04-11-2011, 03:38 AM
Shlama akhi,
yes, i've studied that possibility of the usage of GAVER for a person, and i'm not entirely convinced, but it does at least seem plausible that it could have been a man and not a rooster. but if we take it literally, it does say "rooster," so if i had to pick i'd go that route. also, the same Talmud that mentions Gebini (i think that was his name) as the GAVER also mentions the stoning to death of a rooster in Jerusalem that had killed a child, so it is difficult to make a compelling argument that none were actually allowed and/or found within the city walls.
as for the etymology of TARNAGLA, i had also looked at that recently and found the two terms to be strikingly appropriate for the "purpose" of a rooster, if compounded.
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
yes, i've studied that possibility of the usage of GAVER for a person, and i'm not entirely convinced, but it does at least seem plausible that it could have been a man and not a rooster. but if we take it literally, it does say "rooster," so if i had to pick i'd go that route. also, the same Talmud that mentions Gebini (i think that was his name) as the GAVER also mentions the stoning to death of a rooster in Jerusalem that had killed a child, so it is difficult to make a compelling argument that none were actually allowed and/or found within the city walls.
as for the etymology of TARNAGLA, i had also looked at that recently and found the two terms to be strikingly appropriate for the "purpose" of a rooster, if compounded.
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy