Talk:Parashah

message: I want to add an External Links section with external links to this article
Parsha Classes:
http://www.yutorah.org/parshat_hashavua.cfm
http://www.613.org/parasha.html
http://www.torahsearch.com/page.cfm/50
http://www.torahforme.com/files/Parsha/
Shadchan 15:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding External Links Section 

message: No response all week so I am adding a section with external links. Shadchan 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Link 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I'm curious about the choice of spelling "Parashat Bemidbar" instead of "Parashat Bamidbar". This issue applies to other articles, too, of course, and I've started a discussion at Talk:Torah#Names_of_the_Books_in_Hebrew in hopes of reaching consensus for consistent spelling of the name of the parasha and the name of the Torah book. --Rich Janis (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parashat Bemidbar/Bamidbar 

message: The article discusses in detail the differnt ways of marking "open" and "closed" parashah, but never says what their difference in significance is supposed to be. Like, e.g. one marking "big" breaks in meaning and the other "small", or something like that. Or is there no significance at all? -- 77.189.94.179 (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue you raise in an interesting one. On a subjective level, one often gets the impression that major topical shifts in the text are more likely to be marked by an "open" parashah, while minor shifts in topic or style are more likely to be marked by a "closed" one. However, this impression is very hard to verify, especially because there are so many exceptions. Since I have never found any scholarship that addresses this question, it is hard to put impressions like that into the article without any verifiable source. In general, the exegetical value of the parashot is an unexplored issue; maybe someday someone will write an article or a dissertation on it... Dovi (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference in meaning of "open" and "closed" parashah? 

message: "^ Data on the manuscript evidence for parashot beginning with the Dead Sea Scrolls is collated in the Hebrew University Bible Project."  there's no way anybody can check out the actual text, which is what references are all about.  If this project is online, give a link to it.  If it's a series of hardcopy publications, give the publisher, volume number, etc.
4.248.223.159 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, the article on the Hebrew University Bible Project has such information, and a link is provided in the footnote that you cite. Dovi (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  doesn't meet the purpose 

message: The following was added by User:Maryester to the lead paragraph of this article as "giving an early source" for the topic:
:The root reasoning for these separations predate the final Mesorah in use today, back to the Iraqi Rabbis who wrote the Babylonian Talmud, Babba Kama p. 82A states that "3 days shall not go by without [a Jew] hearing the public Torah reading" in Hebrew from the Sofer written parchment scroll in the presence of a minyan which is Jewish law. A Parsha is the separation to fulfill Parshat HaShavua and daily Parsha reading schedules, and its coresponding mitzvah.
I removed this, asking  Maryester  to explain why it is relevant on the talk page. The same editor then added it back it, explaining in the edit summary that "the reason given for the existence of parshot belongs in the lead given in the earliest possible source (bavly)"
This is not correct. The source cited from the Babylonian Talmud ("Bavly") is not the earliest source for this topic (there are much earlier ones), nor is it a relevant source at all: This article is not about the days when the Torah is read, nor is a parashah "the separation to fulfill Parshat HaShavua and daily Parsha reading schedules, and its coresponding mitzvah". Nor is the lead paragraph generally the place for citing sources on a topic.
If there is justification for keeping this addition, please explain it here on the talk page. Dovi (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the text. If there are any further issues regarding this, please discuss them here first before changing the lead of the article. Dovi (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to the lead paragraph 

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about the 54 Torah parshas 

message: I've come to the conclusion that this article should deal with parashot alone, and the material on poetic layout (the last part) should be moved to a separate article, even as an initial stub. That article would discuss both the special layout of songs in the 21 books and the layout in Sifrei Emet. Both articles (which deal with different but related issues of masoretic formatting) would of course refer to each other.
I'm finding it difficult, however, to think of an appropriate title: Poetic layout in the Masoretic Bible? Can someone come up with something better and preferably shorter? Dovi (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason to seperate the two. To the layman, the two appear similar: Scribal traditions regarding spaces within written Biblical text. The difference between the two can and should be elaborated on in the article, but is insufficient as a reason to split the article IMHO. Mo'adim L'Simcha, Nahum (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so we'll leave it, though it's a bit long. I hope someone will fill it in at some point so that the rank for this article can go up. Dovi (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate article for Poetic layout 

message: There is no justification for Bible chapters, which are also part of the Christian Bible, automatically linking to a Rabbinical discussion of a parashah.
A majority of potential users of English Wikipedia are not practicing Jews. I will elaborate: a majority are not Jewish, and a majority of the Jews are not practicing Judaism and Rabbinical studies, but all these people are potentially interested in the Bible for their own cultural and religious reasons. Therefore, when the topic is a particular Bible verse shared by Jews AND Christians and, frankly, the entire humanity, the Bible passage is of interest, not (just) the parashah & discussion in Judaism. Thank you for considering this.
Also, you are often wikilinking a whole chapter to what is just a section of it. But this is secondary.
I thought there would only be a few cases of such unjustified appropriation of links & topics, and have written messages on the respective talk-pages, but I see there are dozens upon dozens of them. Please reverse them all - and whoever did this, they should do the work. Cheers. Arminden (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop wikilinking Bible chapters to parashah discussions! This is serious misappropriation. 

message: Is it possible? Is there an excel file with the chapter/verse/parshah/aliyah listed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riskit 4 a biskit (talk • contribs) 00:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: list display as a table?

message: Is it possible to add the aliyah number to the respective verses?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riskit 4 a biskit (talk • contribs) 01:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 'closed' and 'open' portions: a portion is a parashah or an aliyah or a pasuk or a paragraph? It is not made clear Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: add aliyah detail

message: I corrected the listing for Bereishit to add the missing parshah [Psucha] from Vayishlach (at 36:31) where it was previously missing. Now the total of Parshiyot are consistent with the Rambam's count of 43 Psuchot and 48 Stumot.
I also intend to add these totals as a valuable check/reference point to the end of the list for each Book.
Menachemsdavis (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Errata/Corrections

message: Propose to merge Weekly Torah portion into this page. The two pages cover the same topic, and much of the content overlaps. Further, there's no much content or sources in the Weekly Torah portion page that justify having it's own article. Longhornsg (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinction between the content of the two may now be clearer. Some further work is still needed to make the distinction yet clearer for the curious non-specialist. Kromholz (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal