Parashah

The term parashah, parasha or parashat (Hebrew: פָּרָשָׁה Pārāšâ, "portion", Tiberian /pɔrɔˈʃɔ/, Sephardi /paraˈʃa/, plural: parashot or parashiyot, also called parsha) formally means a section of a biblical book in the Masoretic Text of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). In common usage today the word often refers to the weekly Torah portion (a shortened form of Parashat 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 in Torah scrolls, scrolls of the books of Nevi'im or Ketuvim (especially the Megillot), masoretic codices from the Middle Ages and printed editions of the masoretic text.

For the weekly Sabbath portions (including holidays that fall on a Sabbath), each parashah is divided into seven aliyot (aliyahs), corresponding to the days of the week. Parashot for holidays that do not fall on a Shabbat have fewer aliyot: five each on Passover, Sukkot, Shavuot, and Rosh haShana, and six on Yom Kippur.

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. Parashot are not numbered, but some have special names.

The division of parashot found in the modern-day Torah scrolls of all Jewish communities is based upon the systematic list provided by Maimonides in Mishneh Torah, Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah and Torah Scrolls, chapter 8. Maimonides based his division of the parashot for the Torah on the Aleppo Codex.^[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.

Incorrect division of the text into parashot, either by indicating a parashah in the wrong place or by using the wrong spacing technique, halakhically invalidates a Torah scroll according to Maimonides.^[2]

^ Though initially doubted by Umberto 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 the parashah 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 more details see the section on Halakhic significance below.

[1] Though initially doubted by Umberto 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 the parashah 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.

[2] For more details see the section on Halakhic significance below.

[1]

[2]