Free Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash by Daniel Boyarin Page A

revealed in their paradigmatic midrash, which collects verses into sets of similarities and differences, structured like the lexicon of a language. The tension between the parole like nature of the verse as an element in an existing discourse and the langue like nature of its possibility of being selected and combined into new discourse provides much of the fascination and power of midrash. It is in this semiotic duality that the ability of midrash to both breach and continue the Torah can be theorized.

    The full meaning of a sign (never realizable, of course) is the exposure of all of the paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations into which it enters and into which it can enter. Accordingly, the reciting of the sentences of the Bible in ever new paradigms and syntagms is interpretation. There is, therefore, no ultimate difference between these two texts of R. Yehuda's, a point which is made explicit by the use of the same opening formula in both of them . This enables us to perceive a generalization about midrash which has not been remarked before, namely, that the fundamental moment of all of these midrashic forms is precisely the very cocitation of several verses. 24 Both employ set structures to
    frame the readingtogether of verses. Both understand the verses through their interaction within the frame, and both are completely new readings and yet also already existent in the Torah.

    I have compared the paradigmatic midrash to a lexicon and the syntagmatic to a narrative. At first glance, the comparability of these two kinds of structure may seem very questionable. However, semiotic studies of literature have in fact revealed the commensurability of paradigm and syntagm in the making of meaning. One of the most important theoreticians of this commensurability is Michael Riffaterre. Riffaterre has shown that a narrative repeats, varies, and expands the elements of a paradigm. 25 Narrative is accordingly paradigmatic. It is related to the lexicon, in our case not a lexicon of words, but a lexicon of paradigmatic value statements. The value of narrative over a mere paradigm of values and judgments is in the rhetorical and psychological power over the reader that it retains through its development and varied repetitions. In Riffaterre's words, "narrative is interesting before it is exemplary. There is no narrative without change; no fiction without exemplary change.'' 26 It is not surprising, therefore, to find in midrash a mode of interpretation of narrative which sometimes sets up the paradigm itself qua paradigm, and at other times expands on the paradigmatic nature of the repetition and expansion by inscribing them in a paradigmatic story (the mashal or "parable" which will be discussed in chapters 5 and 6 below).

    We can see the way these two categories interact by reading a text from the Mekilta, discussed by W. S. Towner in his book on the "enumeration of scriptural examples." 27 The type of text that Towner studied there is midrash which has the form "There are n who/which did so and so," or ''There are n cases of such and such." A classic example of this form of midrash from our corpus follows:

    And lift thou up thy rod , etc. [Exod. 14:16]. Ten miracles were performed for Israel at the sea. The sea was broken through and made like a vault, as it is said: "Thou didst pierce with his shafts," etc. [Hab. 3:14]. It was divided into two parts, as it is said: "Stretch out thy hand over the sea and divide it." Dry land was formed in it, as it is said: "But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea" [Exod. 14:29]. It became a sort of day, as it is said: "Thou hast trodden the sea with Thy horses, the day of mighty waters'' [Hab. 3:15]. It crumbled into pieces, as it is said: "Thou didst break the sea in pieces by Thy strength" [Ps. 74:13]. It turned into rocks, as it is said: "Thou didst shatter the heads of the seamonsters upon the water" [Ps. 74:18]. It was cut into several parts, as it is said: