Define $hx = 15 # shift text to right side of bar
bar:Leaders color:blue width:20 align:left fontsize:s
from:-250 till:0 color:treaty shift:(-10,$hx) text:Zugot
from:0 till:220 color:turkiz shift:(-15,$hx) text:Tannaim
from:220 till:500 color:TeaGreen shift:(-20,$hx) text:Amoraim
from:500 till:625 color:darkgrey shift:(-20,$hx) text:Savoraim
from:625 till:1050 color:turkiz shift:(-15,$hx) text:Geonim
from:1050 till:1500 color:TeaGreen shift:(-20,$hx) text:Rishonim
from:1500 till:2000 color:treaty shift:(-20,$hx) text:Acharonim
layer:front # all lines in front of bars unless stated otherwise
from:500 till:625 atpos:65 color:red width:2
Legend = columns:4 left:125 top:25 columnwidth:150
id:aaa value:red legend:Savora'im
Savora (Aramaic: סבורא, plural Savora'im, Sabora'im, 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). 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. Modern scholars also use the term Stammaim (Hebrew = closed, vague or an unattributed source) for the authors of unattributed statements in the Gemara.
Sherira Gaon indicates that Rav Yose was the final member of the Savora'im. 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.
Halivni terms the editors of the Talmud as Stamma'im, a new term for rabbis that he places after the period of the Tannaim and Amora'im, but before the Geonic period. He concludes that to a large extent, the Stamma'im essentially wrote the Gemara (the discussions in the Talmud about the Mishna). 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. He sees this proto-Gemara as a compilation of rulings that probably had little record of discussions. Halivni also posits that the Stamma'im did not always fully understand the context and import of the statement of the Tanna or Amora 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.