Reward and punishment

How do you explain the phrase “He who feeds you from etc., so that you may try to benefit yourself in the hereafter”? Is it the benefit in the hereafter if not a reward at any time?

It can be in this world (so is the language), especially in an era in which there was still divine involvement. The gates of interpretation were not closed.

Ezra 3:11-13. And the Lord said, "Is it not written, 'What I command you today to do,' and so on?

I could present a thousand more sermons like this. The distance from here to the actual source is very long.

Doesn't the Rabbi treat the Sages as an authoritative source? Does the Rabbi expect a source from the Bible only? I thought the Rabbi did accept their halachic authority. Or does the Rabbi hold that in such a sermon there is a deviation from their authority?

I explained that there is no authority in the realm of facts, only in halakhah. The question of whether or not there is a wage and salary is factual. There is no authority for the Sages in this.

Is this a sermon? Even without accepting the authority of Chazal, there is a verse here that is more precise than it directly and without “simplifying” the matter. Does the rabbi see a more correct reading and accuracy of the verse than how the rabbi understood it? “Which I command today to do.” The rabbi agrees that the Torah does not make words redundant? Then our starting point is necessarily the reward that is the consequence and appendix of the command.

How many other interpretations/sermons do you want? This is a legendary reference in the Bible, and you have turned it into a simple, uncomplicated version of the Scripture. It is truly amusing.
Do them today – and do not postpone the action until later.
Do them today – from the day before and not at night.
And so on.

It is possible that the Torah's promises of reward and physical punishment were directed at the generations before the stage of hiding one's face (and I, the One who hides, will hide my face in that day). A bit like a father promising his child a reward when he is a child if he listens to him. It is clear that when the child becomes an adult, the promise of reward expires because the child is expected to do as his father says even without reward, out of gratitude and recognition of the importance of the matter. The reward serves only as a temporary educational means until the child comes to his own senses.

Yes, I wrote above.

The Rabbi brought examples of halakhic sermons. And since there are no such sermons in the world of halakhah from the aforementioned verse (right?), then they are not optional, right? (However, the Rabbi issues sermons on halakhah directly from the verses) So how is the verse called "not a rabbinical"? And I was happy to read the Rabbi's words, "This is truly amusing," as it is written, "If your Torah were not my amusement, then I would have been lost in my misery." And I wish I could make my students realize this more than anyone else toward the Rabbi.

Pishita is that reward and punishment are literal. That is, in this world. And whoever does not accept this is an infidel in the Torah of Moses.

Nf
I really don't follow you. A. The first sermon I brought is not halakhic. B. Even if it is – what's the problem? Anyone can preach. C. Even if not everyone can preach, the sages could. D. Even if there is no sermon at all – Why do we need sermons? We are talking about the simplification of the verse. And are there verses/words missing that we don't have a sermon on?
In short, it lacks basis as a source.

What does the Rabbi think about the other prophecies that explicitly allude to this. Like in Daniel? Or in the Psalms?

I have no position. Everything is open to interpretation and it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusion from the Bible.

We need a sermon or a paschat in this verse, I don't know what to call it, due to the omission of a word. Are there verses that were left without a sermon even when they were required to be preached? I don't think so. And even the most important one is that because there are places in the Shas that remain in the Tz'a, we will now leave all the issues of the Shas in the Tz'a, as well as in matters of science, etc. Here, and because there are places where we did not bring a paschat to the verse out of lack of choice, then where there is a choice, we choose not to explain paschat? Rival brought a legitimate paschat that stems from the basic need to understand the reading of the verse that is made difficult without a sermon. There is no need to make it difficult here, and there is no need to make it difficult here, as Eliab would have it. There is a necessary question here and a necessary answer in simplicity.

Hi, I'm back. This time we will follow the order of the letters that the Rabbi arranged for the reason for which the Rabbi arranged according to the letters.
A. Indeed, in my opinion this is a halakhic sermon since it concerns the manner of fulfilling the mitzvot. Although it is required quite generally.
B. In my opinion, not everyone can preach. And if you don't mind Damastafina, you can say that even his opinion is the same as mine.
C. The sages could, but did not do so in this case.
D. Oh, it may be that there is no need for sermons (despite the prevailing concept of the Pharisees) so let's call the Rabbi's interpretation the interpretation of the verse and not a sermon. And here the dawn has dawned for the source of the reward of the world to come
Good writing and signature!

Read my words again. There is no source for this, except for the Midrash Agada Chazli. If they accepted it in tradition - of course I will accept. But if the law has an answer.
Good writing and signing to you and to all of us.