01
Identify the weekly reading
The system queries a public library of Jewish texts to locate the Parashah and the Haftarah of the current week in the Jewish calendar, along with their references, aliyot, and Hebrew name.
How an analysis is born
Each Parashah analysis is built as an editorial dossier: first the sources, then the questions, then the interpretive axes, and only then the draft. The AI is not asked to improvise a broad commentary; it moves through a sequence of smaller, verifiable, cumulative tasks.
The innovation is to use AI as editorial leverage: organizing sources, detecting patterns, preparing a central thesis, and turning that preparation into a new, coherent, accessible editorial reading of the weekly Parashah. AI is not treated as a source of religious authority: it functions as a tool for composition, organization, and language, and the foundation remains the biblical text and the classical commentaries.
The process happens before publication and involves no human intervention in the weekly writing. The result is a reading that preserves source discipline, engages with Rashi, and still speaks in clear language to a contemporary reader.
Methodology
Why layers?
Asking an artificial intelligence to "write a Parashah analysis" usually produces generic text: it may sound correct, but it often skips the patient reading of sources. AutoParashah avoids that leap by dividing the work into successive stages, each one feeding the next.
No stage tries to do everything at once. Idea mining does not write; the final drafting does not choose its own themes alone. Each layer is an editorial filter: only the most useful material reaches the final dossier — and only from it is the text born.
That is why the intended result is not an automatic summary. The flow selects linguistic and interpretive difficulties, separates the main movements of the text, chooses reading axes, and prepares a unifying thesis before asking for the final analysis.
This architecture also prevents the analysis from becoming an autonomous religious interpretation by the AI. Because each stage depends on concrete sources and explicit selections, the final text is not a new doctrinal creation but an editorial reading organized from tradition.
Editorial flow
The ten stages
02
Gather the source corpus
The biblical text for that week is collected, with its aliyot, the Haftarah context, and all of Rashi's comments — the most influential commentator in Jewish tradition — on that portion.
03
Mine Rashi candidates
The AI examines Rashi's comments for linguistic difficulties, tensions, contrasts, and promising ideas: 8 to 12 interpretive questions, each evaluated for relevance.
04
Split the portion into movements
The Parashah is organized into 3 to 6 real text blocks, preserving the flow and original sequence — like splitting a chapter into its main parts.
05
Select four interpretive axes
From the questions raised, the AI chooses four central axes grounded in Rashi that, together, cover the Parashah well, do not overlap, and structure a unified reading.
06
Assemble a curated dossier
Sources, movements, selected axes, and an initial thesis are gathered into a coherent base that serves as raw material for drafting — nothing reaches the writing stage without passing through here.
07
Draft the Parashah analysis
The AI produces the final analysis in two fixed sections: first the Synthesis, focused on textual clarity; then the Analysis, an original interpretive reading anchored in the Rashi axes placed at the right moment in the reading.
08
Add Synthesis illustrations
Images faithful to the text are generated to support visual understanding of the Synthesis, each with an editorial caption. The illustrations accompany the reading without altering the analysis.
09
Produce Haftarah and Summary
A parallel process drafts the Haftarah analysis (the Prophets portion) with the same editorial discipline. Then a short weekly Summary is derived from the finalized analyses.
10
Translate, publish, archive
The package is born in English and translated into Portuguese, Spanish, and French — each language in a separate step. Then it goes live, with caching, annotations, and archival into the weekly collection.
Editorial outputs
Each week the published package has four pieces: the Parashah analysis, with the Synthesis and the Analysis; the illustrations that support the Synthesis; the Haftarah analysis, produced in parallel; and the Summary, a short digest derived from both analyses.
The Haftarah does not go through Rashi mining (Rashi comments only on the Torah), but follows the same editorial discipline. The Summary is derived from the finalized analyses — it is not a standalone piece.
The Synthesis illustrations are planned from the paragraphs themselves — each image has an explicit textual basis, a central idea, and an editorial caption. They are not generic decoration: they are reading tools.
Method does not remove responsibility.
Transparency
The editorial process is fully documented: each analysis records which sources were consulted, which questions were raised, which axes were chosen, and which thesis stitches the final text together. There are no surprises between the raw material and what reaches the reader.
Even so, it is worth saying: an artificial intelligence can err, interpret imprecisely, or miss layers that a rabbi or scholar would notice. AutoParashah does not issue religious decisions, does not replace rabbis, and does not claim to be a Torah authority. It is a tool for study, dissemination, and reflection, built with technological support — a starting point for study, not a substitute for dialogue with teachers, community, and the text in its original language.