Mikra Pashut: A New Reading of the Tanakh

Mikra Pashut: A New Reading of the Tanakh

Mikra Pashut: A New Reading of the Tanakh

David Curwin

David Curwin is an independent scholar, who has researched and published widely on Bible, Jewish thought and philosophy, and Hebrew language. His first book, “Kohelet – A Map to Eden” was published by Koren/Maggid in 2023. Other writings, both academic and popular, have appeared in Lehrhaus, Tradition, Hakirah, and Jewish Bible Quarterly. He blogs about Hebrew language topics at www.balashon.com. A technical writer in the software industry, David resides in Efrat with his wife and family.

I have read the Tanakh in many translations. In my youth, I began with the Koren Jerusalem Bible, continued with the 1985 JPS edition, and came to appreciate R. Aryeh Kaplan’s The Living Torah. More recently, I have enjoyed the literary translations produced by Robert Alter, Everett Fox, and the new Koren edition, among others. Each edition, in its own way, makes the Bible a book to be read.

In Hebrew, the situation is different. There is no shortage of Chumash and Tanakh editions  – ranging from traditional to modern – each offering layers of commentary and interpretation. Hebrew speakers have countless tools to learn the Bible, to chant it ritually, to analyze it verse by verse. Even modern commentaries such as Daat Mikra, while aiming to elucidate the peshat, are constructed as learning tools, not as continuous reading experiences. By contrast, readers of translations in other languages can pick up a Bible and read it as a flowing narrative, aided by paragraphs and punctuation that match modern literary conventions.

Mikra Pashut, edited by biblical researcher Dr. Avi Shveka with the guidance of an editorial committee and published by Koren under its Maggid imprint in 2024, seeks to change this. The Hebrew-only edition spans four hardcover volumes- Torah, Prophets I, Prophets II, and Writings – and remains faithful to the Masoretic text while using modern punctuation and layout to create a seamless reading experience. It strips away the tools that have shaped the text for centuries – verse numbers, chapter breaks, parashah divisions, and cantillation marks. That absence may startle traditional readers at first, but once that surprise fades, they may discover how enjoyable and revealing it is to read the Tanakh continuously, uncovering new dimensions in a text they thought they knew.

Opening any volume immediately shows how different this edition is. The layout transforms the Tanakh into something that can be read fluently, without commentary mediating every line. Shveka and his team provide a substantial Hebrew introduction that explains the project’s history and the reasoning behind its editorial decisions. In addition to this general introduction, each biblical book comes with a brief preface focusing on issues specific to its punctuation and layout. While the introduction does not detail every individual punctuation and design choice, it sets out the principles that guided the work. This review draws on the editorial principles outlined in the introduction and how they are reflected in the edition’s design. While Mikra Pashut is entirely in Hebrew, understanding how it was designed and why these choices were made is of interest to anyone concerned with how we encounter the biblical text.

The editor and his context

Avi Shveka’s project continues a family tradition of innovation in access to Jewish texts. His father, Prof. Yaacov Choueka (1936–2020), played a central role in the development of the Bar-Ilan Responsa Project, which transformed rabbinic scholarship by making classical sources digitally searchable. (Mikra Pashut is dedicated to his memory.) Just as Choueka removed technological barriers – developing tools that made rabbinic literature digitally searchable – so his son Avi removes barriers of format, the conventions that have kept Hebrew readers from simply reading the Bible.

To carry out this vision, Shveka assembled an editorial committee representing diverse perspectives and backgrounds. Members included Rabbi Chaim Sabato (Rosh Yeshivat Yeshivat Birkat Moshe, Ma’aleh Adumim), Rabbi Yuval Cherlow (Rosh Yeshivat Yeshivat Orot Shaul, Tel Aviv), Prof. Haggai Misgav (Hebrew University), Prof. Noam Mizrahi (Head of the Bible Department, Hebrew University), Dr. Hillel Gershuni (researcher, editor, translator), Ayal Fishler (director of Machon Maaliyot), and Avishai Magence (Koren Publishers). This collaboration ensured that the edition drew on rabbinic tradition, literary analysis, and academic scholarship, while keeping the biblical text itself untouched.

This edition is deeply rooted in Jewish tradition. It preserves the sanctity of the biblical text and builds on the insights of generations of commentators. At the same time, it reflects that tradition’s awareness that every era must find its own ways to make the text accessible, and it responds to that need with a format that speaks to contemporary Hebrew readers.

