| Rabbinical Eras |
|---|
A savora (Aramaic: סבורא, plural savora'im, saboraim, סבוראים) is a term used in Jewish law and history to signify the leading rabbis living from the end of period of the Amoraim (around 500 CE) to the beginning of the Geonim (around 700 CE). Zugot (תְּקוּפָת הַזּוּגוֹת ( (təqūphāth hazZūghôth) refers to the period during the time of the Second Temple (515 BCE - 70 CE in which word /š n/ and /t n/ --> Geonim ( Hebrew: גאונים also transliterated Gaonim) were the presidents of the two great rabbinical colleges of Sura Aramaic is a Semitic language with Geonim ( Hebrew: גאונים also transliterated Gaonim) were the presidents of the two great rabbinical colleges of Sura As a group they are also referred to as the Rabbeinu Sevorai or Rabanan Saborai, and may have played a large role in giving the Talmud its current structure. The Talmud ( Hebrew: he תַּלְמוּד is a record of Rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, customs and history Modern scholars also use the term Stammaim (Hebrew = closed, vague or an unattributed source) for the authors of unattributed statements in the Gemara. The Gemara (also transliterated Gemora or less commonly Gemorra) (from Aramaic גמרא gamar; literally " study"
Contents |
Much of classical rabbinic literature generally holds that the Babylonian Talmud was redacted into more or less its final form around 550 CE. The Talmud ( Hebrew: he תַּלְמוּד is a record of Rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, customs and history [1] However, some statements within classical rabbinic literature, and later analysis thereof, have led many scholars to conclude that the Talmud Bavli was smoothed over by the Savora'im although almost nothing was changed. [2] On occasions, multiple versions of the same legalistic discussion are included with minor variations. The text also states that various opinions emanated from various Talmudic academies. [3]. Sherira Gaon indicates that R. Rav Sherira Gaon ( Hebrew: רב שרירא גאון) was the head of the Yeshiva in Pumbeditha. Yose was the final member of the Savora'im[3]. Occasionally, specific Savora'im are mentioned by name in the Talmud itself, such as Rabbi Aha, who (according to later authority Rashbam) was a Savora. Rashbam (רשב"ם is a Hebrew acronym for רבי שמואל בן מאיר (Rabbi Shmuel son of Meir) (c [3]
The role of the savoraim in the redaction of the Talmud was reexamined in Jewish academia because of the work of formerly Conservative and subsequently Traditional Professor Rabbi David Weiss Halivni. Conservative Judaism (also known as Masorti Judaism in Israel and Europe) is a modern stream of Judaism that arose out The Union for Traditional Judaism is an ostensibly non-denominational Jewish educational outreach and communal service organization David Weiss Halivni (1927- is an American Israeli world-acclaimed scholar in the domain of Jewish Sciences and professor of Talmud,born He is the author of Mekorot u'Mesorot. This is a projected ten volume source-critical commentary on the Talmud.
Halivni terms the editors of the Talmud as stamma'im, a new term for rabbis that he places after the period of the Tanna'im and Amora'im, but before the Geonic period. word /š n/ and /t n/ --> He concludes that to a large extent, the stammaim essentially wrote the Gemara, the discussions in the Talmud about the Mishna. The Mishnah or Mishna (he משנה "repetition" from the verb shanah he שנה or "to study and review" is a major work of Rabbinic Judaism Halivni posits that during the time of Ravina and Rav Ashi they compiled a Gemara that was much smaller than the Gemara known today, and which likely was similar to the Mishna and to the Tosefta. Ravina I was a Jewish Talmudist and Rabbi who began the process of compiling the Talmud with Rav Ashi. Rav Ashi ( רב אשי) ("Rabbi Ashi" (352&ndash427 was a celebrated Jewish religious scholar a Babylonian amora, who reestablished The Tosefta ( Aramaic: תוספתא is a secondary compilation of the Jewish oral law from the period of the Mishnah. He sees this proto-Gemara as a compilation of rulings that probably had little record of discussions. Halivni also posits that the stammaim did not always fully understand the context and import of the statement of the Tanna or Amorah when it was said. The methodology employed in his commentary Mekorot u' Mesorot will attempt to give Halivni's analysis of the correct import and context and will demonstrate how the Talmud erred in its understanding of the original context. [4]