Three Talmudic Stories of Cryptic Statements by Commoners Correctly Interpreted by the Biblical Mordechai (Menachot 64b-65a)

Cryptic Statements by: 1) a deaf-mute person, about Omer from Gaggot Tzerifin; 2) a deaf-mute person, about Two Loaves from Ein Sokher; 3) Three Women Bringing Birds to the Temple

Part of a series on riddles and explicitly cryptic statements and their interpretations in the Talmud, previous installments here and here.

Menachot 64b (#8) - 65a (#1) - the numbering is added by me:

Story # 1 - Cryptic Statement by a  deaf-mute person, about Omer from Gaggot Tzerifin

The passage discusses a crisis where the required grain for the omer meal offering was unavailable due to all surrounding fields being looted and destroyed. In response to the court's public call for help, a deaf-mute person communicated indirectly by gesturing towards a roof (gag in Aramaic and Hebrew) and a hut (tzerifa), suggesting a location. The Biblical Mordekhai (understood to have been an official in the early Second Temple, see later in this piece), recognizing the potential significance of the gestures, inquired if there existed a place named Gaggot Tzerifin or Tzerifin Gaggot. Upon investigation, such a place was indeed found, and it had fields of barley that were suitable for the omer meal offering, thereby resolving the crisis.

כי מטא עומר, לא הוו ידעי מהיכא אייתי עומר 

אכרזו 

אתא ההוא חרשא, אותיב חדא ידא אאיגרא, וחדא ידיה אצריפא 

אמר להו מרדכי: מי איכא דוכתא דשמה גגות צריפין או צריפין גגות?

בדקו ואשכחוה 

When it came time to bring the omer meal offering, they did not know from where they could bring the omer grain, as all the surrounding fields were looted and ruined. 

The court publicly proclaimed their difficulty. 

A certain deaf-mute [ḥersha] came forward and stretched out one hand toward a roof, gag in Hebrew, and one hand toward a hut [tzerifa]. 

Mordekhai said to the Sages: Is there a place that is called Gaggot Tzerifin or Tzerifin Gaggot?

 They checked and found that there was such a place, and it contained fields of barley from which they were able to bring the omer meal offering.

Story # 2 - Cryptic Statement by a deaf-mute person, about Two Loaves from Ein Sokher

Almost exactly the same story as above, only difference that this is about the Two Loaves (Sh’tei Halechem), and with different words in the “riddle”.

כי בעי לאתוי שתי הלחם, לא הוו ידעי מהיכא לאתויי 

אכרזו 

אתא ההוא גברא חרשא, אותיב ידיה אעיניה, וחדא ידא אסיכרא 

אמר להו מרדכי: ומי איכא דוכתא דשמה עין סוכר או סוכר עין?

בדקו ואשכחו 

A similar incident occurred when they needed to bring the two loaves, and they did not know from where to bring the grain. 

Again the court publicly proclaimed their difficulty, 

and a certain deaf-mute came forward and stretched out one hand toward his eye [a’eineih] and one hand toward a door latch [assikhera]. 

Mordekhai said to the Sages: And is there a place that is called: Ein Sokher, or Sokher Ayin? 

They checked and found that there was such a place, and it contained fields of wheat from which they were able to bring the two loaves.

Story # 3 - Cryptic Statements by Three Women Bringing Birds to the Temple

The Talmud presents a thord story highlighting Mordekhai's interpretative skills. Three women brought nests with pairs of pigeons or doves for their obligatory offerings, each citing different reasons: ziva (uterine blood discharge), yamma (interpreted as another form of ziva, meaning flow), and ona (purification completion from zava status). 

The Sages initially believed all three required a sin offering and a burnt offering due to their conditions. However, Mordekhai proposed an alternative interpretation based on the potential ambiguities in their statements, suggesting that the women might have been giving thanks for being saved from different dangers: menstrual complications, peril at sea, and threats to the eye. He argued that their offerings were voluntary burnt offerings (ola) of gratitude, not sin offerings. Upon verification, Mordekhai’s interpretation was confirmed correct.

Tthe passage goes on to relate that Mordekhai, known also as Petaḥya in another context, managed the procurement and sacrifice of such offerings. His nickname, Petaḥya ("opening"), reflected his ability to elucidate complex matters and his multilingual proficiency, which aided in his teachings and interpretations. (See my previous piece, where I discuss this Mishnah at length.)

הנהו שלש נשים דאייתו שלש קינין 

1. חדא אמרה: לזיבתי 

2. וחדא אמרה: לימתי 

3. וחדא אמרה: לעונתי 

סבור מינה: 

1. זיבתי זבה ממש,

2. לימתי לימתי ממש, 

3. לעונתי לעונתה 

דכולהו חדא חטאת וחדא עולה 

אמר להו מרדכי: 

1. שמא בזוב סיכנה 

2. שמא בים סיכנה 

3. שמא בעינה סיכנה 

דכולהו עולות נינהו 

בדוק ואשכח 

והיינו דתנן: 

פתחיה על הקינין, זה מרדכי, למה נקרא שמו פתחיה? פותח דברים ודורשן, ויודע בשבעים לשון

The Gemara relates another story that demonstrates Mordekhai’s wisdom: Once, a certain three women brought three nests for their obligatory offerings of pairs of pigeons or doves (see Leviticus 15:29).

One of them said: This offering is for my ziva;

and one said: This if for my yamma; 

and the last one said: This is for my ona.

The Sages understood from the first woman’s statement:

1.  For my ziva, that she had experienced a discharge of uterine blood when not expecting her menstrual period, which would give her the status of an actual zava.

2.  From the second woman’s statement: For my yamma, they understood: My actual yamma, i.e., she was also a ziva, as yam can mean: Sea, or a flow of blood. 

3. From the third woman’s statement: For my ona, they came to the conclusion that she needed to bring a sacrifice for her time [ona] of completing her purification process from being a zava. 

Accordingly, they understood that all these women were obligated to bring one sin offering and one burnt offering.

Mordekhai said to the other Sages: 

1. Perhaps the first woman was endangered in the course of her menstrual flow [zov]. 

2. Similarly, perhaps the second woman was endangered at sea [yam]. 

3. Finally, perhaps the third woman was endangered through her eye [ayin], as ayin is phonetically similar to ona. 

According to these explanations, each woman sought to bring a voluntary offering to give thanks to God for being saved from danger. If so, the appropriate offering in each case is not a sin offering, as they are all burnt offerings. 

It was checked and they found that Mordekhai’s interpretation was in fact correct.

And this is as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 13b): 

Petaḥya was responsible for the nests of birds, i.e., the doves or pigeons brought by a zav, a zava, a woman after childbirth, and a leper. These individuals would place the appropriate sum of money into the horn designated for this purpose, and each day Petaḥya oversaw the purchase of birds from that money and their sacrifice in the proper manner. This Sage is Mordekhai; and why was he called Petaḥya, which resembles the word for opening [petaḥ]? The reason is that he would open, i.e., elucidate, difficult topics and interpret them to the people, and because he knew all seventy languages known in that region at the time.