Parasha: Metzora · Aliyah: Third (Tiferet)

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.

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.

זאת תורת אשר בו נגע צרעת, This is the law concerning someone afflicted with "leprosy," etc. The entire verse seems superfluous. Our sages in Torat Kohanim explain that the extraneous words זאת תורת refer to the situation when a poor person insisted on bringing the guilt-offering appropriate for a rich person. His offering is acceptable. You may well ask why the Torah had to tell us this. Why should it not be simple logic seeing the Torah's verses dealing with the poor man were designed only to lighten his burden. If such a person is willing to extend himself beyond what he is obligated to do more power to him! He will surely be blessed! It appears that seeing that the Torah used the word זאת to exclude a wealthy man who brought the offering appropriate for a poor man, the Torah was afraid that the reader might feel that a poor man would also not be allowed to deviate from the rules laid down previously. The word תורת therefore teaches that the poor is free to do better than the Torah demanded of him.

This still leaves the words אשר לא תשיג ידו in our verse unaccounted for. Perhaps the Torah was afraid that some scholar would attempt to draw a comparison between what has been written about relative poverty of people who have to bring guilt-offerings because of failing to testify, or contracting impurity and entering the Temple in such a state, etc. in Leviticus 5,7. In those cases the Torah had provided for the minimal meal-offering to be brought by the lowest category of the poor. Such people are required to bring only two tenths Eypha of fine flour etc. instead of two birds. The scholar may have wanted to extrapolate that if the "leper" is too poor, he too may discharge his obligation by such a meal-offering. The Torah therefore had to write אשר לא תשיג ידו בטהרתו, that such a person cannot attain his purification unless he brings two turtle doves, etc.; the Torah therefore wrote זאת תורת אשר…לא תשיג ידו בטהרתו to tell us that although he cannot afford it at the time he is being purified and he is wallowing in misery he still must bring two birds, no less.

A moral-ethical approach to this verse may be based on the Zohar (Tikkunim 22) according to which the state of poverty is called צרעת which accounts for the fact that both people afflicted with poverty and those afflicted with "leprosy" are described as "dead" in Nedarim 64. This is what the Torah alludes to when it wrote אשר בו נגע צרעת, meaning the fact that the person who has to bring the offering is still poor is evidence that he is still afflicted with the plague of "leprosy." The Torah explains this by adding: "that he cannot afford it during his purification rites."