What do you think?
Rate this book
Shekhina
First-ever monograph by Leonard Nimoy revealing his intrigue with scriptural mythology and ancient spirituality.
96 pages, Hardcover
First published August 1, 2002
About the author
Leonard Nimoy
94 books216 followersJewish-American actor, film director, poet, musician and photographer.
He was best known for playing the character of Spock on Star Trek, an American television series that ran for three seasons from 1966 to 1969, in addition to several movie sequels. 🖖
He was best known for playing the character of Spock on Star Trek, an American television series that ran for three seasons from 1966 to 1969, in addition to several movie sequels. 🖖
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
June 18, 2009
This is Nimoy's first published book of photographs. Having studied Jewish culture and history, I was familiar with the idea of Shekhina. I think this may have given me an extra layer of appreciation for what Nimoy was trying to accomplish here. Despite a good introduction, I wondered if the impact would be felt as much by those unfamiliar with the story.
Overall, many of the pictures are lovely. Quite a few others seem to miss the mark. He uses some techniques such as soft focus and imperfections on the photos than occasionally enhance but often overly distract. I felt a power and magic, derived from his emotions about women and his religion. He did capture something that resonated within my feelings about the myth, again imperfectly and somewhat awkwardly.
It's an interesting book. Perhaps not a keeper, but I would easily recommend at least borrowing it from the library or going through it with a cup of tea or coffee at your local book store. Although it may take a photography buff or an artist a while to absorb, for most it will be a short session, but well worth it. If only to satisfy your curiosity about what his work will be like! That's why I got it, after all. I heard him mention his photography books during interviews for the Star Trek movie release this spring.
Overall, many of the pictures are lovely. Quite a few others seem to miss the mark. He uses some techniques such as soft focus and imperfections on the photos than occasionally enhance but often overly distract. I felt a power and magic, derived from his emotions about women and his religion. He did capture something that resonated within my feelings about the myth, again imperfectly and somewhat awkwardly.
It's an interesting book. Perhaps not a keeper, but I would easily recommend at least borrowing it from the library or going through it with a cup of tea or coffee at your local book store. Although it may take a photography buff or an artist a while to absorb, for most it will be a short session, but well worth it. If only to satisfy your curiosity about what his work will be like! That's why I got it, after all. I heard him mention his photography books during interviews for the Star Trek movie release this spring.
February 20, 2016
Put me down as "unimpressed."
This is apparently Leonard Nimoy's attempt to understand and capture the nature of the Shekhina, the female manifestation of God (according to the Kabbalah). Naturally, it's a bunch of gauzy black and white pictures of naked women occasionally wrapped in a prayer shawl. Mostly it's just tits. Generally pretty tasteful tits, but still. Tits.
Donald Kuspit's essay at the end suggests that "Nimoy's fascination with the female body involves an element of temptation as well as transcendence."
YOU DON'T SAY.
"It is Nimoy's ability to convey woman's many-sidedness--Shekhina and succubus at once--that makes his photographs profound," Kuspit says. That's not many-sided, Donald. Shekhina (1), and succubus (2). That's two, the same virgin-whore dichotomy that's been fucking women over for just about all of recorded time.
The photographs are pretty, though, however unsuccessful their attempts to attain spiritual transcendence or whatever are. Men, stop looking for God in tits.
This is apparently Leonard Nimoy's attempt to understand and capture the nature of the Shekhina, the female manifestation of God (according to the Kabbalah). Naturally, it's a bunch of gauzy black and white pictures of naked women occasionally wrapped in a prayer shawl. Mostly it's just tits. Generally pretty tasteful tits, but still. Tits.
Donald Kuspit's essay at the end suggests that "Nimoy's fascination with the female body involves an element of temptation as well as transcendence."
YOU DON'T SAY.
"It is Nimoy's ability to convey woman's many-sidedness--Shekhina and succubus at once--that makes his photographs profound," Kuspit says. That's not many-sided, Donald. Shekhina (1), and succubus (2). That's two, the same virgin-whore dichotomy that's been fucking women over for just about all of recorded time.
The photographs are pretty, though, however unsuccessful their attempts to attain spiritual transcendence or whatever are. Men, stop looking for God in tits.
October 12, 2016
Beautiful pictures, but it is definitely not kid friendly.
June 5, 2026
I read/viewed this book the same week that I was reading Girl on Girl by Sophie Gilbert. Because of that, I was keenly aware of the power of photography that involved the female form. Porn, degradation, empowerment…and how such photography put cultural trends on display. I read about porn in the 2000s, then opened Shekhina.
Leonard Nimoy dreamed about the female essence of God. He tried to capture these dreamscapes in black and white photography. These are the male gaze on women’s bodies, but they are not just loving; they are worshipful. Although some are erotic, I don’t think that was the point.
As with any art, some worked for me, some failed. The ones that worked had masterful use of bright whites and contrast. The ones intentionally blurred did not work for me.
