[Avodah] neviim v. moshe; any difference in their writings??

[harveybenton at yahoo.com]

reference to discussion of Abarbanel Comments as brought down by Arie Folger. 
http://www.aishdas.org/midrash/5765/Balak.htm

Moshe wrote his book and the portion of Balaam. He also wrote the book
of Job ( Bava Basra 14b-15a) [1].
Moshe wrote the Pentateuch and went back ans wrote the book of
Balaam (Yerushalmi Sota (5,6).

hb: the article by Meir Levin brings down the Ritva, Torah Sheleima,
Shela, etc.,

>>. Ritva ad. loc. suggests that there was in existence a Book of
Balaam of which Chazal were aware but which was not included in the
canon and did not survive. This is in itself not surprising for Tanach
itself mentions dozens of works that we no longer possess, i.e. Book of
Yashar, Chronicles of the Kings of Judah etc [2]. Presumably, the lost
Book of Balaam documented the story or the prophecies of Balaam in
greater detail than the Chumash.

This answer also apparently assumes that canonization was not automatic;
just because Moshe wrote a book does not mean that it is a part of
Scripture or must be preserved.

This answer is also offered by Drashos Ibn Shab, p. 47 and cited by the
Shelah (p. 66) in the name of R.Menachem Tsioni. This answer is supported
by a textual variant quoted in Dikdukei Sofrim that reads "Book of
Balaam" instead of "portion of Balaam".

hb: see below re: possible Anshei Knesset Hagedolah (no specific reference is given for the sefer mentioned; if anyone has this
sefer and/or Meir Levin's (author of the article) e-mail, please
contact me).

>>>The other suggestion was made by a recent author in a work printed in
the town of Satmar . He suggested that Moshe wrote an account of the
events in the portion of Bilaam in a separate work. Later, the Men of
the Great Assembly inserted it into the Torah. R. Kasher rejects this
on ideological grounds for it contradicts the Rambam's 13 principle of
faith.

[Email #2. -mi]

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
Arie Folger wrote:
> Thus, according to Abarbanel, we could say that one major difference
> between the Pentateuch and Nakh is that the former was not based on
> earlier sources, but on a direct and complete prophecy from HQBH to
> Moshe, while the latter is the product of a prophecy to include a
> selection of preexisting stories coming from several disparate sources
> (at least twO. the annals of Israel and those of Judah).
 
hb: our chumash contains pre-Moshe stories and accounts of various
things. We also know that the "torah" was studied prior to Har Sinai
(like in the yeshiva of sheim v'eiver). Any chance that "stories" or
ancient scrolls were included in Bereishis that were handed down form
Adam Harishon onwards as part of the "Torah tradition"?

Reb Eidensohn wrote:
There are medrashim that Moshe had sefer Bereishis prior to Sinai,
there is also reference to sefer Milchemes HaShem Ramban (Bamidbar
21:13-14): The simple meaning of the expression in the book of the wars
of the Eternal (Bamidbar 21:14) is that there were wise men in those
generations who used to write down the history of great wars, for such
was the custom in all generations. These authors were called moshlim
(they speak in parables v27;29) because they wrote in them their books
by means of provers and figures of speech, and when there were victories
which they considered wonderful, they ascribed those wars to G-d, to Whom
they are in truth to be attributed. Now the victory of Sihon over Moab
was marvellous in their eyes (Psalms 118:21) therefore they wrote it
down in a book speaking of it in figurative langues...and writing abut
it in a proverb...Thus when Sihon captured the cities of Moab those
who wrote in parables recorded in the book which thy are called the
"wars of the Eternal" Eth Vahev b'suphah...Thus Scripture is bringing
a proof from the book of "the Wars of the Eternal" that Arnon is on the
border of moab and was forbidden to Israel to capture (Devarim 2:9) wheas
the brooks and all the slopes as far as Arnon they were allowed to take
for Sihon had captured from the king of Moab all his land until Arnon,
but not Arnn itself....

hb: does that mean that Moshe Rabeinu A" Hashalom, included an ancient
scroll or various texts into the Chumash as we now have it?? If so 1:
why do we teach our children (and read in the Rambam) that all of the
Torah was received by Moshe Rabeinu at Har Sinai? 2. If Moshe included the
Scroll (or Scrolls/teachings, etc., ) was it re-written for inclusion in
the Chumash al pi Dvar Hashem, to be included exactly as Hashem wanted
it to be?? 3. Were any of these writings written with Ruach Hakodesh
and/or Nevuah? 4. If not, do we/should we accord them the same chashivus
as the parts of the Torah explicitly written by Moshe Rabeinu (al pi Dvar
Hashem)???? 5. Would there be any halachic importance to reading/writing
parts of the Torah that may not have come from Moshe Rabeinu?? E.G. not
having to re-read those parts if missed during keriah, etc???