5 added 1207 characters in body
source | link

The Gemara in Kiddushin (30a) says that a father is obligated to teach his son "mikra, not mishnah." Rava there says "mikra" means "Torah." Rashi explains that this means Chumash, and not Nevi'im or Ketuvim. However, the Rambam codifies this halachah as an obligation to teach one's son "Torah shebichtav kulah," which the Bach, Taz, Shach and Gra understand to mean as all of Tanach (Yoreh De'ah 245). Based on this, the Revid ha-Zahav (a member of the beis din of Vilna at the time of the Gra) argued that whether Nevi'im and Ketuvim are part of Torah shebichtav or Torah shebe'al peh is a dispute between Rashi and the Rambam (see Revid ha-Zahav, hakdamah, no. 1, and Parashat Va'etchanan). (However, see R. Yaakov Kaminetzky's Mevo le-Limud ha-Mikra in Emet le-Yaakov al ha-Torah in which he explains the Rambam's position differently.)

This may also relate to a dispute between the Rambam and the Ra'avad at the end of Hilchot Megillah (2:18). The Rambam, basing himself on the Yerushalmi, says that of all of the books of Tanach, the only ones that will remain at the end of days are the five books of the Torah and Megillat Esther. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam's understanding, and says that all the books of Tanach will remain, but will not be read in public. The Acharonim explain that according to the Rambam, the other books of Tanach may be considered to be essentially "Torah shebe'al peh" inasmuch as their message is only based on the needs of the time (see Nedarim 22b: אמר רב אדא ברבי חנינא: אלמלא לא חטאו ישראל, לא ניתן להם אלא חמישה חומשי תורה וספר יהושע בלבד; Ta'anit 9a: יתיב רבי יוחנן וקא מתמה אמר מי איכא מידי דכתיבי בכתובי דלא רמיזי באורייתא; Rashi, Chullin 137a: תורת משה קרויה תורה לפי שנתנה תורה לדורות ושל נביאים לא קרי אלא קבלה שקבלו מרוח הקדש כל נבואה ונבואה לפי צורך השעה והדור והמעשה). The Ra'avad, on the other hand, may hold that all the books of Tanach are part of Torah shebichtav.

Another relevant issue may be whether there is a concept of "mitzvat keriah" for Nevi'im and Ketuvim. The Gemara in Berachot 5a says ״תורה״ זה מקרא וכו׳ ״אשר כתבתי״ אלו נביאים וכתובים. Rashi explains, זה מקרא, חומש שמצוה לקרות בתורה. The Maharsha explains Rashi's view: תורה זו מקרא, דהיינו גוף התורה, והיא נקראת מקרא בכל מקום בל׳ התורה, ובזו המסכת שהיא תתלת ש״ס בא לפרש, דע״כ נקראת התורה מקרא בלישנא דתלמודא בכל מקום, על שם שמצוה לקרות בה, והיינו דבעי לקרותה בכתב בנקודותי׳ ובפיסוק טעמיה וכו', ואמר אשר כתבתי זו נביאים וכתובים, דגם אלו נתנו ליכתב, אבל אין בהן מצות קריאה כמו בתורה וק״ל. In other words, according to Rashi as explained by the Maharsha, there is a distinction between Chumash, which must be read appropriately, and Nevi'im and Ketuvim which do not require this level of care. However, the Beit Yosef (Orach Chaim 61) cites the Radak who argues with Rashi and maintains that one must read carefully throughout Tanakh: והרב ר׳ דוד קמחי כתב שבכל עת שיקרא אדם בתורה נביאים וכתובים צריך לזהר, אבל הזהירו בק״ש וה״ה לכל קריאה וכו׳. See this discussion by R. Yehuda Heshel Levenberg, citing R. Meir Soloveitchik.

See also Rabbenu Gershom Temurah 14b: דברים שבכתב: תורה נביאים וכתובים, vs. Tosafos ibid. s.v. דברים שבכתב. For additional sources, see עינים למשפט ברכות דף ה עמוד א; גברות יצחק, הלכות תלמוד תורה א:ז. I have not seen any sources that distinguish between Nevi'im and Ketuvim regarding this issue.

The Gemara in Kiddushin (30a) says that a father is obligated to teach his son "mikra, not mishnah." Rava there says "mikra" means "Torah." Rashi explains that this means Chumash, and not Nevi'im or Ketuvim. However, the Rambam codifies this halachah as an obligation to teach one's son "Torah shebichtav kulah," which the Bach, Taz, Shach and Gra understand to mean as all of Tanach (Yoreh De'ah 245). Based on this, the Revid ha-Zahav (a member of the beis din of Vilna at the time of the Gra) argued that whether Nevi'im and Ketuvim are part of Torah shebichtav or Torah shebe'al peh is a dispute between Rashi and the Rambam (see Revid ha-Zahav, hakdamah, no. 1, and Parashat Va'etchanan). (However, see R. Yaakov Kaminetzky's Mevo le-Limud ha-Mikra in Emet le-Yaakov al ha-Torah in which he explains the Rambam's position differently.)

This may also relate to a dispute between the Rambam and the Ra'avad at the end of Hilchot Megillah (2:18). The Rambam, basing himself on the Yerushalmi, says that of all of the books of Tanach, the only ones that will remain at the end of days are the five books of the Torah and Megillat Esther. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam's understanding, and says that all the books of Tanach will remain, but will not be read in public. The Acharonim explain that according to the Rambam, the other books of Tanach may be considered to be essentially "Torah shebe'al peh" inasmuch as their message is only based on the needs of the time (see Nedarim 22b: אמר רב אדא ברבי חנינא: אלמלא לא חטאו ישראל, לא ניתן להם אלא חמישה חומשי תורה וספר יהושע בלבד; Ta'anit 9a: יתיב רבי יוחנן וקא מתמה אמר מי איכא מידי דכתיבי בכתובי דלא רמיזי באורייתא; Rashi, Chullin 137a: תורת משה קרויה תורה לפי שנתנה תורה לדורות ושל נביאים לא קרי אלא קבלה שקבלו מרוח הקדש כל נבואה ונבואה לפי צורך השעה והדור והמעשה). The Ra'avad, on the other hand, may hold that all the books of Tanach are part of Torah shebichtav.

See also Rabbenu Gershom Temurah 14b: דברים שבכתב: תורה נביאים וכתובים, vs. Tosafos ibid. s.v. דברים שבכתב. For additional sources, see עינים למשפט ברכות דף ה עמוד א; גברות יצחק, הלכות תלמוד תורה א:ז. I have not seen any sources that distinguish between Nevi'im and Ketuvim regarding this issue.

The Gemara in Kiddushin (30a) says that a father is obligated to teach his son "mikra, not mishnah." Rava there says "mikra" means "Torah." Rashi explains that this means Chumash, and not Nevi'im or Ketuvim. However, the Rambam codifies this halachah as an obligation to teach one's son "Torah shebichtav kulah," which the Bach, Taz, Shach and Gra understand to mean as all of Tanach (Yoreh De'ah 245). Based on this, the Revid ha-Zahav (a member of the beis din of Vilna at the time of the Gra) argued that whether Nevi'im and Ketuvim are part of Torah shebichtav or Torah shebe'al peh is a dispute between Rashi and the Rambam (see Revid ha-Zahav, hakdamah, no. 1, and Parashat Va'etchanan). (However, see R. Yaakov Kaminetzky's Mevo le-Limud ha-Mikra in Emet le-Yaakov al ha-Torah in which he explains the Rambam's position differently.)

This may also relate to a dispute between the Rambam and the Ra'avad at the end of Hilchot Megillah (2:18). The Rambam, basing himself on the Yerushalmi, says that of all of the books of Tanach, the only ones that will remain at the end of days are the five books of the Torah and Megillat Esther. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam's understanding, and says that all the books of Tanach will remain, but will not be read in public. The Acharonim explain that according to the Rambam, the other books of Tanach may be considered to be essentially "Torah shebe'al peh" inasmuch as their message is only based on the needs of the time (see Nedarim 22b: אמר רב אדא ברבי חנינא: אלמלא לא חטאו ישראל, לא ניתן להם אלא חמישה חומשי תורה וספר יהושע בלבד; Ta'anit 9a: יתיב רבי יוחנן וקא מתמה אמר מי איכא מידי דכתיבי בכתובי דלא רמיזי באורייתא; Rashi, Chullin 137a: תורת משה קרויה תורה לפי שנתנה תורה לדורות ושל נביאים לא קרי אלא קבלה שקבלו מרוח הקדש כל נבואה ונבואה לפי צורך השעה והדור והמעשה). The Ra'avad, on the other hand, may hold that all the books of Tanach are part of Torah shebichtav.

Another relevant issue may be whether there is a concept of "mitzvat keriah" for Nevi'im and Ketuvim. The Gemara in Berachot 5a says ״תורה״ זה מקרא וכו׳ ״אשר כתבתי״ אלו נביאים וכתובים. Rashi explains, זה מקרא, חומש שמצוה לקרות בתורה. The Maharsha explains Rashi's view: תורה זו מקרא, דהיינו גוף התורה, והיא נקראת מקרא בכל מקום בל׳ התורה, ובזו המסכת שהיא תתלת ש״ס בא לפרש, דע״כ נקראת התורה מקרא בלישנא דתלמודא בכל מקום, על שם שמצוה לקרות בה, והיינו דבעי לקרותה בכתב בנקודותי׳ ובפיסוק טעמיה וכו', ואמר אשר כתבתי זו נביאים וכתובים, דגם אלו נתנו ליכתב, אבל אין בהן מצות קריאה כמו בתורה וק״ל. In other words, according to Rashi as explained by the Maharsha, there is a distinction between Chumash, which must be read appropriately, and Nevi'im and Ketuvim which do not require this level of care. However, the Beit Yosef (Orach Chaim 61) cites the Radak who argues with Rashi and maintains that one must read carefully throughout Tanakh: והרב ר׳ דוד קמחי כתב שבכל עת שיקרא אדם בתורה נביאים וכתובים צריך לזהר, אבל הזהירו בק״ש וה״ה לכל קריאה וכו׳. See this discussion by R. Yehuda Heshel Levenberg, citing R. Meir Soloveitchik.

See also Rabbenu Gershom Temurah 14b: דברים שבכתב: תורה נביאים וכתובים, vs. Tosafos ibid. s.v. דברים שבכתב. For additional sources, see עינים למשפט ברכות דף ה עמוד א; גברות יצחק, הלכות תלמוד תורה א:ז. I have not seen any sources that distinguish between Nevi'im and Ketuvim regarding this issue.

4 added 147 characters in body
source | link

The Gemara in Kiddushin (30a) says that a father is obligated to teach his son "mikra, not mishnah." Rava there says "mikra" means "Torah." Rashi explains that this means Chumash, and not Nevi'im or Ketuvim. However, the Rambam codifies this halachah as an obligation to teach one's son "Torah shebichtav kulah," which the Bach, Taz, Shach and Gra understand to mean as all of Tanach (Yoreh De'ah 245). Based on this, the Revid ha-Zahav (a member of the beis din of Vilna at the time of the Gra) argued that whether Nevi'im and Ketuvim are part of Torah shebichtav or Torah shebe'al peh is a dispute between Rashi and the Rambam (see Revid ha-Zahav, hakdamah, no. 1, and Parashat Va'etchanan). (However, see R. Yaakov Kaminetzky's Mevo le-Limud ha-Mikra in Emet le-Yaakov al ha-Torah in which he explains the Rambam's position differently.)

This may also relate to a dispute between the Rambam and the Ra'avad at the end of Hilchot Megillah (2:18). The Rambam, basing himself on the Yerushalmi, says that of all of the books of Tanach, the only ones that will remain at the end of days are the five books of the Torah and Megillat Esther. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam's understanding, and says that all the books of Tanach will remain, but will not be read in public. The Acharonim explain that according to the Rambam, the other books of Tanach may be considered to be essentially "Torah shebe'al peh" inasmuch as their message is only based on the needs of the time (see Nedarim 22b: אמר רב אדא ברבי חנינא: אלמלא לא חטאו ישראל, לא ניתן להם אלא חמישה חומשי תורה וספר יהושע בלבד; Ta'anit 9a: יתיב רבי יוחנן וקא מתמה אמר מי איכא מידי דכתיבי בכתובי דלא רמיזי באורייתא; Rashi, Chullin 137a: תורת משה קרויה תורה לפי שנתנה תורה לדורות ושל נביאים לא קרי אלא קבלה שקבלו מרוח הקדש כל נבואה ונבואה לפי צורך השעה והדור והמעשה). The Ra'avad, on the other hand, may hold that all the books of Tanach are part of Torah shebichtav.

See also Rabbenu Gershom Temurah 14b: דברים שבכתב: תורה נביאים וכתובים, vs. Tosafos ibid. s.v. דברים שבכתב. For additional sources, see עינים למשפט ברכות דף ה עמוד א; גברות יצחק, הלכות תלמוד תורה א:זעינים למשפט ברכות דף ה עמוד א; גברות יצחק, הלכות תלמוד תורה א:ז. I have not seen any sources that distinguish between Nevi'im and Ketuvim regarding this issue.

The Gemara in Kiddushin (30a) says that a father is obligated to teach his son "mikra, not mishnah." Rava there says "mikra" means "Torah." Rashi explains that this means Chumash, and not Nevi'im or Ketuvim. However, the Rambam codifies this halachah as an obligation to teach one's son "Torah shebichtav kulah," which the Bach, Taz, Shach and Gra understand to mean as all of Tanach (Yoreh De'ah 245). Based on this, the Revid ha-Zahav (a member of the beis din of Vilna at the time of the Gra) argued that whether Nevi'im and Ketuvim are part of Torah shebichtav or Torah shebe'al peh is a dispute between Rashi and the Rambam (see Revid ha-Zahav, hakdamah, no. 1, and Parashat Va'etchanan). (However, see R. Yaakov Kaminetzky's Mevo le-Limud ha-Mikra in Emet le-Yaakov al ha-Torah in which he explains the Rambam's position differently.)

This may also relate to a dispute between the Rambam and the Ra'avad at the end of Hilchot Megillah (2:18). The Rambam, basing himself on the Yerushalmi, says that of all of the books of Tanach, the only ones that will remain at the end of days are the five books of the Torah and Megillat Esther. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam's understanding, and says that all the books of Tanach will remain, but will not be read in public. The Acharonim explain that according to the Rambam, the other books of Tanach may be considered to be essentially "Torah shebe'al peh" inasmuch as their message is only based on the needs of the time (see Nedarim 22b: אמר רב אדא ברבי חנינא: אלמלא לא חטאו ישראל, לא ניתן להם אלא חמישה חומשי תורה וספר יהושע בלבד; Ta'anit 9a: יתיב רבי יוחנן וקא מתמה אמר מי איכא מידי דכתיבי בכתובי דלא רמיזי באורייתא; Rashi, Chullin 137a: תורת משה קרויה תורה לפי שנתנה תורה לדורות ושל נביאים לא קרי אלא קבלה שקבלו מרוח הקדש כל נבואה ונבואה לפי צורך השעה והדור והמעשה). The Ra'avad, on the other hand, may hold that all the books of Tanach are part of Torah shebichtav.

See also Rabbenu Gershom Temurah 14b: דברים שבכתב: תורה נביאים וכתובים, vs. Tosafos ibid. s.v. דברים שבכתב. For additional sources, see עינים למשפט ברכות דף ה עמוד א; גברות יצחק, הלכות תלמוד תורה א:ז. I have not seen any sources that distinguish between Nevi'im and Ketuvim regarding this issue.

The Gemara in Kiddushin (30a) says that a father is obligated to teach his son "mikra, not mishnah." Rava there says "mikra" means "Torah." Rashi explains that this means Chumash, and not Nevi'im or Ketuvim. However, the Rambam codifies this halachah as an obligation to teach one's son "Torah shebichtav kulah," which the Bach, Taz, Shach and Gra understand to mean as all of Tanach (Yoreh De'ah 245). Based on this, the Revid ha-Zahav (a member of the beis din of Vilna at the time of the Gra) argued that whether Nevi'im and Ketuvim are part of Torah shebichtav or Torah shebe'al peh is a dispute between Rashi and the Rambam (see Revid ha-Zahav, hakdamah, no. 1, and Parashat Va'etchanan). (However, see R. Yaakov Kaminetzky's Mevo le-Limud ha-Mikra in Emet le-Yaakov al ha-Torah in which he explains the Rambam's position differently.)

