This article is about section divisions throughout the Tanakh. For the weekly portion (Parashat HaShavua), seeWeekly Torah portion.
A page from theAleppo Codex, Deuteronomy 32:50–33:29.Parashah breaks visible on this page are as follows: {P} 33:1–6 (right column blank line 8th from top) {S} 33:7 (right column indentation line 23) {P} 33:8–11 (right column blank line 2nd from bottom) {S} 33:12 (middle column 1st indentation) {S} 33:13–17 (middle column 2nd indentation) {S} 33:18–19 (left column indentation at top) {S} 33:20–21 (left column space in middle of 6th line) {S} 33:22 (left column 13th line indentation) {S} 33:24–39 (left column 17th line indentation).
The termparashah,parasha orparashat (Hebrew:פָּרָשָׁהPārāšâ, "portion",Tiberian/pɔrɔˈʃɔ/,Sephardi/paraˈʃa/, plural:parashot orparashiyot, also calledparsha) formally means a section of a biblical book in theMasoretic Text of theTanakh (Hebrew Bible). In common usage today the word often refers to theweekly Torah portion (a shortened form ofParashat HaShavua). This article deals with the first, formal meaning of the word. In the Masoretic Text,parashah sections are designated by various types of spacing between them, as found inTorah scrolls, scrolls of the books ofNevi'im orKetuvim (especially theMegillot), masoreticcodices from theMiddle Ages and printed editions of the masoretic text.
The division of the text intoparashot for the biblical books is independent ofchapter and verse numbers, which are not part of the masoretic tradition.Parashot are not numbered, but some have special names.
The division ofparashot found in the modern-day Torah scrolls of all Jewish communities is based upon the systematic list provided byMaimonides inMishneh Torah,Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah and Torah Scrolls, chapter 8. Maimonides based his division of theparashot for the Torah on theAleppo Codex.[1] The division ofparashot for the books ofNevi'im andKetuvim was never completely standardized in printed Hebrew bibles and handwritten scrolls, though important attempts were made to document it and create fixed rules.
Incorrect division of the text intoparashot, either by indicating aparashah in the wrong place or by using the wrong spacing technique,halakhically invalidates aTorah scroll according to Maimonides.[2]
Aparashah break creates a textual pause, roughly analogous to a modernparagraph break.[3] Such a pause usually has one of the following purposes:
In most cases, a newparashah begins where a new topic or a new thought is clearly indicated in the biblical text.
In many places, however, theparashah divisions are used even in places where it is clear that no new topic begins, in order to highlight a special verse by creating a textual pause before it or after it (or both).
A special example of #2 is for lists: The individual elements in many biblical lists are separated byparashah spacing of one type or another.[4]
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). It may also explain why certain verses which might seem like introductions to a new topic lack a section division, or why such divisions sometimes appear in places where no new topic seems indicated. For this reason, theparashah divisions may at times contribute to biblicalexegesis.[5]
Parashot appear in manuscripts as early as theDead Sea Scrolls, in which the division is generally similar to that found in the masoretic text.[6] The idea of spacing between portions, including the idea of "open" and "closed" portions, is mentioned in early midrashic literature[7] and the Talmud. Early masoretic lists detailing the Babylonian tradition include systematic and detailed discussion of exactly where portions begin and which type they are.
As a group,Tiberian Masoretic codices share similar but not identicalparashah divisions throughout the Bible. Unlike the Babylonianmesorah, however, Tiberian masoretic notes never mention theparashah 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 theparashot 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 theparashah divisions, especially for the Torah, and even forNevi'im andKetuvim as time went on.
Illustration of a closed section followed by an open section in a modern Torah scroll (closed at Numbers 10:35 and open at 11:1). Note the rare occurrence of "inverted Nun" at these two points.
In most modern Torah scrolls and Jewish editions of the Bible, there are two types ofparashot, an "open portion" (parashah petuhah) and a "closed portion" (parashah setumah). An "open portion" is roughly similar to a modern paragraph: The text of the previous portion ends before the end of the column (leaving a space at the end of the line), and the new "open" portion starts at the beginning of the next line (but with no indentation). A "closed portion", on the other hand, leaves a space in themiddle of the line of text, where the previous portion ends before the space, and the next portion starts after it, towards the end of the line of text.
In some manuscripts and in many printed editions, an "open portion" (petuhah) is abbreviated with the Hebrew letter "פ" (peh), and a "closed portion" (setumah) with the Hebrew letter "ס" (samekh), often in place of the visual gap in the line.[8] Rough English equivalents are "P" and "S" respectively.[9]
In masoretic codices and in medieval scrolls, these two spacing techniques allowed for a larger range of options:
An "open portion"always started at the beginning of a new line. This could happen the way described above, but also by leaving ablank line between the two portions, thus allowing the previous portion to sometimes entirely fill its last line of text.
A "closed portion"never began at the beginning of a line. This could happen as in modern scrolls (a space in the middle of a line), but also by the previous portion ending before the end of the line, and the new portion beginning on the next line after an indentation.
Open portions often seem to reflect the beginning of a new topic or a major subdivision within a biblical book, while closed portions seem to reflect smaller units or minor subdivisions.[10]
Most printed Hebrew bibles today represent theparashot using the more limited techniques found in typical modern Torah scrolls: A space in the middle of a line for a closed portion, and beginning at the start of the next line for an open portion (not a blank line). A notable exception isTheJerusalem Crown (The Bible of theHebrew University of Jerusalem, 2000), whose typography and layout is fashioned after theAleppo Codex, and follows the medieval spacing techniques forparashah divisions by leaving an empty line for {P} and starts {S} on a new line with an indentation.[11]
Medieval Ashkenazic sources beginning with theMahzor Vitry also refer to a third spacing technique called aparashah sedurah. This involved starting a newparashah at the same point in the line where the previousparashah ended on the line above.
According to the ruling of Maimonides, any error regarding aparashah completely invalidates a Torah scroll. This includes aparashah in the wrong place, of the wrong type, or a missingparashah.[12]
However, there is also a responsum by Maimonides[13] in which he ruled that one may recite a blessing over reading from an invalid scroll, based on the reasoning that the commandment is in the reading itself, not in the text being read from.
All of the above authorities rule that a scroll containingparashot based on alternative scribal traditions that disagree with Maimonides' list ofparashot[20] is nevertheless a valid scroll. However, even according to the lenient opinion, a blatant error with no source in any scribal tradition invalidates a Torah scroll.[citation needed]
One basic halakhic rule for public reading of the Torah is that no fewer than three verses at a time be read. As a corollary to this, there is a specific rule regardingparashot: One may not leave off reading less than three verses before the end of aparashah, nor may one end off reading by starting a newparashah but leaving off less than three verses from its beginning.[21]
When a Torah portion is read in public from ascroll as part of the synagogue service, it is divided into smaller sections among several people (for instance, 3 short sections on weekdays or 7 on the Sabbath). The points at which the portion is subdivided often take theparashot into account, but there is no hard and fast rule for this.
The selections fromNevi'im that are read ashaftarot are based on custom. At times, some of these customs choose the exact beginning or end of ahaftarah because it coincides with aparashah division.
Due to the influence ofMaimonides,parashah divisions in the Torah have become highly standardized, and there is close to exact agreement among Torah scrolls, printed Jewish bibles, and similar online texts.[22] The following list thus presents theparashah divisions as found in (a) modernTorah scrolls, (b)Maimonides'Mishneh Torah, and (c) the Aleppo Codex (based on several witnesses besides Maimonides to theparashot in its missing parts). Rare inconsistencies between these three sources are explained in footnotes.
The list is constructed as follows:
Only breaksbetween two sections are listed: Any open or closedparashah break, {P} or {S}, must always appearbetween two biblical sections. The symbols {P} and {S} always indicate the status of thefollowing section. In Genesis, for instance, "{S} 5:32–6:4 {P}" indicates aclosed section (setumah) because itbegins with {S}. Therefore, no section break is indicated before thefirst portion of a biblical book, or after itslast portion.
The five books of theTorah have been broken down into theirweekly Torah readings for convenience. The weekly Torah readings always begin at aparashah break, with the single exception ofVayechi (Genesis 47:28). The division into weekly readings is a prominent feature of the Tiberian masoretic codices along with the division into smallerparashot, and they are indicated with a special flourish in the margin parallel to the line in which each one begins.
Special series ofparashot used for special types of text (such as chronologies, lists, step-by-step sequences, repeating formulas) are indicated.
When aparashah ignores a chapter break, this is indicated for convenience by spelling out the exact verses from each chapter found in that parashah; for instance: {P} 32:4–33; 33:1–17 {S}. This system allows for immediate calculation of the number verses in theparashah, and also facilitates easier comparison between theparashot and the chapter divisions.
Variations found in alternative masoretic traditions (such as in theLeningrad Codex) are provided separately at the end of each book.
Unusual data (such as an unusually lengthyparashah) is underlined to draw special attention, followed by a parenthetical note identifying the contents of theparashah at hand.
The first words of aparashah are sometimes provided in Hebrew for clarity, especially forparashot that appear within a verse. A prominent example is for the Ten Commandments. The titles of prominentparashot mentioned in rabbinic literature are also sometimes given.
The verse numbering in this list is according to the system commonly found in most Hebrew editions. The numbers in translations (and even in some Hebrew editions such as BHS) may differ slightly.
Symbols:
{P} =parashahpetuhah ("open portion"), typically resembles a newparagraph
{S} =parashahsetumah ("closed portion"), typically represented as a blankspace in the middle of a line
{-} = noparashah break indicated
{SONG} = Special format for songs; details of the special layout will be described in separate sections.
A page of the Aleppo Codex was photographed in 1887 by William Wickes, containing Genesis 26:35 (החתי) to 27:30 (ויהי אך). It shows a single closedparashah break {S} at 27:1 (ויהי כי זקן יצחק); thatparashah is in bold within the list below forParashat Toledot.