A reader’s edition

Mikra Pashut is explicitly a reader’s edition. Its title, meaning “Plain Scripture” (and implying a “simple reading”), reflects its ambition to present the biblical text in a clear, straightforward manner focused on the peshat. Shveka notes that it was designed in a format as similar as possible to a regular modern Hebrew book. It is not a study Bible and not a tool for ritual chanting; it is a text meant to be read from start to finish.

The visual presentation makes this clear. Mikra Pashut begins from the austere model of a Torah scroll, which contains only the unpunctuated, unvocalized words of the text with no divisions between verses. The scroll’s starkness preserves the primacy of the words themselves. Building on that foundation, this edition introduces only what is necessary for modern readability: the traditional vowels are included to make the sometimes archaic or confusing Hebrew words more accessible, but the page remains free of commentary, Targum, and Masoretic notes. Verse numbers are absent from the body of the text. The words appear in justified paragraphs, with clear indentations. Each page header combines two elements: the traditional chapters and verses covered on that page, along with a brief title summarizing the section’s content. These headings function like chapter titles in a modern book, guiding the reader through the narrative without offering commentary.

The re-division of chapters is particularly significant. Shveka chose not to retain the breaks of the weekly Torah portions (parashat hashavua), which were set according to a variety of considerations and not always primarily to separate distinct topics. Nor did he follow the Christian chapter divisions, introduced in the 13th century by Archbishop Stephen Langton, which are often based on thematic reasoning but in many cases are debatable and, in some places, clearly mistaken. Instead, he created a new chapter division based on literary units. This is, as he notes, the first time in roughly eight centuries that a Hebrew Bible has introduced a new division of chapters. 

For example, the traditional Christian division ends Genesis 1 with the sixth day of creation and oddly begins chapter 2 with the description of the seventh day. The Masoretic division, followed in standard Hebrew Bibles, keeps the seventh day together with the other six in the first chapter and starts the second with the verse, “Such is the story of heaven and earth when they were created. On the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven” (Genesis 2:4), which then continues into the Adam narrative. Shveka’s edition instead splits Genesis 2:4 itself: “Such is the story of heaven and earth when they were created” closes the creation account, while “On the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven” opens the story of Adam.

Within these larger sections, the text is further divided into passages and paragraphs that follow shifts in narrative, dialogue, or thematic focus. Lists, such as genealogies or censuses, are arranged with each item on its own line. Poetry – including Psalms, prophetic oracles, and the Song of Songs – is laid out in parallel lines, often in two columns, highlighting the symmetry of biblical verse. Unlike most editions, where all text appears in a uniform block style, this formatting reflects the different genres within the Tanakh and makes their structure immediately visible to the reader.

The decision to omit chapter and verse numbers also follows this logic. These markers were historically created to aid study, allowing readers to locate verses quickly, but they were never intended to serve the experience of reading. Since this edition encourages smooth, uninterrupted reading, such references would only disrupt the flow. For those who still desire them, the chapter and verse ranges are provided discreetly in the page headers without breaking the continuity of the text.

Modern punctuation as parshanut

Shveka’s most radical innovation is the use of modern punctuation. This edition adds all the marks familiar to contemporary readers: commas, periods, colons, question marks, exclamation points, quotation marks, and parentheses. Dialogue appears in quotes, with long speeches indented as block text. Lists begin with colons. Parentheses, never before used in a printed Tanakh, enclose digressions or editorial asides embedded in the text. Unlike in academic editions, their use here does not indicate that the enclosed passage is uncertain or suspected of being a later addition; rather, it highlights material that functions as an aside within the narrative. The aside in Genesis 2:12 about the gold of Havilah – “(And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there)” – is enclosed in parentheses, signaling its role as a tangential note.

These choices highlight the narrative’s structure and dramatic flow. This edition also makes distinctive use of semicolons, more frequent than in most modern Hebrew texts, because biblical clauses are often only loosely connected to the main sentence. A comma would obscure their near-independence, while a period would separate them too sharply; the semicolon preserves their intermediate status. Exclamation marks, also used more liberally than modern literary norms, reflect the dramatic tone of prophecy and biblical poetry. Shveka notes that he is not editing Isaiah as a modern literary editor might, but seeks to convey the intensity of the original voice. When a sentence functions as a dramatic declaration or impassioned cry, it receives an exclamation point – even if many appear close together on the same page. The prophet or poet, he insists, has the right to cry out, and the punctuation mirrors that urgency.

The omission of ta’amei hamikra (cantillation marks) also reflects this philosophy. Cantillation is invaluable for liturgy, but it was never intended as a full guide to syntax. The accents do not always follow the peshat, and the considerations of those who set them were not purely grammatical; they also reflected musical needs, patterns of symmetry, and even halakhic factors. Moreover, even if the original motives were grammatical, we cannot simply reverse-engineer them to determine how modern punctuation should match their intent.

