“ ‘But if she is cleansed of her discharge, then she shall count to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. On the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, and bring them to the priest, to the door of the Tent of Meeting.
The woman with an irregular discharge shall bring an offering after purification
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
וְאִם־טָהֲרָה מִזּוֹבָהּ וְסָפְרָה לָּהּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וְאַחַר תִּטְהָר׃ וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי תִּקַּח־לָהּ שְׁתֵּי תֹרִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה וְהֵבִיאָה אוֹתָם אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן אֶל־פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
היא שצונו שתקריב כל אשה זבה כשתתרפא מזובה קרבן והוא שתי תורים או שני בני יונה וזהו קרבן זבה, והיא מחוסרת כפרה עד שתקריבהו. ואולי מקשה יקשה עלי ויאמר אחר שקרבן הזב הוא כקרבן הזבה למה לא תמנה מין הקרבן שיתחייב בו כל מי שיתחייב כמו שעשית בקרבן חטאת ואשם ודאי ואשם תלוי וקרבן עולה ויורד שמנית כל אחד ואחד מצוה אחת לבד ולא חששת לרבוי העונות שחייבין על כל עון ועון מהם הקרבן והנה היה ראוי לך שלא תחוש לרבוי האנשים שיתחייב כל אחד קרבן העוף. ידע המקשה ההוא שקרבן זב וזבה אינו על חטאים אבל הוא דבר שחובה לעשות על ענין מהענינים ואילו היה עניני הזיבות באנשים ונשים דבר אחד כמו שהוא בשם ששם זה זב ושם זו זבה אז יהיה ראוי למנותם אחד, אבל אין הענין כן כי הגרת דם מן האשה אם יגר דם מן האיש לא יתחייב קרבן. ומלת זיבות אמנם הוא ענין ההגרה ואין ההגרה דבר אחד בשניהם. ובבאור אמרו האיש מטמא בלובן והאשה באודם. ואין דין זב וזבה כדין מצורע ומצורעת. וראיה ברורה על זה אמרם בכריתות (דף ח':) ארבעה מחוסרי כפרה הן הזב וזבה והיולדת ומצורע, הנה תראה איך ימנו הזב והזבה בשנים ומנה מצורע באחד יהיה איש או אשה, כי זיבת האיש זולת זיבת האשה. והכתוב שבא בזה הענין הוא אמרו ואם טהרה מזובה וביום השמיני תקח לה שתי תורים או שני בני יונה. (זאת תהיה, מחוסרי כפרה פרק א' וגם פרק ב' ופרק ג'):
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.)
Hebrew: Sefer HaMitzvot, Warsaw 1883 (public domain). English: Sefaria Edition, trans. Rabbi Francis Nataf, 2021 (CC0). Via Sefaria; translator’s footnotes omitted.
Literary form: a ritual instruction
Applicability
How the catalog describes where and when this commandment applies. These are independent descriptions, not a verdict on which laws still count.
- Requires a standing Temple
Classical halakhic consequences
The consequences the classical halakhah attaches to this commandment, grouped by who imposes them. Where a category has none recorded, that absence is itself meaningful.
Imposed by a court
No court-imposed penalty is recorded.
At the hands of Heaven
No divinely-imposed consequence is recorded.
Ritual remedy
- A sin-offering (ḥatat)
- A burnt-offering (olah)
How the streams of Judaism treat this commandment
The streams of Judaism read the same commandment differently — an ongoing plurality, not a ranking. Each position below is reported as the catalog records it; none is presented as the correct one.
- Orthodox Binding, with modification
- Conservative Kept as an ethical principle
- Reform Not binding
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite Binding, with modification
24 of 613 commandments have been examined in depth so far — this one is queued.
How later traditions received this commandment
How later traditions read or reworked this commandment, each attributed to its own voice. The catalog’s own classification of each reception is shown as it records it, never adopted as GEBible’s.
Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls)
- 4Q272 (4QDamascus Documentf) 1 ii; 4Q266 6 ii read it more strictly
- 4Q274 (4QTohorot A) 1 i read it more strictly
Josephus
- Ant. 3.261-263 affirmed it
The New Testament
- Mark 5:25-34 reinterpreted it The hemorrhaging woman (presumed zavah) is healed by contact with Jesus; the narrative presupposes the Levitical discharge framework and inverts the contagion logic — purity flows from Jesus rather than impurity to him.
- Matthew 9:20-22 reinterpreted it Synoptic parallel
- Luke 8:43-48 reinterpreted it Synoptic parallel
The Qur'an and hadith
- Q 2:222 carried a parallel
Where this commandment meets modern human-rights frameworks
One modern normative lens, attributed to it — not GEBible’s assessment. Each row names the framework it measures against and the catalog’s own classification of the relation.
This framework catalogues tensions; it records agreement in only one of its entries. The near-total tension rate is the shape of the instrument, not a finding.
No tension with the catalogued modern frameworks is recorded here.