Ten Commandments: {S} 20:1 וידבר {S} 20:2–5 אנכי {S} 20:6 לא תשא {P} 20:7–10 זכור {S} 20:11 כבד {S} 20:12a לא תרצח {S} 20:12b לא תנאף {S} 20:12c לא תגנב {S} 20:12d לא תענה {S} 20:13a לא תחמד בית רעך {S} 20:13b[24] לא תחמד אשת רעך
Two consecutive pages of the Aleppo Codex from the now-missing part of Deuteronomy were photographed in 1910 by Joseph Segall, containing the Ten Commandments. The image shows Deuteronomy 4:38 (גדלים) to 6:3 (ואשר), including the followingparashah breaks: {P} 4:41 אז יבדיל {P} 5:1 ויקרא משה {S} 5:6 אנכי {S} 5:10 לא תשא {S} 5:11 שמור {S} 5:15 כבד {S} 5:16a לא תרצח {S} 5:16b ולא תנאף {S} 5:16c ולא תגנב {S} 5:16d ולא תענה {S} 5:17a ולא תחמד {S} 5:21b ולא תתאוה {S} את הדברים 5:22. Theseparashot are shown in bold within the list below forParashat Va'etchannan.
The Aleppo Codex is intact starting at Deuteronomy 28:17 (משארתך).Parashot from the extant parts are in bold, as are theparashot shown in the Segall photograph (image at right).
Ten Commandments:{S} 5:6–9 אנכי{S} 5:10 לא תשא{S} 5:11–14 שמור{S} 5:15 כבד{S} 5:16a לא תרצח{S} 5:16b ולא תנאף{S} 5:16c ולא תגנב{S} 5:16d ולא תענה{S} 5:17a ולא תחמד{S} 5:17b ולא תתאוה
Parashot inNevi'im are listed here according to theAleppo codex, with variants from other masoretic traditions noted at the end of each book's section.
The Aleppo codex is intact for the bulk of Nevi'im. The few parashot noted here from its missing parts are listed according to the notes taken by Joshua Kimhi, who recorded theparashot of the Aleppo codex in the nineteenth century in the bible of Rabbi Shalom Shachna Yellin. These are indicated by an asterisk.
The Aleppo codex is missing three folios from II Kings that included 14:21 (את עזריה) to 18:13 (שנה).Parashot listed from the missing section are based upon Kimhi's notes on the codex[31] and marked with an asterisk (*).
Jeremiah is divided into distinct prophecies, each of which begins with an announcement of "the word of the Lord to Jeremiah" or a similar phrase. Each such prophecy begins a new openparashah {P} in the Aleppo Codex, with the single exception of the sixth prophecy (14:1) that begins with a closedparashah {S}.
The Aleppo codex is missing two folios from Jeremiah, and the folio following them is also partly torn. The missing text included parts of chapters 29–32.[34]Parashot listed from the missing parts are based upon Kimhi's notes on the codex[31] and marked with an asterisk (*).
The Aleppo Codex leaves four empty lines between each of the books of theTwelve Minor Prophets. TheLeningrad Codex leaves three lines.Parashot within each of the twelve individual books are listed below.
The Aleppo Codex is missing seven folios from two different sections of the Twelve Minor Prophets.Parashot listed from the missing sections are based upon Kimhi's notes on the codex[36] and marked with an asterisk (*). The two sections are: (a) three missing folios that included Amos 8:13 to the end, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah until 5:1 (מקדם); (b) four missing folios that included Zephaniah 3:10 (הארץ) to the end, Haggai, Zechariah until 9:17 (דגן).
The threepoetic books of Psalms, Proverbs and Job are collectively known asSifrei Emet (see the article onKetuvim). These three books share a unique system ofcantillation unlike that of the other 21 books inTanakh, a system designed to highlight theparallelisms in their verses.
In the Tiberian masoretic codices, the unique system of cantillation forSifrei 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. In each line of these wide columns text begins on the right, followed by a gap, and then continued by further text until the left margin of the column. 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.[37]
In poetic layout,parashah divisions are typically indicated by a blank line for an openparashah. The gaps in the middle of lines are not consideredparashah 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 formalparashah breaks, often by continuing the text at the beginning of the next line. These formal breaks will be indicated in the list ofparashot for Psalms.
The special poetic cantillation and layout arenot implemented for the narrative opening and conclusion of the book of Job (1:1-3:1 and 42:7-17).
Parashot inKetuvim are listed here according to theAleppo codex, with variants from other masoretic traditions noted at the end of each book's section. The books ofKetuvim are presented in the order they appear in most printed Hebrew bibles. In Tiberian and early Sephardic masoretic codices (such as the Aleppo Codex) the order is as follows: Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra–Nehemiah.
The Aleppo codex is largely intact until the word ציון ("Zion") in Song of Songs 3:11. It is missing the rest of Song of Songs, as well as the final books ofKetuvim in their entirety: Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel and Ezra–Nehemiah. It is also missing two folios which included about 10 psalms (15:1–25:1).Parashot listed here from its missing parts are according to the notes taken by Joshua Kimhi, who recorded theparashot of the Aleppo codex for Rabbi Shalom Shachna Yellin in the nineteenth century. These are indicated by an asterisk. 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.
Y = Cambridge University Library Add. Ms. 1753 (Yemenite). Yeivin regards this manuscript ofKetuvim as "a second or third hand copy" of a Tiberian manuscript "no less accurate and reliable than the Aleppo Codex."[38]
S1 = Sassoon 1053 (10th century). Yeivin judges this manuscript to be carelessly prepared by comparison with other accurate Tiberian codices.[39]
L34 = EBP. II B 34 of the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg, a carefully prepared manuscript ofKetuvim but with many gaps.[40]
F = Finfer, Pesah.Masoret HaTorah VehaNevi'im.
