Q&A: The Rabbi’s Schedule
The Rabbi’s Schedule
Question
Hi, I’d be glad if you could say what your schedule is like in terms of how you divide your time between general studies and Torah study during the day, in general. (I understand the question is a bit “cheeky” and intrusive, but I believe many readers would be happy to know.)
I heard you say that you do not take a position on the question of whether there is such a concept as reward and punishment (regarding reward in the world to come). What is the reasoning that leads you not to believe in it, or to cast doubt on it? On the face of it, there is such a reward, since that is what we have received from tradition (at least the rabbinic tradition). Why assume otherwise? (The fact that something is in the tradition certainly does not mean it is definitely true, but by the same token, if you believe that Moses our teacher existed, then why not believe this as well?)
Answer
I don’t have a schedule, because for me there is no sharp distinction between the two areas (Torah in the person). I engage in both in an intermingled way. Check the columns here and tell me what, in your view, is Torah and what is secular. In many cases you won’t be able to decide.
This is a tradition, but I do not know what its source is. Is it the result of reasoning, of interpretation of the verses, or from Sinai? There is a lot of logic in saying that this is not a tradition from Sinai, since it seems to have arisen fairly late. Beyond that, it is a natural and almost inevitable belief for believers. It exists in all religions. Therefore I have no way to form a position about it. Not everything that comes down to us through tradition is true. In the introduction to Ha‘amek, the Netziv distinguishes between “it was learned through tradition” (according to Maimonides’ approach, and unlike Rashi) and a law given to Moses at Sinai. A law given to Moses at Sinai is a Jewish law whose source is Sinai. “It was learned through tradition” is a Jewish law that was created at some point in the past and whose source we do not know. That is with regard to laws. But with regard to beliefs, if they were created from someone’s reasoning, I do not see why I should accept that.
Discussion on Answer
I answered that.
So I didn’t understand the answer.
Why do you claim that in your columns it is impossible to distinguish between a Torah column and a current-events / philosophical column? I’d be glad if you could explain again.
Because what you mistakenly call ‘secular,’ in my approach I call ‘Torah in the person’ (as opposed to ‘Torah in the object’).
Precisely according to your approach, a great many things that others define as Torah (faith / belief) you define as secular, so regarding the area of faith / belief, which is mixed together, you define it as secular.
What I meant was, say, how much time do you devote to Talmud / Jewish law, and how much time to philosophy, etc.? (In your columns here it is definitely possible to divide them into philosophical / current-events / literary-criticism columns, as opposed to halakhic / Talmudic discussions; the division seems pretty clear.)