For similar reasons, the edition could not rely on a single commentary, such as Rashi, to determine punctuation. Rashi does not always adhere to the peshat, and his commentary only addresses select passages and phrases, leaving vast portions of the text without guidance. No commentary answers all the grammatical and structural questions required for punctuating the entire Tanakh. Shveka and his committee therefore made independent editorial decisions, informed by a broad range of traditional and modern interpretations.

Every translation of the Tanakh uses full, modern punctuation. No one would expect a modern reader to engage with a translation that lacks these aids, since punctuation dramatically improves the reading experience. Translations, by their nature, must address every question of grammar and syntax because every word and phrase must be interpreted. This made them a particularly valuable resource for Mikra Pashut: unlike commentaries, translations cover the entire text consistently and reveal how meaning can be clarified through structure. Shveka consulted translations, especially into English, as an important reference point, though never following them mechanically.

Ultimately, this punctuation is not neutral. It is, as Shveka acknowledges, a form of parshanut – interpretation. Every comma, every period is a decision. Genesis 4:8 illustrates this: the Masoretic text leaves Cain’s words hanging –  “And Cain said to Abel his brother” – without reporting what he said. Shveka’s punctuation must choose whether to treat this as a complete sentence or as an introduction to dialogue. This edition chose the former. Such decisions inevitably align with some interpretations and exclude others. While all these editorial choices carry interpretive weight, Shveka presents them as aids to reading, not as claims of authority.

Faithfulness to the Masoretic text

While the layout and punctuation are new, the words themselves remain exactly as the Masoretic tradition preserves them. The editors never considered modernizing spelling or grammar. The sacred text itself is untouched; only its framing has changed. This includes the treatment of ketiv/qere – the traditional system in which a word is written one way (ketiv) but read differently (qere). Unlike in a traditional Tanakh, in this edition, the qere appears in the main body of the text, in a lighter font to indicate its status as the read form, while the key is placed at the bottom of the page. This subtle change emphasizes how the text is encountered in actual reading, while still preserving the integrity of the written tradition.

Taken together, these choices highlight that Mikra Pashut’s only “commentary” is the formatting itself. Its headings, paragraphs, and punctuation serve to guide the reader without adding explanation.

Reading Instead of learning

As Shveka notes in the introduction, “the Mikra, as its name implies, was intended for kri’ah – reading.” The editorial choices all serve the edition’s central purpose: to make the Tanakh readable in Hebrew. While commentaries can be valuable, they inevitably create a barrier to continuous reading, breaking the flow of the text and steering attention toward interpretation rather than the words themselves. Mikra Pashut removes that barrier by presenting the text in clear, uninterrupted form, with layout and punctuation that guide the reading without reliance on additional commentary. It is not an edition for traditional study, liturgical use, or verse-by-verse analysis with commentary. Instead, it invites readers to experience the Tanakh as narrative and poetry – an experience long available through translations in other languages but now offered to Hebrew readers in the original.

In this sense, the project parallels Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz’s Talmud edition, which made the text’s language and structure accessible while still demanding intellectual engagement. Shveka’s formatting likewise enables comprehension and contemplation, freeing readers to think about the content.

The distinction is not between Mikra Pashut and any single edition such as Mikra’ot Gedolot. It is between editions for learning – which dominate in Hebrew – and editions for reading, which Hebrew readers have lacked. As Shveka argues, in every other language the Bible can be read as a book; Hebrew readers should not be denied that.

Impact of format

The format itself shapes meaning. Traditional printings – with their verses, chapters, and commentaries – frame the Bible as a text to be dissected. Mikra Pashut frames it as a text to be absorbed. Its use of white space between textual units recalls the Torah’s gaps between sections, giving the reader room to pause and reflect. The layout draws attention to patterns, structures, and nuances that might otherwise be lost.

For serious students, this edition will not replace traditional formats. In practice, many will use both: a standard Tanakh for learning and Mikra Pashut for reading. The two serve different, complementary purposes.

Reception

So far, the edition has been met with curiosity and praise. Educators value how it allows students to read without technical distractions. Readers report discovering new details in familiar passages. Some have expressed discomfort with the removal of verse numbers or the interpretive nature of punctuation. Yet no major public condemnation has emerged. One online commenter quipped that “until a sharp pashkevil is issued – either by the Eidah Chareidis or by Har Hamor – the book won’t get the proper publicity.”