Ff = Finfer, "few books" (קצת ספרים). If a "few books" say one thing and a "few books" another, these are indicated by Ff1 & Ff2.
Fo = Finfer, "other books" (שאר ספרים).
C="Cairo"
D="Damascus"
Finfer also sometimes notes atiqqun.
{-} Finfer notes that there is noparashah break at this verse.
The Aleppo Codex leaves two empty lines between the five Books of Psalms (following psalms 41, 72, 89, 106). Otherwise there is one blank line between each two psalms, the standard way of indicating an openparashah break {P} in poetic layout.
There is no break at all, however, between psalms 114–115, which were apparently considered a single psalm by the scribes. Psalm 119, which has sets of eight verses for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet, has an openparashah break (a blank line) between each set of eight verses.
The titles of individual Psalms have formal rules. Symbols for representing these rules are as follows, based on examples:
1 {-} = The psalm contains no format title, such as Psalm 1. The entire psalm is written in regular poetic layout.
3:1a {S/T} = There is aclosedparashah within thetitle verse of a psalm. E.g. the title of psalm 3 is more than minimal, an entire verse containing more than onehemistich. There is aclosedparashah division after the first hemistich. In masoretic manuscripts, this gap in the middle of the first title verse often closely resembles the poetic layout of the body of the psalm following the title verse.
4:1 {P} = Thefirst full verse of a psalm is atitle followed by an openparashah break, such as in Psalm 4. The text of the body of the psalm starts at the beginning of the next line.
11:1a {P} = Thebeginning of the first verse of a psalm is atitle followed by an openparashah break in the middle of that verse, such as in Psalm 11. The text of the body of the psalm starts at the beginning of the next line. Besides formal titles, this form is also found after the word "halleluyah" at the beginning of a number of psalms (e.g. Psalm 106).
15:1a {S} = There is a closedparashah division following a title at the beginning of the first verse of the psalm, such as in Psalm 15. This is also found twice for afull-verse title in Psalms 70:1 {S} and 108:1 {S}.
26 {-/T} The beginning of the first verse of a psalm is a title, but there is noparashah division, such as in Psalm 26.
Centered title: "The Proverbs of Solomon"10:1a (10:1b–19:9). There are noparashah divisions following the centered title until 19:10, an unusually large amount of unbroken text (278 verses).
{P} גם אלה משלי שלמה אשר העתיקו אנשי חזקיה מלך יהודה 25:1-13{P} 25:14–20 {P} 25:21–28; 26; 1–21 {P} 26:22–25; 27:1–22 {P} 27:23–27; 28:1–4 {P} 28:5–10 {P} 28:11–16 {P} 28:17–28; 29:1–17 {P} 29:18–27 {P} 30:1–6 דברי אגור בן יקה המשא {P} 30:7–9 {P} 30:10–14 {P} 30:15–17 {P} 30:18–20 {P} 30:21–23 {P} 30:24–28 {P} 30:29–33 {P} 31:1–7 דברי למואל מלך משא אשר יסרתו אמו {P} 31:8–9 {P} 31:10–31 אשת חיל.
Common layout and regularcantillation: 1:1–5 {P} 1:6–22 {P} 2:1–10 {P} 2:11–13; 3:1.
II. Poetic Disputations: The disputations, which constitute the bulk of the book of Job, employ the special poetic layout in common with Psalms and Proverbs, along its associated poeticcantillation. In Tiberian masoretic codices, the formal title of each individual speech appears in the center of its line, while the body of the reply appears in poetic form (as in Psalms and Proverbs). The break between the title and the body is considered an openparashah, and the verse numbers for these titles appear in bold in the list. Blank lines as openparashot are also used occasionally, and these are noted as {P}.
The Aleppo codex is extant until the word ציון ("Zion") in Song of Songs 3:11. Bibles that showparashot in the Song of Songs based upon the Aleppo Codex (with reconstruction of its missing parts based on Kimhi's notes) include two editions following the Breuer method (Horev andThe Jerusalem Crown). The flow of text in such bibles is as follows:
The Tiberian masoretic codices are nearly identical in the parts at which they showparashah breaks in the text. However, while A and L have {S} almost exclusively, Y (which is usually very close to A) shows {P} for the large majority ofparashot,[41] as shown in the chart below:
There are no furtherparashah 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 Leningrad codex has a solitaryparashah break: {S} at 9:11. The following chart compares the meagerparashah breaks for Ecclesiastes as found in manuscripts:
The book of Esther is traditionally read by Jews on the holiday ofPurim from a handwritten scroll on parchment that must behalakhically valid. This means that the rules of open and closedparashot are of more practical relevance for Esther than for any other book inNevi'im orKetuvim. Despite this—or perhaps because of the large numbers of scrolls of Esther that have been written, and the special attention that has therefore been paid to the problem by rabbis and scribes—manuscripts of Esther and opinions about how they should be written betray a relatively large number of discrepancies regarding theparashah divisions.
