Parashah

In common usage today the word often refers to the weekly Torah portion (a shortened form of Parashat HaShavua).

The division of the text into parashot for the biblical books is independent of chapter and verse numbers, which are not part of the masoretic tradition.

[1] The division of parashot for the books of Nevi'im and Ketuvim was never completely standardized in printed Hebrew bibles and handwritten scrolls, though important attempts were made to document it and create fixed rules.

[3] Such a pause usually has one of the following purposes: To decide exactly where a new topic or thought begins within a biblical text involves a degree of subjectivity on the part of the reader.

This subjective element may help explain differences amongst the various masoretic codices in some details of the section divisions (though their degree of conformity is high).

[5] Parashot appear in manuscripts as early as the Dead Sea Scrolls, in which the division is generally similar to that found in the masoretic text.

Unlike the Babylonian mesorah, however, Tiberian masoretic notes never mention the parashah divisions or attempt to systematize them.

This is related to the fact that the Babylonian lists are independent compositions, while the Tiberian notes are in the margins of the biblical text itself, which shows the parashot in a highly visible way.

In the centuries following the Tiberian Masoretic Text, there were ever-increasing efforts to document and standardize the details of the parashah divisions, especially for the Torah, and even for Nevi'im and Ketuvim as time went on.

[11] Medieval Ashkenazic sources beginning with the Mahzor Vitry also refer to a third spacing technique called a parashah sedurah.

Maimonides' strict ruling that any error in the parashot completely invalidates a Torah scroll led to a major halakhic debate that continues to this day.

In the Tiberian masoretic codices, the unique system of cantillation for Sifrei Emet is complemented by a scribal layout unlike that of the rest of the Bible: Instead of the three narrow columns per page typical of these codices, Sifrei Emet are written in two wide columns per page.

Although there is ample evidence that the scribes attempted to place the gaps in the middle of the lines at the points where the cantillation divides the verses, they often did not succeed in doing so because of space limitations.

Modern editions based upon the Aleppo Codex have implemented the idea fully by allowing wide full-page columns for Psalms, Proverbs, and Job.

The gaps in the middle of lines are not considered parashah divisions, and each scribe formatted the verses as he saw fit for aesthetic and practical reasons.

An exception to this rule, however, is for the introductory titles of many individual psalms which are followed by formal parashah breaks, often by continuing the text at the beginning of the next line.

Parashot in Ketuvim are listed here according to the Aleppo codex, with variants from other masoretic traditions noted at the end of each book's section.

For some of the books that are largely or completely missing, charts have been provided below to allow for easy comparison of the parallel data found in the masoretic manuscripts.

However, while A and L have {S} almost exclusively, Y (which is usually very close to A) shows {P} for the large majority of parashot,[41] as shown in the chart below: In the Tiberian masoretic codices, the only parashah found in Ruth is for the short chronology at the end of the book: Variant: The Aleppo codex lacks Lamentations in its entirety.

[48] There are no further parashah divisions at all in the rest of the book (3:9-12:14) according to Kimhi's notes on the Aleppo Codex, an unusually large amount of unbroken text (170 verses) that is confirmed by Y.

The following chart compares the meager parashah breaks for Ecclesiastes as found in manuscripts: The book of Esther is traditionally read by Jews on the holiday of Purim from a handwritten scroll on parchment that must be halakhically valid.

This means that the rules of open and closed parashot are of more practical relevance for Esther than for any other book in Nevi'im or Ketuvim.

Also, Yemenite scribes did not entirely adopt the tradition of closed portions, leaving the divisions in many scrolls of Esther similar to what is found in the masoretic codices.

Ganzfried ruled that a scroll of Esther with open portions is invalid, but added that "some authorities validate it" (Keset HaSofer 28:5).

[61] In addition to the common "open" and "closed" parashot, the masoretic scribal layout employs spaces in an elaborate way for prominent songs found within narrative books, as well as for certain lists.

However, in many later scrolls the columns are much wider, such that lines with single words at opposite margins create a huge gap in the middle.

In many scrolls these eleven lines are written in very large letters so that they form one full column of text in the megillah.