The Exalted says: "...its expiation is the feeding of ten poor people from the average of that which you feed your own families, or their clothing." The manner of the argument is from two perspectives: First, that He made the expiation one of these three options, and he did not fulfill any one of them completely. Second, that His limitation to these three options is proof of the restriction of expiation to them, and what you have mentioned is a fourth option. Furthermore, it is a type of expiation, so partitioning it does not suffice, like emancipation. And because he combined the expiation from two types, it is analogous to the case where one emancipates half a slave and feeds five [people] or clothes them.

Our position is that he has discharged the duty of the textual requirement by counting the obligated number, so it suffices, just as if he had brought it forth from a single category. Also, because each one of the two types stands in place of its counterpart in the entire number, so it stands in its place in a portion of it, just like the two expiations. Similar to Tayammum, when it stands in the place of water for the entire body in the case of major ritual impurity (janābah), it is permissible for a portion of it in the case of ritual impurity (ḥadath), or when some of his body is healthy and some is wounded, or when he finds enough water to suffice for a portion of his body. Furthermore, the meaning of food and clothing is similar, as the goal for both is to satisfy a need and provide for a necessity. They are equal in number and in the consideration of poverty in those to whom they are given. Their diversity—in that food satisfies hunger and clothing covers the nakedness—does not prevent sufficiency in an expiation composed of both, just as if one of the two groups were in need of covering their nakedness and the other in need of satisfying their hunger. Moreover, he has discharged the obligation regarding those whom he fed by feeding them, and he discharges the obligation regarding those whom he clothed by clothing them, evidenced by the fact that he is not required to spend more than feeding those who remain, nor clothing more than those who remain. Once he has discharged the obligation for ten poor people, it must suffice him, just as if the category were the same. As for the verse, it indicates...