In the nineteenth century, RabbiShlomo Ganzfried published a manual for scribes calledKeset HaSofer, in which he follows the rule that allparashot in Esther are closed {S} (Keset HaSofer 28:5).[53] This is currently the dominant tradition forAshkenazic andSephardicmegillot (scrolls ofEsther) today. But the Tiberian masoretic codices contain both open and closed portions. 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).[54] When discussing these authorities in his additional notes,[55] Ganzfried cites a list openparashot found in the bookOrhot Hayyim, and concludes: "And even though our custom is that all of these are closed, it nevertheless seems that if some or all of these are open one may read from the scroll with a blessing." These have been listed in the chart below under at "OH" underKeset HaSofer, and they are very similar to what is found in the Tiberian masoretic codices.[56]
Most printed Jewish bibles, even those based on manuscripts, show the flow of text in Esther according to the widespread tradition based onKeset HaSofer (only closedparashot). Such editions include theKoren edition (Jerusalem, 1962), Breuer's first edition (Jerusalem, 1982) and Dotan's editions (which are otherwise based upon the Leningrad Codex). The flow of text in such bibles is as follows:
Bibles that show theparashot in Esther based upon a reconstruction of the Aleppo Codex include two editions following the Breuer method (Horev andThe Jerusalem Crown). The flow of text in such bibles is as follows:
This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding to it.(May 2008)
Image of a modern Torah scroll open to the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:1–19) with special layout visible.
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. Each such "song" is formatted in its own exact way, though there are similarities between them. These sections include:
Torah
Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:1–19)
Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32)
Nevi'im
Canaanite Kings (Joshua 12:9–24)
Song of Deborah (Judges 5)
Song of David (II Samuel 22)
Ketuvim
Song of the Seasons (Ecclesiastes 3:2–8)
Haman's Sons (Esther 9:7–9)
David's Champions (I Chronicles 11:26–47)
Song of Assaf (I Chronicles 16:8–36)
The following sections discuss the layout and formatting of each of these songs in detail.
The list of Haman's sons in a standard Scroll of Esther.
Esther 9:7–9 listsHaman's ten sons in three consecutive verses (three names in 7, three in 8, and four in 9). Each name is preceded by the Hebrew particle ואת. The {SONG} format for this list is as follows:
The last word of verse 9:6 (איש) is purposely planned to be the first word in a new line (at the right margin). This word will begin the first line of text in {SONG} format.
The first word of 9:7 (the Hebrew particle ואת) is written at the end of the first line in at the left margin. A large gap is thus left between איש and ואת, which forms a closedparashah division {S}.
In the next ten lines of text, the ten names of the sons of Haman appear one after another in the beginning of each line at the right margin, beneath the word איש, while the word ואת appears at the end of each line text (left margin) until the final line. The 11th and final line of text ends with the first word of 9:10 (עשרת).
There are thus a total of eleven lines of text in {SONG} format, each with a single word at the beginning of the line and a single word at the end. The first (right) column begins with the word איש and the names of Haman's 10 sons follow beneath it. The second (left) column has the word ואת ten times, and in the final row it has the first word of 9:10 (עשרת).
The {SONG} format described here originated in the typically narrow columns of the Tiberian masoretic codices, in which a line of text containing only two words at opposite margins with a gap between them appears similar to a standard closedparashah. 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.
^Though initially doubted byUmberto Cassuto, this has become the established position in modern scholarship. As Goshen–Gottstein, Penkower, and Ofer have shown, Cassuto's doubts were based upon apparent discrepancies he noted between theparashah divisions in the Aleppo Codex and those recorded by Maimonides. However, the most striking of these apparent discrepancies are rooted in the faulty manuscripts and printed editions of Maimonides that Cassuto consulted (as noted in his personal journals), while the remaining cases can be reasonably explained as differing interpretations of very small spaces in the Aleppo Codex. Furthermore, the best manuscripts of Maimonides describe highly unusual implementations of spacing techniques that are found in no other masoretic manuscript besides the Aleppo Codex. Full explanations of each individual discrepancy appear in the notes to this article.
^For a general description of the section divisions and their purpose, see Emanuel Tov,Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd revised edition (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), pp. 50-51.
^This phenomenon often borders on "song" format. The various types and degrees of "song" format as a sophisticated expansion of theparashah spaces in the Tiberian masoretic manuscripts has been analyzed at length byMordechai Breuer inThe Aleppo Codex and the Accepted Text of the Bible (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1976), pp. 149-165 (Hebrew).
^Tov, p. 51: "The subdivision into open and closed sections reflects exegesis on the extent of the content units... It is possible that the subjectivity of this exegesis created the extant differences between the various sources. What in one Masoretic manuscript is indicated as an open section may appear in another as a closed section, while the indication of a section may be altogether absent in yet a third source. Nevertheless, a certain uniformity is visible in the witnesses of M."
^"The division of the text in the Qumran scrolls into content units reflects in general terms the system ofparashiyyot that was later accepted in M: a space in the middle of the line to denote a minor subdivision and a space extending from the last word in the line to the end of the line, to denote a major subdivision..." (Tov, p. 210). "Although the medieval manuscripts continue the tradition of the proto-Masoretic texts from Qumran in general, they often differ with regard to the indication of individual section breaks..." (ibid., p. 50). Data on the manuscript evidence forparashot beginning with the Dead Sea Scrolls is collated in theHebrew University Bible Project.
^Dibbura de-Nedava (introduction toSifrei on Leviticus).
^The abbreviations are most often used in Hebrew editions of the Bible with commentaries, and in older one-volume editions of the Tanakh published through the first half of the 20th century. Though most current Jewish editions use the actual spacing techniques instead of the abbreviations, they are still used some in one-volume editions, most prominently inBiblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.
^Tov, pp. 50-51, 210-211. However, no comprehensive and systematic study of the matter has even been done.
^Maimonides andRabbeinu Asher (Rosh) differ on their definition of 'Open' and 'Closed' sections (פרשה פתוחה ופרשה סתומה). The present custom of Askhenazi and Sephardic scribes is to compromise, where both an Open and Closed section end in the middle of the line, but in an Open section the next section commences on the following line, whereas in a Closed section, the next section commences on the same line after a short blank space (Soncino edition,Shabbat 103b, note c [2]). The Yemenite custom follows the practice of Maimonides.
^Maimonides.Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah and Torah Scrolls. 10:1.
^Blau, responsum #294; also appears inShu"t HaRambam Pe'er HaDor #9, and is thus cited by RabbiOvadiah Yosef inYehaveh Da'at VI:56.
^An English-language survey of the halakhic sources that deal with discrepancies in the transmission of details in the masoretic text of the Torah, regarding both its spelling (letter-text) and itsparashah divisions, may be found in Barry Levy'sFixing God's Torah: The Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible text in Jewish Law (Oxford University Press, 2001). Levy discusses most of the sources listed here and translates some of them.
^CommentaryBeit HaBehira to Kiddushin 30a and in the introduction to hisKiryat Sefer on the laws of writing Torah scrolls.
^Responsum #145. Maharam was a student ofShlomo ben Aderet in thirteenth century Spain.
^Responsum #8. Rabbi Judah Mintz flourished in Italy in the fifteenth century.
^Yehaveh Da'at VI:56. Basing himself on previous authorities who disputed Maimonides ruling entirely, in addition to Maimonides' own ruling that a blessing may be recited upon reading from an invalid Torah Scroll, Rabbi Yosef permitsAshkenazic andSephardic Jews to recite a blessing upon reading from aYemenite Torah Scroll. Yemenite scrolls differ from both Ashkenazic and Sephardic scrolls for exactly oneparashah division: an open section at Leviticus 7:22 (Yemen) instead of at 7:28 (Ashkenaz and Sepharad). Yemenite scrolls also differ regarding certain spellings (exactly 9 letters), while Ashkenazic and Sephardic scrolls are identical in all of these details.
^Maimonides.Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah and Torah Scrolls. chapter 8.
^The talmudic source for this isMegillah 22a. In later halakhic literature, these rules are discussed inOrah Hayyim 138.
^abParashat Vayechi is the only one of theweekly Torah readings whose opening verse (Genesis 47:28) is not the beginning of an open or a closed section. Itsparashot are thus listed here sequentially along with those of the previous weekly reading.
^Numerous testimonies verify that the Aleppo codex had a closed section at 20:13b (לא תחמד אשת רעך). Though this data does not agree with what is found in several editions of Maimonides'Mishneh Torah, it accords with the original reading of Maimonides based on early manuscripts and testimonies. See Penkower, Maimonides, pp. 50–64 (at length); Ofer, Cassutto, p. 326; Ofer, Yelin, p. 306.
^abFor Exodus 34:1, פסל-לך, the vast majority of accurate Tiberian manuscripts have {S} here instead of {P} (the latter is as listed by Maimonides and found in current Torah scrolls). Testimony about the text of the Aleppo codex when it was still intact (by Kimhi) reveals that the form of theparashah at this point was a line of text that didn't reach the end of the column, followed at 34:1 by a line that began close to the beginning of the column. Identifying the type ofparashah in such a context depends on whether the reader considers there to be a significant gap at the beginning of the line (in which case it issetumah) or does not consider the gap to be significant (in which case it ispetuhah). This form ofparashah is often indicated by a very small indentation in the extant parts of the Aleppo Codex, sometimes no wider than the space of one or two letters. Therefore, Penkower (p. 51 n. 125) and Ofer (pp. 306–307) suggest that Maimonides judged 34:1 to start at the beginning of its line without a significant gap, and was thus followed in later Torah scrolls. Other observers noted it assetumah (Kimhi, Sithon) or wrote conflicting notations (Amadi).