Controversy runs deep around a series of photos of a woman praying with tefillin. These are leather straps and a box with sacred writing. Using these is a traditionally male activity. Some Jewish feminists have embraced using these prayer objects. LN photographs a woman praying with them. The woman shows power and defiance in the act — as the feminine essence of God would! However, it is disconcerting to my eye that she is not clothed. Prayer —even private prayer — is not clothing optional in Jewish practice.
The essay at the end, by Donald Kuspit, why is this included?? He knows NOTHING about the feeling or spiritual intent of this book. He probably never touched a prayer shawl or a tefilllin; he may never have been in a Jewish prayer service, much less be moved by one. He poops out rhetoric from a Christian/classic Greek/Jungian/Freudian context. He then throws in a token feminist.Then concludes that the work addresses “the transmutation of sexual desire into spiritual aspiration”. There’s a Jewish word for my reaction to this: “feh”.
Recommendation: Spend a lovely hour or so with these beautiful images. Skip the essay.
Leonard Nimoy dreamed about the female essence of God. He tried to capture these dreamscapes in black and white photography. These are the male gaze on women’s bodies, but they are not just loving; they are worshipful. Although some are erotic, I don’t think that was the point.
As with any art, some worked for me, some failed. The ones that worked had masterful use of bright whites and contrast. The ones intentionally blurred did not work for me.
Controversy runs deep around a series of photos of a woman praying with tefillin. These are leather straps and a box with sacred writing. Using these is a traditionally male activity. Some Jewish feminists have embraced using these prayer objects. LN photographs a woman praying with them. The woman shows power and defiance in the act — as the feminine essence of God would! However, it is disconcerting to my eye that she is not clothed. Prayer —even private prayer — is not clothing optional in Jewish practice.
The essay at the end, by Donald Kuspit, why is this included?? He knows NOTHING about the feeling or spiritual intent of this book. He probably never touched a prayer shawl or a tefilllin; he may never have been in a Jewish prayer service, much less be moved by one. He poops out rhetoric from a Christian/classic Greek/Jungian/Freudian context. He then throws in a token feminist.Then concludes that the work addresses “the transmutation of sexual desire into spiritual aspiration”. There’s a Jewish word for my reaction to this: “feh”.
Recommendation: Spend a lovely hour or so with these beautiful images. Skip the essay.
Read
May 27, 2026Looking even at the cover of this book, let alone its contents, I can see, literally, why many people who view it from radically different perspectives would be appalled. For instance: any Jews who hold a traditional conception of tznius (inadequately translated as "modesty) would put the book out of sight. Those people and others would also object to the image of a woman wearing tefillin, or a nude person of any gender doing so.
On the flip side, some feminists would write it off as objectification and a product of Nimoy's male gaze. Clearly, though, other feminists don't agree, including names like Letty Cottin Pogrebin and Erica Jong. They seem to celebrate Nimoy's vision of female strength and spirituality expressed in sexuality,
I am a little bit on both sides of that argument. What I CAN say definitely is that many of these photos are beautiful, and they have me looking for the Hebrew letter Shin (which can stand for both transcendent and immanent experiences of God) both in women's bodies and in nature all around us. I appreciate Nimoy's intentions, and I am glad to have seen the results.
On the flip side, some feminists would write it off as objectification and a product of Nimoy's male gaze. Clearly, though, other feminists don't agree, including names like Letty Cottin Pogrebin and Erica Jong. They seem to celebrate Nimoy's vision of female strength and spirituality expressed in sexuality,
I am a little bit on both sides of that argument. What I CAN say definitely is that many of these photos are beautiful, and they have me looking for the Hebrew letter Shin (which can stand for both transcendent and immanent experiences of God) both in women's bodies and in nature all around us. I appreciate Nimoy's intentions, and I am glad to have seen the results.
Currently Reading
February 18, 2022This is the visceral view of the original temptation to birth. The inevitable dance of the Cheribim or pre- birthed spirits, albeit of a Jewish mein or dignity. This is the pictograph of the written poetry. That is the infallible sentiment of this book. It’s quizzicalness. Whether beset by the sin of succibi lust or ordained into the Shekhina womb temple. It’s unfocus only reinforces the partial sight of the cherubic dance. Is it alluring? Fatalistic. It’s form and finality. The will to birth and the elusive, heavenly or manipulative demonic need to flesh oneself. This is Shekhina.
Read
November 11, 2021You can tell that Nimoy loved women, as a man and as an artist.
October 6, 2012
Shekhinagate:: What the Fracas over Leonard Nimoy's New Book Is Really About.
Two weeks ago, Leonard Nimoy put the Spock pinch on the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle. In a controversy reported as far away as England and parodied on Saturday Night Live, Nimoy canceled ,,,,
....
More at:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/sh...
(Originally appeared in "The Stranger," Nov. 7-13, 2002 issue.
Two weeks ago, Leonard Nimoy put the Spock pinch on the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle. In a controversy reported as far away as England and parodied on Saturday Night Live, Nimoy canceled ,,,,
....
More at:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/sh...
(Originally appeared in "The Stranger," Nov. 7-13, 2002 issue.
Read
November 8, 2010Its a picture book. UM.....just know that.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews