Bhante, would you say so because of the rule that bhikkhus shouldn’t bring gifts of faith to ruin (saddhādeyyavinipātanaṃ)? What you said seems to me based upon or akin to this reasoning, is that correct?
Bhikkhus, a gift of faith should not be brought to ruin, whoever should bring it to ruin, this would be an offense of dukkata – (na ca, bhikkhave, saddhādeyyaṃ vinipātetabbaṃ. yo vinipāteyya, āpatti dukkaṭassāti).
With the commentary explaining in this way:
Bhikkhus, do not […] a gift of faith: Here, one giving a remainder to his relatives brings to ruin, but if father and mother [the parents] wish to stay in the kingdom, it is fit to give – (na ca bhikkhave saddhādeyyanti ettha sesañātīnaṃ dento vinipātetiyeva.
mātāpitaro pana sace rajje ṭhitā patthayanti, dātabbaṃ; MV-a).
Also: The references do not specify the kind of gift of faith or of the remainder, if it is saṅghika or puggalika. Even though the background was re puggalika (robes given to parents), the final ruling appears to be global, i.e. both (saṅghika and puggalika) must be understood having been referred to in the above treatment and not be brought to ruin (not even giving a remainder, or perhaps part). I think it is somewhat important to make this distinction because one may say that “bringing not to ruin” refers only to puggalika.
I think it is also pertinent to note that actually, from the perspective of another commentarial explanation, the amount to be given out from one’s alms-food (by extension other personal property I would say) should not exceed a kahāpana:
piṇḍapāte pana — anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapāto kassa dātabbo, kassa na dātabbo?
mātāpitunaṃ tāva dātabbo. sacepi kahāpaṇagghanako hoti, saddhādeyyavinipātanaṃ natthi. mātāpitūpaṭṭhākānaṃ veyyāvaccakarassa paṇḍupalāsassāti etesampi dātabbo. tattha paṇḍupalāsassa thālake pakkhipitvāpi dātuṃ vaṭṭati. taṃ ṭhapetvā aññesaṃ āgārikānaṃ mātāpitunampi na vaṭṭati.
Summary of the above quote: The commentary sees it fit to seemingly share with ones parents or those intending to go forth, having placed into a small bowl or beaker, not exceeding a kahāpana . Other householders than that cannot receive a share of untouched food (i.e. not left over), exceptions would be violent foes and thieves as well as lords (chiefs, perhaps chieftains?) since they might get angry to receive left-overs.
So to me, the texts support your explanation implicitly and the matter appears more or less straightforward. What would you say, bhante? Anything amiss in the reasoning?