^abcdAshkenazic and Sephardic Torah scrolls lack an open portion at 7:22 (וידבר... דבר... כל חלב) while Yemenite scrolls have one. Conversely, Yemenite scrolls lack an open portion at 7:28 (וידבר... דבר... המקריב) while Ashkenazic and Sephardic scrolls have one. This situation derives from Maimonides' ambiguous formulation inLaws of Tefillin, Mezuzah and Torah Scrolls, chapter 8, where he lists a series of six consecutive openparashot at this point in Leviticus, one of them beginning with the words "וידבר... דבר אל בני ישראל" ("The Lord spoke to Moses... Speak to the children of Israel..."). However, there are actuallytwo places where this is found (Leviticus 7:22 and 7:28), and it is unclear which of them Maimonides was referring to. Thus, the scrolls that have a section break at 7:22 and those with a break at 7:28 are both implementing Maimonides' ambiguous formulation in two different ways. How this formulation by Maimonides accords with the Aleppo Codex has been discussed at length by Ofer (Cassuto, pp. 328–330) and Penkower (New Evidence, pp. 76–90). If the Aleppo Codex was indeed missing aparashah break at either 7:22 or 7:28, that would be unique among the 71 occurrences of "The Lord spoke to Moses..." in the Torah. Furthermore, all other Tiberian masoretic manuscripts haveparashot in both places. Available data on this now-missing part of the codex is as follows: Rabbi Judah Ityah, who examined the codex to answer questions posed byUmberto Cassuto, reported that there were openparashah breaks atboth 7:22 and 7:28. Earlier, Rabbi Samuel Vital (ResponsaBe'er Mayyim Hayyim 27) also confirmed an openparashah at 7:22. Amadi, however, wrote two opposing notes at 7:22—that aparashah break is lacking and that the "Codex of Ezra" has aparashah here—which apparently refer to two different codices but it is unclear which ones. Ofer deals with the evidence by assuming that Ityah's report was correct and that Maimonides, in the process of adding sums to the final version of his list ofparashot forMishneh Torah, counted "וידבר... דבר אל בני ישראל" once instead of twice. Penkower prefers an alternative explanation, namely that there was a small space at the end of the line preceding 7:22 which Maimonides did not consider significant, but which other witnesses thought indicated an openparashah break (pp. 79–80). Modern editions based on the Aleppo Codex show theseparashot as follows: Breuer's first edition, published before most of this evidence became available, shows a break only at 7:28 (following the Yemenite tradition). His two later editions (Horev andJerusalem Crown) show breaks at both 7:22 and 7:28, noting in the margin that "the scrolls of Ashkenaz and Sepharad" or "the scrolls of Yemen" lack a break in either place. The FeldheimSimanim edition shows a break only at 7:28, keeping to the tradition of Ashkenaz and Sepharad.
^Deuteronomy 27:20 is the only one in a series of verses beginning with ארור ("cursed") not preceded by a closed break in Maimonides' list ofparashot (and hence in current Torah scrolls). But other Tiberian masoretic codices have {S} here as for the other verses in the series, while testimonies about the Aleppo Codex from when it was still intact are conflicted. Ofer (pp. 307–308) suggests that since 27:19 has more words than usual for this series of similarly constructed verses, its relative length resulted in a very small space between 27:19 and 27:20 in the narrow columns of the Aleppo Codex, a space which Maimonides interpreted as no more than the space between words and not a closed section break, while other readers evaluated it as a closed section break.
^The wordladonai appears at the beginning of a line followed by a space and then the first place–name (le–Ashdod) at the end of the line (left side of the column). Each subsequent occurrence of "one" (ehad) appears belowladonai at the beginning of a line followed by a space, with the place–names at the end of the line (left side of the column).
^The thirteen occurrences ofla-asher orvela-asher (3 each in 30:27-30 and once at the beginning of 30:31) are arranged above each other at the end of each line (left end of the column), with the appropriate place-names following at the beginning of the next line (right side of each column) and a space in the middle of the line. Some modern editions follow the same principle with different layout by presenting place names followed bytwo columns ofvela-asher on each line.
^The closed portions found in the Aleppo Codex for this list mostly appear in themiddle of its narrow columns, leaving just a single word (or a short phrase) at the beginning and end of each line.
^The Aleppo Codex has no break at all where 2 Kings begins in the Greek textual tradition; text continues on the very same line with no interruption (see the relevant image ataleppocodex.org). In the Leningrad codex there is a closedparashah break where 2 Kings begins, such that in printed editions reflecting that tradition, text continues at the end of the same line after a gap.
^The Leningrad codex has an open section at 16:7 (וישלח אחז), but Kimhi did not note anyparashah. The possibility that Kimhi erred by neglecting to note aparashah at 16:7 is lessened by the fact thatCodex Cairensis also lacks aparashah at this point (Ofer, Yellin, p. 332 n. 1). For this reason Breuer's editions based on the Aleppo Codex and Kimhi's notes (Horev andThe Jerusalem Crown) do not show aparashah at 16:7. Finfer similarly does not record this verse in his list ofparashot (p. 130), and thus no break is shown in theKoren edition. However, the volume ofMikraot Gedolot Haketer on Kings does show an openparashah break {P} at 16:7 as found in the Leningrad Codex.
^These include 29:9 (יהוה) to 31:34 (נתן); 32:1 (לנבוכדראצר) to 32:5 (כי); 32:8 (שדי) to 32:12 (בספר); 32:14 (רבים) to 32:19 (עיניך); 32:21 (ובמורא) to 32:24. However, a few words from 32:4-5 and 32:24 remain.
^The Leningrad codex has a closed section break {S} at 31:17 (שמוע), but Kimhi did not note anyparashah. The possibility that Kimhi erred by neglecting to note aparashah at 31:17 is lessened by the fact thatCodex Cairensis also lacks aparashah at this point, as well as the fact that Finfer records lack of aparashah break here in most manuscripts (Ofer, Yellin, p. 332 n. 1). For this reason Breuer's editions based on the Aleppo Codex and Kimhi's notes (Horev andThe Jerusalem Crown) do not show aparashah at noon 31:17, nor does a break appear in theKoren edition based on Finfer's list. However, Finfer does note that "a few manuscripts" have {S} here (p. 133).
