Kommentar zu Wajikra 15:28

ואם טהרה מזובה וספרה, But if she be cleansed from her issue, then she shall number, etc. We have to try to understand the use of the past tense for the word וספרה instead of the future tense, i.e. ותספור. Precisely when is the count to commence? If the count is to commence immediately, why does the Torah not write ותספור? If it is to occur only after she has become purified, the words "afterwards she shall be clean" do not make sense. We may have to explain this in light of what Torat Kohanim wrote on the meaning of the words טהרה מזובה. They interpret it as a cessation of the issue. The Torah tells us how we are to know that she may be considered cleansed from her issue, i.e. from the time the flow of blood stops. Her "purity" is then sufficient to permit her to begin the count of seven days (during which the flow must not recur). Rashi concurs with this interpretation in Megillah 8. He writes that she may begin counting without first having to immerse herself in a ritual bath.

ואחר תטהר, “and after that she is ritually clean.” Immersion of her whole body in forty measures of water in the ritual basin are what made her clean. Our sages in the Talmud tractate Eyruvin, folio 75 derive this from the words: אך במי נדה יתחטא, “but in the waters in which a menstruating woman bathes it will be cleansed.” [after waiting for the appropriate number of days without bleeding, Ed.] (Numbers 31,23). In verses 16-17 in our chapter, these steps to obtain ritual cleanliness are spelled out. Midrash Rabbah on Isaiah 8,6, describing the slow moving river Shiloah as moving לאט, points out that the numerical value of that word is 40; hence 40 saah of rainwater or well water is the minimum required for a ritual bath this has become the minimum amount stipulated by our sages as adequate for submersion.

וספרה לה, “then she shall count for herself, etc.” she does not recite a blessing over her counting such as we do when we count the omer as she cannot be sure that she will complete the count, for instance if the bleeding recurs before seven days of counting have elapsed. She would then have uttered the name of the Lord in vain, a major sin.

There is another way of interpreting our verse. The words ואם טהרה, "if she is cleansed," mean that the flow of blood has stopped; after all, this is the plain meaning of "she is clean from her flow of blood." You should not think, however, that the impurity has departed from her; the only thing which has departed from her is the contaminating issue. This is why the Torah underlined this by the extraneous word מזובה, "from her issue." What has not departed is the impurity transmitted to people touching the afflicted person. She is still ritually impure and has to count seven days during which she must be free of renewed symptoms. This is why the wording וספרה, a past tense converted by the use of the וו ההיפוך, the letter ו which reverses the tenses is in order.

That is that He commanded us that any woman who is healed from a discharge offer a sacrifice - and that is two turtledoves or two young pigeons. And this is the sacrifice of the zavah; and she is lacking [full] atonement until she offers it. And perhaps the questioner will challenge me and say, "Since the sacrifice of the zav is like the sacrifice of the zavah, why don't you [just] count the type of sacrifice that one is obligated, regardless of who is obligated - like you did with the sacrifice of the sin-offering, the definite guilt-offering, the uncertain guilt-offering and the variable sacrifice? As you counted each and every one as only one commandment, each; and you did not concern yourself with the multiplicity of transgressions for which one is liable, such that one is liable a sacrifice for each and every one of them. So it would have been appropriate for you not to concern yourself with the multiplicity of [classes of] people that are liable for the fowl offering!" That questioner should know that the sacrifices of the zav and the zavah are not for sins, but rather for a specific matter. And if the matter of discharge were the same in men and women, like the name is the same - as the name of one is zav and the name of the other is zavah - it would have then been appropriate to count them as one. But the matter is not like this. For the displacement of blood in a woman - if blood would [likewise] be displaced in a man, he would not be liable for a sacrifice. And the word, zivut, relates to the matter of displacement. But the displacement is not the same in both of them. So in the explanation (Niddah 32b), they said, "A man becomes impure with white, and a woman with red." And the law of the zav and the zavah is not like the law of a man with tsaraat and a woman with tsaraat. And the open proof about this is their saying in Keritiot (Keritiot 8b), "Four are lacking [full] atonement: The zav; the zavah; the woman after childbirth; and one with tsaraat." Behold you see how they counted the zav and the zavah as two, but counted tsaraat as one - whether it is a man or a woman. For the discharge of a man is different than the discharge of a woman. And the verse that appears about this matter is His saying, "When she becomes clean of her discharge [...]. On the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons" (Leviticus 15:28-29). (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement 1-3.)