Imam Ahmad held that the obligation is lifted, because the Prophet ﷺ allowed the man to give the dates to his family. Had those dates been the very expiation owed by him, neither he nor they would have been permitted to consume them.

The majority, however, maintain that insolvency does not cancel the expiation. Nothing in the report indicates such a waiver; its plain sense is the opposite. When the Prophet ﷺ asked the man who had violated the fast about the lowest level of expiation—feeding the poor—and the man replied, “I cannot afford it,” the Prophet ﷺ fell silent and did not release him from liability. The presumption is therefore that the duty remains, and by analogy this expiation resembles all other expiations and debts that are not annulled by a person’s poverty.

As for the concession that he could feed his family with the expiatory food, the principle is that if someone else discharges a person’s expiation on his behalf, it is permissible for that person to eat from it and to feed it to his family.