Narratology of the Bavli as Book

Over the course of the past half century, beginning with the groundbreaking work of Yonah Fraenkel, scholars of Judaism have focused more and more attention on the sophisticated theoretical analysis of rabbinic narratives. Rabbinic narratives are short and therefore lend themselves at first to the type of structural analysis performed by Fraenkel. Over the past half century, the discipline has evolved in bringing the type of situated readings of rabbinic texts that the sub-disciplines within literary theory offer. While narratological analysis of rabbinic stories has not received much attention from literary critical scholars working the field of rabbinics, its tools are useful in asking questions about the nature of rabbinic narrative qua narrative. One question that narratology can help us answer relates to what, in rabbinic texts, should be considered a story. This is a minimal question. Is a legal back and for the between Rava and Abaii a story? Is “Rava said” alone a story? How does the framing of such a discussion alter our notion of what is a story in the Talmud. What is a more difficult question, and therefore far more interesting, is how are the tools of narratology maximally limiting when it comes to the Talmud. Is it the tools of narratology itself that prevents us from the seeing the Talmud in its entirety as a single complex narrative or it is something else that has prevented scholars from exploring this text as such? How can the tools of narratology be useful in examining the Talmud as a single narrative?