Shira Billet is assistant professor of Jewish thought and ethics at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. She received her PhD in 2019 from the Department of Religion at Princeton University. Her dissertation was entitled "The Philosopher as Witness: Hermann Cohen's Philosophers and the Trials of Wissenschaft des Judentums." Before joining the faculty at JTS in 2022, Shira was a postdoctoral associate in Judaic Studies and Philosophy at Yale University from 2019 to 2022. Address: Jewish Theological Seminary of America 3080 Broadway New York, NY 10027
Spinoza in Germany: Political and Religious Thought Across the Long Nineteenth Century. Edited by Jason M. Yonover and Kristin Gjesdal, Oxford University Press, 2024
In “‘Do not grieve excessively’: Rabbis Mourning Children Between Law and Narrative in Rabbinic L... more In “‘Do not grieve excessively’: Rabbis Mourning Children Between Law and Narrative in Rabbinic Laws of Mourning and Soloveitchik’s Halakhic Man,” Shira Billet highlights a rabbinic literary trope of rabbis who focus on performing commandments and teaching Torah upon losing a child and analyzes it in relation to a modern example of this trope found in Joseph Soloveitchik’s Halakhic Man. Although such stories of diminished mourning for children have been understood negatively by modern readers as touchstones of a general Jewish ethos that prioritizes the observance of commandments over the love of children, this article offers a framework for rethinking both the rabbinic sources and the modern story, uncovering emotional complexity and pathos hidden within them. By bringing together rabbinic literature and the modern work of Soloveitchik, this analysis crosses disciplinary boundaries in a way that aims to productively expand the scholarly toolbox for approaching questions at stake for modern Jewish thought insofar as it inherits rabbinic texts.
A reconsideration of the famous dispute between Cohen and Spinoza reveals surprising agreement on... more A reconsideration of the famous dispute between Cohen and Spinoza reveals surprising agreement on the very question on which dispute seems to center: how to evaluate philosophically the categories of religion and law. Cohen and Spinoza differ on the interpretation of Judaism, but they largely agree that religious law is philosophically valuable only on the basis of its universal moral significance. Although Cohen both defends Judaism as a moral religion and elevates the role of law within his philosophical system, he does not offer a defense of Jewish law as such. Like Spinoza, he distinguishes sharply between the philosophical value of religious law and political law. Recognizing these similarities between Spinoza and Cohen on law also illuminates Spinoza’s more nuanced relationship to law than his naturalism and his critique of positive Jewish law often suggest. Cohen and Spinoza differ most not on Jewish law, but on the ultimate philosophical significance of political law.
Spinoza in Germany: Political and Religious Thought Across the Long Nineteenth Century. Edited by Jason M. Yonover and Kristin Gjesdal, Oxford University Press, 2024
In “‘Do not grieve excessively’: Rabbis Mourning Children Between Law and Narrative in Rabbinic L... more In “‘Do not grieve excessively’: Rabbis Mourning Children Between Law and Narrative in Rabbinic Laws of Mourning and Soloveitchik’s Halakhic Man,” Shira Billet highlights a rabbinic literary trope of rabbis who focus on performing commandments and teaching Torah upon losing a child and analyzes it in relation to a modern example of this trope found in Joseph Soloveitchik’s Halakhic Man. Although such stories of diminished mourning for children have been understood negatively by modern readers as touchstones of a general Jewish ethos that prioritizes the observance of commandments over the love of children, this article offers a framework for rethinking both the rabbinic sources and the modern story, uncovering emotional complexity and pathos hidden within them. By bringing together rabbinic literature and the modern work of Soloveitchik, this analysis crosses disciplinary boundaries in a way that aims to productively expand the scholarly toolbox for approaching questions at stake for modern Jewish thought insofar as it inherits rabbinic texts.
A reconsideration of the famous dispute between Cohen and Spinoza reveals surprising agreement on... more A reconsideration of the famous dispute between Cohen and Spinoza reveals surprising agreement on the very question on which dispute seems to center: how to evaluate philosophically the categories of religion and law. Cohen and Spinoza differ on the interpretation of Judaism, but they largely agree that religious law is philosophically valuable only on the basis of its universal moral significance. Although Cohen both defends Judaism as a moral religion and elevates the role of law within his philosophical system, he does not offer a defense of Jewish law as such. Like Spinoza, he distinguishes sharply between the philosophical value of religious law and political law. Recognizing these similarities between Spinoza and Cohen on law also illuminates Spinoza’s more nuanced relationship to law than his naturalism and his critique of positive Jewish law often suggest. Cohen and Spinoza differ most not on Jewish law, but on the ultimate philosophical significance of political law.
Uploads
Papers by Shira Billet
Conferences by Shira Billet