The lack of controversy may be because, despite its innovations, this edition does not threaten the sanctity of the text. The Tanakh Ram project, edited by biblical scholar Avraham Ahuvya and first published in 2010, translated the Bible into Modern Hebrew and quickly became the subject of heated debate. Many critics argued that replacing the biblical language with contemporary phrasing undermined the sacred character of the text. Mikra Pashut, by contrast, leaves the Masoretic text entirely unchanged. It does not translate or paraphrase the Bible but merely reframes it typographically, preserving its language while making it easier to read.

Conclusion

Mikra Pashut offers something unprecedented: a Tanakh that Hebrew readers can read with the same ease that others experience through translation. It preserves the Masoretic text unchanged while reimagining its form through modern punctuation, literary divisions, and thoughtful design.

This edition does not aim to replace traditional bibles for study. It stands alongside them, offering a complementary way to engage with Scripture. By lowering the barriers to reading, it allows the biblical text to speak for itself – clearly, directly, and continuously.

In doing so, Avi Shveka and his team have created more than a new edition: they have opened a new path to encountering the words of the Tanakh, one that begins with reading and only afterward moves to interpretation.

image_pdfimage_print
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

29 thoughts on “Mikra Pashut: A New Reading of the Tanakh

  1. I don’t know about this. It is true that all the tools David speaks about in this article – punctuation, layout, etc – are all very helpful towards understanding a text. But Hebrew is not the same as any language. There is no danger of confusing an English JPS translation (which also employs many of these tools) with the Torah. When the actual Hebrew sentences themselves are changed, however, there is very great danger that confusion can ensue. Printing such a Tanach would be a פירצה in a גדר of millennia.

    To say it otherwise – the whole beauty of the Hebrew text lies precisely in its ambiguity. It is by design that each verse can sustain many plausible interpretations. For a translation to have features like question marks is no concern, as the translation is understood to be itself a commentary. To tinker with the Hebrew text, however, and to manipulate the layout and sentence structure so as to leave only one possible meaning is to remove not just AN essential element of the Hebrew, but perhaps the single most important feature of all.

    1. Plenty of people relate to JPS, and other translations- including, obviously, Christian ones- as “the Torah.” JPS was published as English-only for decades before Hebrew was included in some editions. Artscroll and Koren both publish all-English editions. L’havdil, some fundamentalist Christians think of King James as divine.

      1. How others relate to JPS it I don’t know, but it is obviously not “the” Torah, just an excellent translation of it.

        This project may be well-meaning, but so are countless other mistaken initiatives. The original Hebrew is NOT the same as any other language, and should not be played around with as though it was. Someone below mentions the problem of כל פסוקיה דלא פסקה משה לא פסקינן. Why they didn’t just make up new words too, once they were making up new sentences and punctuation (not to mention chapter breaks and and chapter headings)?

        David himself writes that this new translation is designed to make people see the Torah as “a text they thought they knew.” Couldn’t have said it any better.

  2. Really fascinating, excellent review.
    I discussed a related idea about using modern punctuation in Talmudic texts in a Seforim Blog piece from two years ago.
    I have been applying these concepts on my site, ChavrutAI, and plan to expand it to include Mishnah and Tanakh

  3. Kol hakavod to Dr. Shevka and all those involved. Was there any concern in splitting pasukim between paragraphs, given the requirement from Megillah 22a not to split pasukim differently from tradition?

  4. “Parentheses, never before used in a printed Tanakh,”

    For the record, Mendelssohn included them, drawing the ire of the Chatam Sofer.

  5. Only the chapters were divided by non Jews. A tanach that has none of the traditional simanim or division to pesukim has no soul to it, it might just as well be a nice fiction book like lord of the rings. What the publisher accomplished is just another type of commentary based on his understanding, which might or might not agree with the traditional interpretation of chazal.

  6. This is a wonderful project and a helpful review. But I have to wonder, am I the only one who remembers a previous edition of Tanakh that followed much the same approach? This was “Tanakh La-Am” (“The People’s Bible”), presented and annotated by Dr. Moshe A. Anat (Tel Aviv: Am Oved Publishers, 1970-72), including only the Torah and Nevi’im. This edition, like Dr. Shveka’s, omitted the trop and employed modern punctuation — and yes, occasionally used parentheses. The text was presented not in blocks, but in short lines resembling poetry. Chapter and verse numbers were retained, but sentences did not always coincide with the division of pesukim. The overall effect was pleasant to the eye and wonderfully readable, and apparently was once popular in Israel. Though more than 50 years old, it deserves to be remembered and given due credit.

