he is unable to afford a lamb, etc. This means that the individual in question can afford to present more than the two turtle-doves which are the next cheaper sin-offering and burnt offering the Torah demands of him. As long as he is not able to afford a lamb as his sin-offering, he is allowed to offer the bird-offerings designated for a needy person.

ואם לא תגיע ידו, ”and if he cannot afford it, etc.” There are some sages who believe that the reason why the Torah showed a degree of leniency to financially strapped sinners by allowing them to bring an inexpensive guilt offering consisting of a bunt offering of one bird and a sin offering of another bird, is that in all of the examples concerned the sinner did not derive any meaningful personal advantage from the sin he had committed. On the other hand, someone eating chelev or eating ordinary food on the Day of Atonement, or someone performing work on the Sabbath, and a host of similar examples of sins, did derive personal satisfaction or financial benefit from them, not to mention people indulging in forbidden sexual relations, or people who have misappropriated property belonging to someone else, such sinners most certainly have to bring an offering that sets them back financially. Some of these have committed a twofold transgression, seeing that it occurred in holy precincts that were out of bounds to them. These offerings cost at least a shekel. As to the guilt offering designed to ward off punishment for transgressions of an indeterminate nature, the אשם תלוי, the conditional guilt offering, this must also be one that costs at least one shekel. It is relatively expensive, as people who are not sure they have committed a transgression are in the habit of giving themselves the benefit of the doubt. They must not think that they can do so with relative impunity. Nachmanides writes that the reason why the guilt offering for transgressions related to oaths is relatively inexpensive for people with restricted means, is that the transgressions in respect of which his offering is brought do not carry a type of death penalty such as karet even if they had been committed deliberately. The reason that this is so in ritual impurity related transgressions, is that the transgression itself was committed in the course of fulfilling a commandment. When reflecting on his words one has difficulty in reconciling them to a situation where a father was supposed to circumcise his son after the Sabbath, and he had forgotten the correct date, i.e. the 8th day, and circumcised his son on the Sabbath instead, who is guilty, and must bring the expensive sin offering according to the opinions of all our scholars. The reason might be that seeing that the performance of the commandment was not performed at the right time, and the father had not involved himself in as many preparations prior to fulfilling this commandments, he is not entitled to the leniency shown by the Torah in the other examples.