^Editions which have implemented the poetic layout in full includeJerusalem Crown: The Bible of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (2000);Mikraot Gedolot Haketer, ed. Menachem Cohen (Bar-Ilan University, 1992-present) on Psalms (two volumes); and theSimanim editions of Psalms and the full Tanakh (Feldheim, 2005). For a clear explanation of the phenomenon see Cohen's remarks in his introduction to the first volume of Psalms (p. 8).
^SeeBHQ, General Introduction, pp. xxiii-xxiv. This was one of the four main codices consulted by Breuer for hisHorev edition and theJerusalem Crown. See n. 6 to Breuer's explanatory essay at the end ofJerusalem Crown. It was also collated forBHQ, where it is referred to as MY. With regard to theparashot it is very close to the Aleppo Codex, as shown in Yeivin, Division, and also borne out in this article's lists.
^BHQ, ibid. pp. xxiv-xxv. This was also one of the four main codices consulted by Breuer for hisHorev edition and theJerusalem Crown and was also collated forBHQ, where it is referred to as MS1.
^P. 145. Besides the verses listed below, Finfer records that there are noparashah breaks in the manuscripts he consulted at 2:1, 6:1, 7:1, 8:1.
^Kimhi made no notation here, and noparashah break appears in the Breuer editions as in Y but as opposed to L.
^abcdefghijkNot listed in Ofer, Yellin, pp. 322-328, but appears thus inHorev andJerusalem Crown editions as stated in the editorial essays as the back of these volumes: "In a few places where Kimhi did not note anything but aparashah appears in other accurate codices, I have added aparashah based on the Leningrad Codex. These include..." (Breuer, Horev, p. 14). These additions assume that Kimhi failed to note aparashah accidentally.
^BHQ Megilloth, p. 6*; Finfer p. 145. Besides this verse, Finfer records that there are noparashah breaks in the manuscripts he consulted at 1:19. 2:1, 3:1, 3:8, 4:1.
^abKimhi omits notation of individual verses in Lamentations at the following points: 1:2, 1:5, 1:14, 4:4, 4:5, 4:6, 4:7, 4:14 (Ofer, Yellin, p. 323). The Breuer edition supplies theseparashot, apparently missing based upon an oversight by Kimhi (see Breuer, Horev, p. 14).
^P. 145. Besides the verses listed below, Finfer records that there are noparashah breaks in the manuscripts he consulted at 2:1, 4:1, 5:1, 6:1, 7:1, 8:1, 9:1, 10:1. 11:1, 12:1. "A few manuscripts" have {S} at 1:11,12; 3:1,2; 9:7. "Other manuscripts" have {S} at 3:9, 7:1, 11:9.
^abThis verse also begins one of the foursedarim in Ecclesiastes: 1:1, 3:3, 7:1, 9:7 (BHQ Megilloth, p. 14*).
^These closed portions are noted with the word סתומה at each relevant verse in Ganzfried's notes on Esther towards the end of the book (beginning on page 133a). A digital image of the text may be foundhere. The rule is codified inShulhan ArukhOrah Hayyim 691:2 (Rema), and its source isHagahot Maimoniyot on Maimonides'Laws of Megillah chapter 2.
^The text may be found on page 87 of thedigital file (40a in the page numbering).
^Lishkat HaSofer, note 5 (40a). Ganzfried citesMagen Avraham as allowing such a scroll to be used in difficult circumstances, whilePeri Megadim is unsure whether a blessing should be recited over it.
^Another medieval list of open and closed sections in Esther is found inIsaac ben Moses of Vienna'sOr Zarua (Part II, Laws ofMegillah 373), citing his teacherEliezer ben Joel HaLevi (Ra'avyah).Arukh Hashulchan Orah Hayyim 691:6 notes an internal contradiction inOr Zarua and concludes that a scroll of Esther written with open sections may still be used; but seeIsrael Isserlin,Terumat HaDeshen, Rulings and Essays 23.
^abBHQ Megilloth p. 21*. An empty cell in the table under L34 indicates a gap in that manuscript.
^abKimhi simply noted "ס" at 2:11 (ובכל יום). No other textual tradition, Tiberian or otherwise, has aparashah at this point in the text, nor does the narrative indicate that one would be appropriate. Editions based on the Breuer method or close to it (Horev,The Jerusalem Crown, andMikra'ot Gedolot ha-Keter) nonetheless show {S} here.
^Mistakenly listed as both {P} and {S} in the notes at the back of the Dotan edition.
Ofer, Yosef. "The Aleppo Codex and the Bible of R. Shalom Shachna Yellin" inRabbiMordechai Breuer Festschrift: Collected Papers in Jewish Studies, ed. M. Bar-Asher, 1:295-353. Jerusalem, 1992 (Hebrew).Online text (PDF)
Penkower, Jordan S. "Maimonides and the Aleppo Codex."Textus 9 (1981):39-128.
Penkower, Jordan S.New Evidence for the Pentateuch Text in the Aleppo Codex.Bar-Ilan University Press: Ramat Gan, 1992 (Hebrew).
Yeivin, Israel. "The Division into Sections in the Book of Psalms."Textus 7 (1969):76-102.
Yeivin, Israel.Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Trans. and ed.E. J. Revell. Masoretic Studies 5. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1980.
Bible editions consulted (based on theAleppo Codex):
.jpg)
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg)
