In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

• Reason and Revelation
• Zev Garber

I. Teaching Torah in the Academy

Successful teaching, I believe, is a learning exchange. Learning involves not only the information given but also the recipient’s critical application of what that knowledge means to oneself as an individual and as a member of a community (faith-bound, or not). As a classroom teacher, my major concern is that I am less of a knowledge-dispenser and more of a knowledge-facilitator, who leads my students to make discoveries and articulate values and conclusions. From my teaching experience, I find that students learn better and appreciate more their understanding of the subject matter if they are actively involved in learning rather than being passively taught.

Flexibility, innovation, implementation, enthusiasm, and relevancy are characteristic of a good teaching methodology. The college classroom should not serve as a podium for intellectual exhibitionism or be a forum for undisciplined free-for-all ranting. Some information and delight may result from such activities, but they are achieved at the expense of compromising student learning and scholarship. Instruction in the classroom ought to be student-oriented so that students are involved in comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation rather than becoming amen-sayers to authoritative professorial ranting.

My pedagogic philosophy in teaching the Hebrew Bible is infused with a binary midrashic model: midrash `atsmi (self exegesis and eisegesis) and midrash tsiburi (explorations of others). In teaching the Hebrew Bible, for example, I encourage my students to engage the text as is (peshat), and, in return, the scripture begs darshani (derash, “expound me”); by sharing research and by learning from class discussion, seeds of midrashic activity are planted. Furthermore, the student gains self-respect from such an exposure, [End Page 121] his or her germane ideas are able to sprout, dialogistical learning commences, and a relaxed teacher-student symbiosis is created. Also, I grow in stature as an educator. By playing the role of a class catalyst, I have opportunities to present my own contribution and to refine it in light of class feedback to a greater degree than by a purely lecture method. My goal is to integrate teaching and learning, rooted in the way of Midrash, and the reward is in the participatory doing.

I respect torah mi-sinai. The doctrine of the eternity of the Torah is implicit in verses that speak of individual teachings of Torah in phrases such as the following: “A perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your (lands of) dwellings” (Lev. 3:17), and “throughout the ages as a covenant for all time” (Ex. 3:16). Biblical (Proverbs, in which Torah equals wisdom), Apocryphal (the wisdom of Ben Sira), and Aggadic (Genesis Rabbah) traditions speak of the preexistence of Torah in Heaven. Though the Talmud acknowledges the pre-revelatory Heavenly Torah, which the Sages claimed was revealed to Moses at Sinai, it concentrates more on the Torah’s eternal humanistic values. Indeed, the rabbinic mind speaks of two strains: revelation (“everything which a scholar will ask in the future is already known to Moses at Sinai”; see BT Menach. 29b), and the power of intellectual reasoning, as suggested in BT Pes. 21b, Ketub. 22a, B.K. 46b, Chul. 114b, Nid. 25a, B.M. 59b, and so forth. By twinning the two dialectics, it appears, the Sages taught more Torah than was received at Sinai.

So do I, with a twist. I combine modern biblical scholarship and classical Jewish learning to make sense of the Tanakh in the life of the people then and now. I conflate profane and sacred ways to return to Sinai and back, using source criticism to unravel complexities in transmission (composition, dating, events) and perplexities in thought (Israelite religion, biblical theology) but wholly concerned with faith questions—such as what does the wholistic Torah teach?

In sum, my teaching Tanakh at a public community college, critically speaking, accepts the existential position that God’s teaching was shared at Sinai/Horeb, face into face (Dt. 5:4), with all of Israel, present and future. “Present” implies that God’s primary revelation occurred and that the Torah is the memory of this unique theophany; “future” hints that Israel’s dialogue with...

中文翻译：

---

理由与启示

以下是内容的简短摘录，以代替摘要：

• 理由与启示
• 泽夫·加伯

I. 在学院教授托拉

我相信，成功的教学是一种学习交流。学习不仅涉及所提供的信息，还涉及接受者批判性地应用这些知识对个人和社区成员（无论是否有信仰）的意义。作为一名课堂教师，我主要担心的是，我不再是知识的传播者，而是知识的促进者，引导我的学生做出发现并阐明价值观和结论。根据我的教学经验，我发现如果学生主动参与学习而不是被动接受教学，他们会学得更好，并更欣赏他们对主题的理解。

灵活性、创新性、实施性、热情和相关性是良好教学方法的特征。大学课堂不应该成为知识分子暴露狂的讲台，也不应该成为无纪律的胡言乱语的论坛。这些活动可能会带来一些信息和快乐，但它们的实现是以牺牲学生的学习和奖学金为代价的。课堂教学应该以学生为中心，让学生参与理解、应用、分析、综合和评价，而不是成为权威教授的咆哮者。

我在希伯来语圣经教学中的教学理念融入了二元米德拉什模式：米德拉什`atsmi（自我解释和自我解释）和米德拉什tsiburi（对他人的探索）。例如，在教授希伯来圣经时，我鼓励我的学生按原样（peshat）来学习文本，作为回报，经文要求darshani（derash，“解释我”）；通过分享研究成果和从课堂讨论中学习，米德拉什活动的种子就被种下了。此外，学生在这样的接触中获得了自尊，[完第121页]他或她的相关思想得以萌芽，对话式学习开始，并建立了轻松的师生共生关系。此外，我作为一名教育者的地位也不断提高。通过扮演课堂催化剂的角色，我有机会展示自己的贡献，并根据课堂反馈比纯粹的讲座方法更大程度地完善它。我的目标是将教与学结合起来，植根于米德拉什的方式，而回报在于参与性的行动。

我尊重米西奈律法。《妥拉》永恒的教义隐含在谈到《妥拉》个别教义的经文中，例如：“在你们一切（土地）的住处，世世代代永远的定例”（利 3:17），并且“世世代代，作永远的约”（出埃及记 3:16）。圣经（箴言，其中托拉等于智慧）、次经（本·西拉的智慧）和阿加迪（创世记拉巴）传统都谈到了托拉在天堂中的预先存在。尽管《塔木德》承认天启之前的《托拉》（圣贤们声称它是在西奈山向摩西启示的），但它更关注《托拉》永恒的人文价值观。事实上，拉比的思想有两种倾向：启示（“学者将来会问的一切问题，西奈山的摩西都已经知道了”；见 BT Menach. 29b），以及智力推理的力量，如 BT Pes 中所建议的。 。 21b，凯图布。 22a，BK 46b，楚尔。 114b，尼德。 25a、BM 59b 等等。通过将这两种辩证法结合起来，圣贤们所传授的《托拉》似乎比西奈山所接受的还要多。

我也是，但有一点不同。我将现代圣经学术和古典犹太学结合起来，以理解当时和现在人们生活中的塔纳赫。我将往返西奈半岛的世俗和神圣方式混为一谈，利用来源批评来阐明传播中的复杂性（写作、约会、事件）和思想中的困惑（以色列宗教、圣经神学），但完全关心信仰问题——比如什么是完整的托拉教导？

总而言之，我在一所公立社区大学教授塔纳赫，批判性地说，接受了这样一种存在主义立场：上帝的教导在西奈山/何烈山与整个以色列，无论是现在还是未来，面对面地分享（申命记 5:4）。 “现在”意味着上帝的主要启示已经发生，而托拉是这个独特神显的记忆； “未来”暗示以色列与……的对话