Komentarz do Kapłańska 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).

ואם דל הוא ואין ידו משגת, “and if the afflicted person is poor and cannot afford (the price of the sheep);” we usually find the adjective דל in connection with the body, as in the case of the cows that Pharaoh saw in the dream he told Joseph about in Genesis 41,19. Compare also: “happy he who is happy when he gives his attention to the poor.” Psalms 41,2: משכיל אל דל,“ or Samuel II 13,4: מדוע אתה ככה דל בן המלך, “why are you so poorly, son of a king?!” In none of these examples does the word דל describe one’s financial status. This is why in our verse the Torah had to add the words: “for he cannot afford;”

שמן ‎‏ ולג AND A LOG OF OIL — to place of it upon the thumbs. The quantity of the oil required for the libations of the meal-offering Scripture did not find it necessary to specify here (since it is given in Numbers 15:4 where three logs are prescribed; consequently the one log mentioned hero cannot be intended for the libations but for placing on the thumbs).

The verse did not have to specify. You might ask: Why did Rashi not explain this above (v. 10) concerning the three sin-offerings [i.e., the three animal sacrifices of the wealthy man], where it requires three tenths for three mealofferings? There, as well, it is not written how much oil is needed for the drink-offerings of the meal-offering! The answer is: From that which Rashi explains: “One tenth fine flour, for this lamb,” he wishes to prove what he explained above — that the metzoro’s sin-offering and guilt-offering require drink-offerings. This is in order that you will not ask: How does Rashi know? Perhaps the three tenths are for the drink-offerings of the burnt-offering alone, but the metzoro’s sin-offering and the guilt-offering are like the rest of the sin-offerings and guiltofferings that do not require drink-offerings. [Thus,] he explains: Regarding the poor man it says, “One tenth fine flour,” — “for this lamb, which is a [single] one,” he must bring only one tenth [as its drink-offering]. Consequently, it is impossible to say that regarding a wealthy man, three tenths [of flour] are for the burnt-offering alone, and there is nothing for the sin-offering and the guilt-offering. For if so, why does the poor man bring only one tenth? Since concerning the rich man everything depends on the animal, and he needs to bring three tenths for one animal, then concerning the poor man there should be three tenths as well. Rather, [it must be] as I explained: The metzoro’s sin-offering and guilt-offering require drink-offerings. If so, the remaining two [are distributed] one for the sin-offering and one for the guilt-offering. Rashi is answering the question: Because of his [i.e., the one being purified] poverty, should he not bring less oil as well. On this Rashi answers: [This amount of oil is necessary] to put on his thumbs, which includes sprinkling seven times, upon the [ear’s] middle ridge, and upon the head of the one being purified. Therefore, this log is needed in his poverty as well (Nachalas Yaakov).

Alternatively, we could explain the apparently unnecessary words ואין ידו משגת by referring to the reverse situation described on the same folio in Kritut. A very poor person had set aside the meal-offering required for his sin-offering; it became unfit for the altar. Before this person could arrange a substitute his economic situation improved but not sufficiently to enable him to offer a sheep. He therefore prepared birds. When the same story repeated itself with the birds becoming unfit as an offering, the owner became still better off so that he could afford to bring the sheep as a sin-offering that normally well-situated people have to bring to obtain their atonement. This person has to bring the expensive offering though at the time he became liable for the offering he had indeed been very poor. The extra words ואין ידו משגת may therefore be used to teach that the Torah describes a temporary state of affairs and that the words may work to the advantage or the disadvantage of the person described in Kritut.

Torat Kohanim writes as follows: "The words 'he is poor,' might be understood to mean that he used to have 100 dollars and now only has 50 dollars. The Torah tells you that it does not speak about such a subjective 'poverty' but about someone who does not have enough money left to afford to buy a sheep. Alternatively, you may read this backwards. He started out being unable to afford…etc. Or, he was able to afford but could not find a sheep to purchase; then the Torah considers him as 'poor' and he brings two birds." We have to understand what is meant by the words 'he could not find.' It may mean that there simply were no sheep to be had, such as happened during the siege of Jerusalem. It is obvious that in such a situation the Torah would not obligate such a person to wait indefinitely with bringing his guilt-offering, but would agree that he bring two birds as do people who cannot afford more. After all, at a time like this the money which normally defines a person as being rich has lost its value to the owner and he now is poor. We would not need Torat Kohanim to tell us that such a person fits the definition of 'poor.' It is more likely that the author of Torat Kohanim meant that sheep were not available at the regular price and could be bought only at exorbitant prices.

We may assume that the obligation to bring a sheep or goat as his guilt-offering is conditional on the owner not depriving himself of the necessities of life. Even if his poverty is only relative to his former wealth he may bring the guilt-offering designated for an objectively poor person and use the balance of his funds to defray his regular expenses. This explanation of our sages does not contradict what we have written. You should know that if the Torah had not wanted to tell us more than what our sages have already explained it would have sufficed for the Torah to write ואם לא תגיע ידו די שה וכבשה, והביא as the Torah wrote in Leviticus 5,7 in connection with another guilt-offering. Clearly then the Torah intended to convey the additional message we have pointed out by changing its syntax in this instance.

Torat Kohanim (verses 30-31) also comments on the three unnecessary expressions the Torah uses in connection with the terms describing a person's ability or lack of ability to afford certain expenses. They are: 1) אשר תשיג ידו, 2) מאשד תשיג ידו, 3) את אשר תשיג ידו. Here is their comment: The expression אשר תשיג ידו refers to someone who started out being wealthy but had become impoverished by the time he was required to bring the guilt-offering. The Torah therefore tells us that such a person brings the offering appropriate for a poor person. The words ומאשר תשיג ידו speak about a person who had been well off and set out to bring the guilt-offering appropriate to a wealthy person but whose offering became disqualified before it reached the altar. The owner of that offering had meanwhile become impoverished. He too is required to bring only the offering appropriate for a poor person. Finally, the words ואת אשר תשיג ידו refer to someone who was poor and had prepared to offer the guilt-offering appropriate to his economic status. He had become wealthy before completing this offering. The Torah tells us that such a person has to bring the offering appropriate for a wealthy person. If, however, he had already offered the sin-offering while in a state of poverty he does not have to bring the rich man's burnt-offering which he is still obligated to offer to complete the process of atonement. This conclusion is derived from the words אחד לחטאת ואחד לעולה, meaning that both the sin-offering and the burnt-offering must be of the same category, i.e. either both have to be rich man's offerings or both have to be poor man's offerings. All of these exegetical derivations do not include what we have mentioned earlier as based on the repeated expression דל הוא ואין ידו משגת. Even after we have all the commentaries of Torat Kohanim our sages have offered us, my own comments were still necessary to explain the extra verbiage in our verse.