This may also relate to a dispute between the Rambam and the Ra'avad at the end of Hilchot Megillah (2:18). The Rambam, basing himself on the Yerushalmi, says that of all of the books of Tanach, the only ones that will remain at the end of days are the five books of the Torah and Megillat Esther. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam's understanding, and says that all the books of Tanach will remain, but will not be read in public. The Acharonim explain that according to the Rambam, the other books of Tanach may be considered to be essentially "Torah shebe'al peh" inasmuch as their message is only based on the needs of the time (see Nedarim 22b: אמר רב אדא ברבי חנינא: אלמלא לא חטאו ישראל, לא ניתן להם אלא חמישה חומשי תורה וספר יהושע בלבד; Ta'anit 9a: יתיב רבי יוחנן וקא מתמה אמר מי איכא מידי דכתיבי בכתובי דלא רמיזי באורייתא; Rashi, Chullin 137a: תורת משה קרויה תורה לפי שנתנה תורה לדורות ושל נביאים לא קרי אלא קבלה שקבלו מרוח הקדש כל נבואה ונבואה לפי צורך השעה והדור והמעשה). The Ra'avad, on the other hand, may hold that all the books of Tanach are part of Torah shebichtav.

See also Rabbenu Gershom Temurah 14b: דברים שבכתב: תורה נביאים וכתובים, vs. Tosafos ibid. s.v. דברים שבכתב. For additional sources, see עינים למשפט ברכות דף ה עמוד א; גברות יצחק, הלכות תלמוד תורה א:ז. I have not seen any sources that distinguish between Nevi'im and Ketuvim regarding this issue.

3 added 244 characters in body
source | link

The Gemara in Kiddushin (30a) says that a father is obligated to teach his son "mikra, not mishnah." Rava there says "mikra" means "Torah." Rashi explains that this means Chumash, and not Nevi'im or Ketuvim. However, the Rambam codifies this halachah as an obligation to teach one's son "Torah shebichtav kulah," which the Bach, Taz, Shach and Gra understand to mean as all of Tanach (Yoreh De'ah 245). Based on this, the Revid ha-Zahav (a member of the beis din of Vilna at the time of the Gra) argued that whether Nevi'im and Ketuvim are part of Torah shebichtav or Torah shebe'al peh is a dispute between Rashi and the Rambam (Revidsee Revid ha-Zahav, hakdamahhakdamah, no. 1, no. 1and Parashat Va'etchanan). (However, see R. Yaakov Kaminetzky's introduction to Emet le-Yaakov al ha-TorahMevo le-Limud ha-Mikra in Emet le-Yaakov al ha-Torah in which he explains the Rambam's position differently.)

This may also relate to a dispute between the Rambam and the Ra'avad at the end of Hilchot Megillah (2:18). The Rambam, basing himself on the Yerushalmi, says that of all of the books of Tanach, the only ones that will remain at the end of days are the five books of the Torah and Megillat Esther. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam's understanding, and says that all the books of Tanach will remain, but will not be read in public. The Acharonim explain that according to the Rambam, the other books of Tanach may be considered to be essentially "Torah shebe'al peh" inasmuch as their message is only based on the needs of the time (see Nedarim 22b: אמר רב אדא ברבי חנינא: אלמלא לא חטאו ישראל, לא ניתן להם אלא חמישה חומשי תורה וספר יהושע בלבד; Ta'anit 9a: יתיב רבי יוחנן וקא מתמה אמר מי איכא מידי דכתיבי בכתובי דלא רמיזי באורייתא; Rashi, Chullin 137a: תורת משה קרויה תורה לפי שנתנה תורה לדורות ושל נביאים לא קרי אלא קבלה שקבלו מרוח הקדש כל נבואה ונבואה לפי צורך השעה והדור והמעשה). The Ra'avad, on the other hand, may hold that all the books of Tanach are part of Torah shebichtav.

See also Rabbenu Gershom Temurah 14b: דברים שבכתב: תורה נביאים וכתובים, vs. Tosafos ibid. s.v. דברים שבכתב. For additional sources, see עינים למשפט ברכות דף ה עמוד א; גברות יצחק, הלכות תלמוד תורה א:ז. I have not seen any sources that distinguish between Nevi'im and Ketuvim regarding this issue.

The Gemara in Kiddushin (30a) says that a father is obligated to teach his son "mikra, not mishnah." Rava there says "mikra" means "Torah." Rashi explains that this means Chumash, and not Nevi'im or Ketuvim. However, the Rambam codifies this halachah as an obligation to teach one's son "Torah shebichtav kulah," which the Bach, Taz, Shach and Gra understand to mean as all of Tanach (Yoreh De'ah 245). Based on this, the Revid ha-Zahav (a member of the beis din of Vilna at the time of the Gra) argued that whether Nevi'im and Ketuvim are part of Torah shebichtav or Torah shebe'al peh is a dispute between Rashi and the Rambam (Revid ha-Zahav, hakdamah, no. 1). (However, see R. Yaakov Kaminetzky's introduction to Emet le-Yaakov al ha-Torah in which he explains the Rambam's position differently.)

This may also relate to a dispute between the Rambam and the Ra'avad at the end of Hilchot Megillah (2:18). The Rambam, basing himself on the Yerushalmi, says that of all of the books of Tanach, the only ones that will remain at the end of days are the five books of the Torah and Megillat Esther. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam's understanding, and says that all the books of Tanach will remain, but will not be read in public. The Acharonim explain that according to the Rambam, the other books of Tanach may be considered to be essentially "Torah shebe'al peh" inasmuch as their message is only based on the needs of the time (see Nedarim 22b: אמר רב אדא ברבי חנינא: אלמלא לא חטאו ישראל, לא ניתן להם אלא חמישה חומשי תורה וספר יהושע בלבד; Ta'anit 9a: יתיב רבי יוחנן וקא מתמה אמר מי איכא מידי דכתיבי בכתובי דלא רמיזי באורייתא; Rashi, Chullin 137a: תורת משה קרויה תורה לפי שנתנה תורה לדורות ושל נביאים לא קרי אלא קבלה שקבלו מרוח הקדש כל נבואה ונבואה לפי צורך השעה והדור והמעשה). The Ra'avad, on the other hand, may hold that all the books of Tanach are part of Torah shebichtav.

See also Rabbenu Gershom Temurah 14b: דברים שבכתב: תורה נביאים וכתובים, vs. Tosafos ibid. s.v. דברים שבכתב. For additional sources, see עינים למשפט ברכות דף ה עמוד א; גברות יצחק, הלכות תלמוד תורה א:ז. I have not seen any sources that distinguish between Nevi'im and Ketuvim regarding this issue.

The Gemara in Kiddushin (30a) says that a father is obligated to teach his son "mikra, not mishnah." Rava there says "mikra" means "Torah." Rashi explains that this means Chumash, and not Nevi'im or Ketuvim. However, the Rambam codifies this halachah as an obligation to teach one's son "Torah shebichtav kulah," which the Bach, Taz, Shach and Gra understand to mean as all of Tanach (Yoreh De'ah 245). Based on this, the Revid ha-Zahav (a member of the beis din of Vilna at the time of the Gra) argued that whether Nevi'im and Ketuvim are part of Torah shebichtav or Torah shebe'al peh is a dispute between Rashi and the Rambam (see Revid ha-Zahav, hakdamah, no. 1, and Parashat Va'etchanan). (However, see R. Yaakov Kaminetzky's Mevo le-Limud ha-Mikra in Emet le-Yaakov al ha-Torah in which he explains the Rambam's position differently.)

This may also relate to a dispute between the Rambam and the Ra'avad at the end of Hilchot Megillah (2:18). The Rambam, basing himself on the Yerushalmi, says that of all of the books of Tanach, the only ones that will remain at the end of days are the five books of the Torah and Megillat Esther. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam's understanding, and says that all the books of Tanach will remain, but will not be read in public. The Acharonim explain that according to the Rambam, the other books of Tanach may be considered to be essentially "Torah shebe'al peh" inasmuch as their message is only based on the needs of the time (see Nedarim 22b: אמר רב אדא ברבי חנינא: אלמלא לא חטאו ישראל, לא ניתן להם אלא חמישה חומשי תורה וספר יהושע בלבד; Ta'anit 9a: יתיב רבי יוחנן וקא מתמה אמר מי איכא מידי דכתיבי בכתובי דלא רמיזי באורייתא; Rashi, Chullin 137a: תורת משה קרויה תורה לפי שנתנה תורה לדורות ושל נביאים לא קרי אלא קבלה שקבלו מרוח הקדש כל נבואה ונבואה לפי צורך השעה והדור והמעשה). The Ra'avad, on the other hand, may hold that all the books of Tanach are part of Torah shebichtav.

See also Rabbenu Gershom Temurah 14b: דברים שבכתב: תורה נביאים וכתובים, vs. Tosafos ibid. s.v. דברים שבכתב. For additional sources, see עינים למשפט ברכות דף ה עמוד א; גברות יצחק, הלכות תלמוד תורה א:ז. I have not seen any sources that distinguish between Nevi'im and Ketuvim regarding this issue.

2 added 188 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link