    1. In the long introduction to Mikra Pashut, they do discuss that version, and credit it, along with mentioning its drawbacks and how the current edition is different.

  7. טוביה רוטברג שאל את רב אלישיב עם זה בסדר להוציא לאור מהדורת ש”ס מנוקדת, וענה שכן, אך הורה לו שבשום פנים ואופן לא יפסק. כנראה הסיבה מכיוון שפיסוק זה מעין פירוש ולא מובטח שהמפסק יכוון לאמיתות כוונת הדברים.

      1. נקודה ונקודותיים זה לא פיסוק! וממתי מביאים ראיה מש”ס וילנא? ממי הם קיבלו היתר לעשות זאת? משפ”ן הסופר? ועוד, האם אתה יכול להסתמך על כך שהם לא טעו? אמנם יש שסי”ם מנוקדים כגון שטיינזלץ ועוז והדר במהדורה המנוקדת, ותשאל אותם על דעת מי עשו כן.

        1. באמת יש לדון בזה לכאן ולכאן, דלאומת הנזק שבדבר הרי בדורנו כל דבר שמוסיף לימוד התורה אצל ההמון אין להזניחו בקלות.

          עכ”פ יש להעיר דחוץ מפיסוק הש”ס, ביותר מצוי לעשות פיסוק במהדורות חדשות של ספרי הראשונים וקדמוני האחרונים, מה שלא היה בנוסח שיצא מתחת ידי המחברים, ובכמה מקומות יש לפקפק טובא בפיסוקים אלו.

      2. בדקתי במבוא לש”ס וילנא בהוצאת אשכול תשנ”ד ששם יש דף צילום דוגמא מכל השסי”ם הנדפסים והראשון שמופיעים בו נקודות הוא דפוס דיהרנפורט תק”ס, ונקודותיים בדפוס ווין תר”ב, ואכן צ”ע מי עומד מאחרי זה, אך כידוע יש הרבה אי דיוקים במיקום הנקודות.

        1. If you look at the very first printed edition (16th century Bomberg – Venice), you’ll see that it has far more “punctuation” than 19th century Romm-Vilna does. It splits into sections via long spaces. Sefaria’s Talmud links to the corresponding Ed. Bomberg page under “manuscripts”.

          The same is true for the Munich manuscript of Talmud, it splits via long spaces.

          So the supposed “tradition” of hardly any punctuation in the Gemara is actually a later phenomenon

          1. איני יודע מנין אתה לוקח את הידיעות שלך, לפי הידוע הדפוס הראשון הוא שונצינו רמ”ד (זוהשערה כי לא ידוע במדויק)], לאחריו בא פיזרו, ורק לאחר מכן וינציאה – בומברג. בכל אופן עיינתי בדפים שמובאים שם לדוגמא ולא ראיתי שום רווחים באמצע הטקסט אלא רק בסוף העמוד או בסיום הגמרא או המשנה לפני הקטע הבא. ואל תביא ראיות מכ”י שזה נושא אחר לגמרי ולא מראה כלל וכלל מה משמעות הרווחים. ושוב, האם רווחים ונקודות זה פיסוק בעיניך? האם ידוע לך מי עומד מאחרי זה ועל סמך מה הוא שם את הנקודות? זה מזכיר את הויכוח על משמעות הכוכבים בנועם אלימלך. ראיתי גם דפוסים שכל כמה מלים יש נקודה ללא שום קשר למדובר.

    1. Ironically, punctuation is not only far more helpful for the learner of gemara, it’s also far more likely to be accurate. There’s almost never any real ambiguity in how to split up a talmudic passage, the ambiguity is almost always in broader interpretation.

      This is as opposed to nikud, where not only is it not especially helpful (hence why modern Hebrew almost never uses nikud), but it’s often wrong. Many traditional Ashkenazi pronunciations of talmudic words are laughably incorrect, as is well known. For one simple and clear example, the correct pronunciation of אכסניא is ‘axenia’, not ‘akhsania’

  8. Reading the sample pages was fascinating- you really can read it like a book.

    And for those outraged, there’s actually a complete (although not published entirely as such) Modern Hebrew translation (side by side with the original), Tanach Ram, along with other partial translations.

    1. The OP mentions Ram:

      “The Tanakh Ram project, edited by biblical scholar Avraham Ahuvya and first published in 2010, translated the Bible into Modern Hebrew and quickly became the subject of heated debate. Many critics argued that replacing the biblical language with contemporary phrasing undermined the sacred character of the text.”

      My take on that edition is that it’s essentially a translation from Biblical Hebrew into Mishnaic Hebrew

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *