Rambam Hilchos Talmud Torah #8 Part 2

 HERE!!

Shavuot: The Sleepless Night and the Essence of Birchot HaTorah

Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman

The gift that is commemorated on Shavuot, the Torah, is honored every day with a dedicated blessing. Ironically, perhaps, a widespread practice and observance of that festival poses a practical challenge to the recitation of this blessing, and addressing that challenge is an opportunity to explore the issues at the heart of our engagement with the Torah.

The Talmud (Berakhot 21a) records the position of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav, who locates a biblical source for birchot ha-Torah in the verse "When I proclaim the name of the Lord, ascribe greatness to our God" (Deut. 32:3). While birkat ha-mazon, the blessing after eating, is anchored in a verse that requires a blessing after eating ("And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless," Deut. 8:10), birchat ha-Torah is anchored in a verse that requires a blessing before engaging with Torah. The impression created by this passage is that the blessing is a Torah obligation.

Nachmanides, in his glosses to Sefer ha-Mitzvot (mitzvah 15 of those added to Maimonides' enumeration), asserts this position, explaining that the Jew is commanded by the Torah itself to thank God each time he engages with Torah, in recognition of the great kindness of receiving it. This parallels the duty of gratitude that is triggered after eating.

Maimonides, however, omits birchot ha-Torah from his enumeration of biblical commandments altogether. The Megillat Esther (on Sefer ha-Mitzvot) questions this, and the Pri Chadash (Orach Chaim 47) and the Shaagat Aryeh (24) raise the difficulty pointedly, the latter noting that the Talmud (Nedarim 81a), in its discussion of the destruction of Jerusalem, points to the failure to recite birchot ha-Torah, indicating a very significant transgression, itself a surprise, but even more so if the obligation is not a biblical one. Some defend Maimonides on textual grounds (see Torat Refael, #1, citing Beit Natan and Dikdukei Soferim, who record an alternate text of the relevant mishnah), while others suggest Maimonides saw the verse cited by the Talmud as functioning as an asmakhta (see Megillat Esther).

Beyond the textual question lies a deeper conceptual one, and it is here that the philosophical heart of the topic begins to emerge.

Two Faces of the Berakhah

The berakhot recited over mitzvot are, as a rule, rabbinic in origin. If, indeed, Birchot HaTorah stem from the Torah itself, this is an indication they may differ in character from other berakhot recited before performing commandments.

Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik of Brisk (quoted in the chiddushim of his son, the Griz) identifies birchot ha-Torah as a sui generis berakhah: not a birkat ha-mitzvah, recited in conjunction with the act of fulfilling the mitzvah of talmud Torah, but rather a berakhah on the “cheftzah” of Torah itself; the encounter with Torah requires a berakhah separate from its identity as a commandment. This is what is conveyed by the verse: the calling out to God, the engagement with divine wisdom, must be preceded by an acknowledgement of God's greatness. (See Resp. Minchat Aviv, I, p. 40, who raises several questions regarding this.)

In this manner, R. Chaim explains the fact that the Shulchan Aruch rules that women recite birchot ha-Torah (Orach Chaim 47:14), notwithstanding their exemption from the mitzvah of talmud Torah; even without an obligation the encounter with Torah demands a berakhah. In contrast, the Magen Avraham sees this in a birchot ha-mitzvah framework, and connects it to women's obligation to learn about the mitzvot they are required to practice, a position challenged by the Vilna Gaon, who asserts that women recite them as they would any other berakhah on a non-obligatory mitzvah (in the view of some rishonim).

R. Chaim’s understanding sets birchot ha-Torah apart from the standard category of birchot ha-mitzvot. Similarly, it is possible that the proper category is a birkat ha-shevach veha-hoda'ah, in the fashion of birkat ha-mazon, consistent with the Talmud’s association. The Sefer ha-Chinukh (mitzvah 430) draws this parallel while explaining the difference; physical sustenance, which is recognized only after consumption, generates a duty of thanksgiving afterward, while intellectual sustenance, which is anticipated and appreciated in advance, generates a duty of thanksgiving beforehand.

The two frameworks, birkat ha-mitzvah and birkat ha-shevach, generate different halakhic consequences. The Resp. Beit Shearim (Orach Chaim siman 32), seeking to harmonize the various authorities, suggests that both frameworks are in fact operative at once: birchot ha-Torah carry within them both a mitzvah component and a hoda'ah component, the second of which is the engine of daily recitation. Indeed, this possible dual identity impacts how a widely discussed practical question affecting Shavuot, the question of staying up all night, plays out.

Sleep, Day, Night

The Shulchan Arukh codifies that the morning recitation of birchot ha-Torah covers all subsequent learning for the day and following night. The rishonim disagree sharply about the mechanism by which a new recitation becomes required the next morning. The Rosh (Responsa, kelal 4 siman 1; Pesakim, Berakhot 1:13) asserts that the trigger is a hefsek, an interruption, and the paradigmatic hefsek is a significant session of sleep, a shenat keva. One who sleeps in his bed, in the manner of regular nightly sleep, has interrupted his engagement with Torah and is obligated to recite birchot ha-Torah anew when he resumes. The focus on hefsek as a factor is consistent with the rules of Birchot HaMitzvot, which require recitation immediately before performance.

Rabbeinu Tam (cited in Tosafot, Berakhot 11b s.v. she-kevar) takes a different position, one that reflects an understanding of this blessing as one of praise. (See Chelkat Yosef, 1, and Ginzei Chaim, 47:8.) The trigger, in his view, is not the act of sleep but the arrival of a new day. The Resp. Keren L’David (OC, 11), sees this as flowing from the understanding that this is a Biblical obligation, which, when unspecified, applies once a day. (For other explanations, see Yeshuot Yaakov, and Resp. Siftei Ani, I,13.)  The previous day's birchot ha-Torah cover the bearer until the next morning, regardless of whether sleep has intervened. Conversely, a person who rises in the middle of the night to learn, before dawn, is still within the halakhic coverage of yesterday's berakhot, even though he has slept.

The Tur (OC 47) records the view of his father the Rosh, and the Beit Yosef adds the perspective of Rabbeinu Tam, noting that the Agur wrote that his position is the minority view and not accepted. Consistent with that perspective, in the Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chaim 47:12) he rules that even one who learns into the night need not recite birchot ha-Torah anew, "as long as he has not slept." The implication is that someone who stayed awake all night has no obligation the next morning, since the interruption of sleep never occurred.

The Magen Avraham (47:12) flags this implication and finds it difficult. He observes that the common custom is not to recite birchot ha-Torah after a daytime sleep, seemingly following Rabbeinu Tam’s framework that the new day is the trigger for a new blessing. (The Shulchan Arukh, 47:11, records two views, and says the custom is not to bless, specifically that the sleep “is not a hefsek.) If the practice tracks Rabbeinu Tam's logic in one direction, it should track it in the other as well: a person who has stayed awake through the night should recite a fresh berakhah in the morning, because a new day has begun.

In the Magen Avraham’s understanding, the daily recitation is a fixed enactment of the Sages, paralleling birchot ha-shachar. Just as birchot ha-shachar are recited each morning regardless of whether one slept, birchot ha-Torah are recited each morning regardless of whether the sleep has occurred. He indicates as well that this is a matter of intent, noting that the person who recites birchot ha-Torah on a given day has in mind to cover only that day and following night (see Resp. Heishiv Moshe, 2, and Resp. Shma Yisrael, II, 6). In practice he assumes that the morning should bring a new obligation even without sleep; one who wants to avoid all uncertainty should listen to the berachah recited by someone else who is more definitively obligated (introduction to OC 494).

The Vilna Gaon, in his glosses (47:12), sees the apparent inconsistency as simply a reflection of a policy of uncertainty. In essence, the view of the Rosh is accepted and thus no new berachah should be recited in the morning following a sleepless night. However, in recognition of the opposing view of Rabbeinu Tam, no berachah is recited following a daytime nap either.

The “Mimah Nafshakh” of Rabbi Akiva Eiger

Into this dispute, Rabbi Akiva Eiger introduces a structural argument. He observes that one who sleeps for a significant period during the day on Erev Shavuot, then stays awake through the night, has a case for reciting birchot ha-Torah in the morning due to a “mimah nafshakh” (a conclusion reached by both sides of a given question). If sleep is the determinant, that took place during the day. If the new day is the trigger, a new day has by now arrived. At that point, it would seem, an obligation would be incurred according to all views.

Some, however, raised objections to this assessment. Reportedly, the Brisker Rav (Rav Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik) was uncertain whether to follow the mimah nafshakh, but when he learned that Rabbi Akiva Eiger had ruled to recite, he deferred ("kevar hora zaken"). R.  Moshe Shternbuch, in his Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, asserts that the mimah nafshakh works only if "shenat keva" and "a new day" are the only two candidates for the determinant; it might be that the trigger is a shenat kevaat night, specifically; a daytime sleep, however prolonged, does not function as the relevant hefsek at all.

The question is sharpened by considering the Peri Megadim (E.A. 47:12), who offers two possible explanations for the privileged role of nighttime sleep over daytime sleep. The first is that nighttime sleep is, structurally, a greater hefsek. The second is that nighttime sleep transforms the sleeper into a “beriya chadasha”, a new creature, just as the morning prayers presuppose. (See Chelkat Yosef I, 1, who posits other distinctions between the two possibilities.)

One of R. Akiva Eiger's descendants, the author of the Responsa Hitorerut Teshuvah (I-II, 296), questions his ancestor's premise due to the fact that Ma'ariv will be recited after the erev Shavuot nap. The blessings of Kriyat shma include Ahavat Olam, which should discharge one's obligation of Birchot HaTorah (the Talmud says as much regarding the parallel paragraph of Ahavah Rabbah in the morning).

Implications of the Relationship of Sleep to Torah Study

Some offered alternative reasons why one might be required to bless even if they had not slept during the night. The Maharam Shik (Orach Chaim siman 1) invokes the Talmudic opinion (Eruvin 65a): "lo nivra layla ela li-shenata," the night was created only for sleep. There is a stretch of the night during which a person is not, in any meaningful sense, obligated to engage in talmud Torah, even if he happens to remain awake. That stretch is non-obligatory time, which thus functions as a hefsek. Accordingly, even one who has never slept must recite birchot ha-Torah in the morning, because the relevant stretch of non-obligation has intervened. The Maharam Shik's reading transforms the question from a debate about sleep, narrowly, into a debate about the structure of the obligation of talmud Torah itself.

The Chatan Sofer (II, 7) pushes in the opposite direction. He explains Rabbeinu Tam's view that sleep is not a hefsek by suggesting that sleep is actually a precondition of learning. Talmud Torah requires clarity of mind; "shema'ata ba'i tseluta," the sugya demands clear-headedness. Sleep deprivation muddies thought. A person who lies down to sleep is, in this view, preparing to learn, not departing from learning. He has not turned his attention away from his studies; the sleep itself is in the service of the studies that will follow. The Chatan Sofer extends the principle to commercial activity: a person who steps away from his learning to attend to his livelihood, fully intending to return, has not interrupted (see similarly Tosafot, Berachot 11a).

An especially striking formulation appears in Marpeh LaNefesh (Orach Chaim III:64:3). Later authorities had struggled with the earlier position that sleep does not necessarily create a full hesech hada’at, a diversion of attention, since sleep would seemingly represent the quintessential break from study. He suggests, however, that the ideal state of Torah attachment is one in which Torah continues to occupy even a person’s dreams, based on the principle that dreams reflect a person’s daytime thoughts. Indeed, many rabbinic works record Torah insights experienced in dreams. True, not every person reaches such a level, but the Rabbis did not formulate the blessing around the inability of individuals to maintain that ideal continuity. Even during ordinary business activity many people entirely divert their minds from Torah, yet Chazal nevertheless did not require a new blessing each time.

Practical Considerations

The Tehillot David (vol. 1, no. 11) surveys the later authorities on this question and concludes that all the decisors validate the position of the Magen Avraham, that one who remained awake all night should ideally hear Birkat HaTorah from someone who slept, but if no such person is available, he recites the blessing himself without any hesitation, since the blessing was enacted to apply throughout the day, and when one recites it his intention is to cover learning through the following day.

The Maharsag (Responsa, Orach Chaim, no. 62) rules that one who remains awake all night and plans to sleep afterward should not hear Birkat HaTorah from someone else before reciting Shema; it is better to wait and recite the blessing after sleeping, when it will be valid according to all opinions. He adds that since sunrise has not yet occurred, and the day has not fully begun, there is additional reason to delay: the Shulchan Aruch (235:4) allows evening Shema to be fulfilled before dawn in pressing circumstances, and the Mishnah in Megillah establishes that daytime obligations ideally begin only at sunrise. This distinguishes the case from one who slept and woke before sunrise, who must recite Birkat HaTorah immediately upon waking. One who never slept was already permitted to learn without the blessing before dawn, and that dispensation extends until sunrise. He further rules that according to Rabbenu Tam, who holds Birkat HaTorah is a blessing of praise rather than a blessing over a commandment, there is no requirement to recite it before learning at all.

The Emek HaTeshuvah (III, 6) disputes the Maharsag's reading of Rabbenu Tam, holding that all opinions require the blessing before learning. He nonetheless offers several leniencies: one who merely continues learning already underway may not need a new blessing, and a community that customarily stays awake, then sleeps, and davens after waking may treat the moment of rising as the start of their day, with everything before sleep belonging to the previous day. His practical conclusion aligns with the Maharsag: those learning Tikkun Leil Shavuot should complete the learning until the time of Shema, recite Shema, go to sleep, and recite Birkat HaTorah only upon waking. This is preferable to reciting the blessing before sleeping and then failing to repeat it after waking, which raises concerns of interruption according to many authorities, especially since this morning sleep functions for such a person as the equivalent of nighttime sleep.

The Resp. Shevet HaKehati (I, 58) addresses the case of one who went to bed at night, lay down for a sustained sleep, and found himself unable to sleep, wishing to rise and study. The question is whether he must recite Birkat HaTorah, on the grounds that he has already diverted his attention from study, or whether, having not actually slept, no genuine diversion of attention occurred. He concludes that until one has actually slept, he has not diverted his attention, and no new blessing is required.

In his Resp. Orach Mishpat (11), Rav Kook suggests that Birchot HaTorah was never fundamentally instituted over the individual act of study one is about to perform. Rather, it is a blessing over the overarching divine gift of Torah itself, the illumination through which God enlightened the Jewish people. Even according to the opinion that the obligation is biblical, the Torah requirement may simply be that once each day a person offer gratitude for this gift, similar to other recurring daily obligations.

Accordingly, one who studies before reciting Birchot HaTorah may not necessarily violate a biblical obligation at all, since from the Torah the requirement is simply that the blessing be recited at some point during the day. The rabbinic enactment merely attached that same blessing to Torah study before learning begins. Rav Kook argues that this understanding explains why the laws of interruption and diversion differ so dramatically here from other blessings over mitzvot. Since the biblical obligation is not tied to any specific act of study, concepts like hesech hada’at are far less relevant.

The Philosophical Implications

It is deeply appropriate that the observance of Shavuot, when the Torah was given, forces the question of the proper application of Birchot HaTorah. This in turn reveals fundamental principles of how we relate to the Torah itself.

R. Avraham Bornstein, in his widely quoted introduction to his Eglei Tal, insists that the joy and pleasure experienced in Torah study are not incidental to the mitzvah but part of its very fulfillment. This idea became the subject of significant discussion among later authorities.

The Taz (YD 221) wrote that the emotional joy generated by Torah study is considered genuine human benefit, to the extent that it carries implications in the laws of prohibited benefit. The Pnei Aryeh (#47) challenged this, drawing support from the Talmudic passage about Birchot HaTorah, which suggests a differentiation from Birkhat HaMazon, in that the latter is recited in recognition of benefit, which is apparently not the case regarding Torah study. The Imrei Binah (Dinei Shabbat, #12) rejected that proof, explaining that the Talmud merely distinguishes between the internal physical satisfaction of food and other forms of enjoyment. Torah study, he argues, is certainly a profound pleasure, even if it does not generate the same type of after-blessing as eating.

In his Resp. Avnei Nezer (OC 60), R. Bornstein expands on his point based on this Talmudic line. He distinguishes between the type of enjoyment associated with Torah study and the physical satisfaction associated with eating.

The pleasure of food continues even after eating, which is why Birkat HaMazon is recited afterward, once one is physically satisfied. The enjoyment of Torah, by contrast, exists primarily during the actual act of learning itself, what remains afterwards is the eternal life that it bestows (chayei olam), and that in fact is the dominant impact, with the enjoyment being an ancillary benefit. Accordingly, Torah study warrants a blessing beforehand, at the moment one is entering into that experience of learning and enjoyment, but not afterward, once the immediate experience has passed.

On this basis, the Avnei Nezer explains the Talmud’s distinction between Torah and food: Torah combines two qualities; it is both deeply enjoyable and also “chayei olam,” eternal spiritual life — and therefore deserves a blessing before study. Food, however, possesses the unique advantage of ongoing physical satisfaction afterward, which is why it requires a blessing after eating instead.

The enjoyable character of Torah study is central to the observance of Shavuot, the occasion when we celebrate not only the content of the Torah, but its presentation at Mount Sinai, among great fanfare, that impresses itself upon the soul. We seek to ensure that all of our contemporary learning is “joyous as it was given at Sinai”. How appropriate, then, that the practical considerations of when to recite the Birchot HaTorah uncover the core of what that recitation is about, and highlight the nature of the study of Torah, and of the true appreciation of the infinite gift that it is.

כח התורה

 א"ר חננאל בר פפא, מאי דכתיב "שמעו כי נגידים אדבר", מה נגיד זה יש בו להמית ולהחיות, אף ד"ת יש בהן להמית ולהחיות, והיינו דאמר רבא, למיימינים בה סמא דחיי, למשמאילים בה סמא דמותא. 

כל חזיון רוחני נשגב, העובר בנפש, הכל לפי גדלו, מגדיל הוא את הכחות הנפשיים כולם. ואם החזיון הזה נערץ בקודש הוא, כחות החיים שבו, הגנוזים בקרבו, איתנים ואמיצים המה מאד, ובהקלטם בנפש השואב מהם את שאיבת חייו הרוחניים הרי הם מגדילים ומאדירים את כל כחות החיים הנפשיים כולם מראשית הכח האצילי אשר לחיי הנשמה בשיגובה הפנימי עד כל ערכי החיים הנפשיים הטבעיים כולם. אמנם אם הגדלת החיים היא לברכה או לקללה זהו דבר התלוי בעצם החפץ הפנימי של האדם, בהיותו נוטה אל האושר ואל הטוב או אל הרפיון ואל הרע. השליטה במהותה היא עצמת החיים המתגלה באיזו מרכזיות אישית מאוצר הכלל הנקשר בה והנסמכת עליה, היא כח חיים עצומים המפעמים בכלליות הקיבוץ, וכשהיא מתקשרת עם נושא נזר בעל נפש ברוכה המלאה צדק ומישרים יראת אלהים ואהבת הבריות הרי היא כח חיים הפועל להרבות את אושר החיים לתן עליהם את שמם הראוי להם. ובהיותה מתקשרת עם זד יהיר, הרי השליטה הזאת בעצמה מתהפכת לגילוי כח מחריב ומכלה, הפועל בתעצומתו מות וכליון חמרי ומוסרי. כשליטה הכוללת ככה היא ג"כ השליטה הפרטית, אשר אור הקודש החי והפועל של קדושת דברי תורה פועל על הנפשיות הפרטית, וממנה תוצאות ג"כ, בהרבה קישורים, אל הכלל כולו. כח החיים המתרבה ע"י אור התורה ועוצם חייה הרי הוא כנגיד זה שיש בו להמית ולהחיות. למיימינים בה, שרצונם משומר במשמרת קודש לאשר בדרך טובים, ללכת בדרכי ד' כתורה וכמצוה, סמא דחיי. ולמשמאילים בה, עצמת החיים בעצמם וכח השלטוני שלהם, המתגבר ע"י הרעפתו של מטר התורה, הוא סמא דמותא, שטוב לפני האלהים ימלט ממנו.

Wife Explains Her Love Language Is For Husband To Go Out And Earn All The Money And Then Come Home And Do All The Chores

ONTARIO, CA — In a revelation intended to lay a foundation for a better marital relationship, a local wife explained to her husband that her love language is for him to go out and earn all the money and then come home and do all the chores.

The deep moment of vulnerability came one evening this week, as Cheryl Crentist sat her husband, Rob, down to let him know what he could do to help her feel most loved, appreciated, and cared for, which turned out to be all of the work both inside and outside the home.

"It's how I feel loved," she told him. "When I see you getting up early every morning and going in to work all day to earn an income to provide for the kids and us, and then coming home at the end of the day and starting to cook, clean, fold laundry, and put the kids to bed… that's when I feel like you care about me. Make me feel special. It's my love language. So, the more you do that, the more I'll really appreciate it. Thanks, honey."

Husband Rob Crentist agreed that he needed to step up his efforts to express his love for her in the way she best receives it. "I guess it makes sense," he said. "Whenever I take a quick glance over at her on the couch while I'm vacuuming the floors after doing the dishes at the end of a long day at work, I can see her smile of appreciation."

At publishing time, Cheryl had informed Rob that her second love language was Amazon gift cards.

The Cost of Exposure: Reclaiming the Beauty of Privacy

There is a jarring spiritual dissonance in our contemporary media. I often wonder if readers notice the profound incongruence in our frum publications—both online and in print. On one page, we find an inspiring article about Avodas Hashem, Emunah or Bitachon; yet, on the facing page [and sometimes even on the same page], we see advertisements promoting a lifestyle of excess that borders on the prohibited. We are commanded, "קדושים תהיו" —a call to self-sanctification and restraint—yet our media often markets the very materialism we are meant to transcend. [Not to mention other איסורים]. 

This lack of boundaries extends beyond consumerism into our very culture of communication. Chazal teach us a fundamental lesson regarding the two sets of Luchos. The first Luchos were broken because they were given with great public fanfare; the second Luchos, however, endured because they were given in the quiet sanctity of privacy. As Rashi notes (Shmos 34:3):

"אין לך יפה מן הצניעות" — "There is nothing more beautiful than modesty/privacy."

Today, we are witnessing the erosion of this value. The modern world has lost the concept of tznius, and the frum world is not immune. We see a preponderance of "tell-all" podcasts where no topic is off-limits and every private struggle is laid bare for public consumption. While some argue that these shows offer "inspiration" or "awareness," we must ask at what cost.

Other people’s private business should not be our entertainment. Discussions of intimate or sensitive matters were never meant for the public square. We have traded the enduring power of the "Second Luchos" for the fleeting noise of the first. It is time we rediscover the dignity of the hidden life, for as the Navi Michah (6:8) taught:

"והצנע לכת עם אלקיך" — "Walk humbly (privately) with your G-d."

White House Insists High Gas Prices Are Small Price To Pay For Accomplishing Nothing In Iran

WASHINGTON, D.C. — With the nation facing its highest gas prices in years, the Trump administration assured Americans that it is but a small price to pay for accomplishing nothing in Iran.

Though thousands of Americans have been forced to take out reverse mortgages to fill their cars with gas, White House officials insisted that citizens must be prepared to make sacrifices in order to achieve zero strategic objectives.

"We understand that people are experiencing real pain at the pump — but losing half of your discretionary income is a small cost for us to achieve nothing in Iran," the White House said in a statement. "When you look at the price of gas, remember this is the price you pay to not fully dislodge the regime, fail to secure Iran's enriched uranium, be unable to open the Strait of Hormuz, or successfully safeguard our allies from further attacks. Always consider those lack of accomplishments when you are selling a portion of your liver to fill up your truck with gas."

Americans responded by rallying around the administration, eager to make the sacrifice for no particular gain. "It's the least I can do so that we can meander about the Gulf, not realizing any goals," said local man Stan Martin. "It was sad, selling my dog to be able to pay for a tank of gas. But I hold my head high, knowing it's helping America not gain anything."

At publishing time, the White House also insisted that leaving the Strait of Hormuz in Iran's control was a small price to pay to keep negotiating about who controls the Strait of Hormuz.

Really Bad Ideas Die Hard

Eyal Waldman spent years trying to forge peace through business, hiring Palestinian engineers, opening a design center in Gaza, and donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to a hospital there. This week, pro-Palestinian protesters at the Venice Biennale screamed “murderer” at him anyway.

Waldman, co-founder of Mellanox Technologies (sold to Nvidia for nearly $7 billion in 2019), employed around 200 Palestinian engineers through his company, including roughly 20 in Gaza. In 2020, he donated $360,000 to build an oncology ward at a Gaza hospital. He long championed economic cooperation as a path to coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians.

On October 7, 2023, that worldview collided with unimaginable loss. His 24-year-old daughter, Danielle Waldman, and her partner Noam Shai were murdered by Hamas terrorists at the Nova music festival. They were killed while trying to escape.

Despite the personal tragedy, Waldman has continued advocating for a two-state solution. He has pushed for rebuilding Gaza under new leadership.

The confrontation unfolded this week during previews at the Venice Biennale, where an Israeli artist’s pavilion has drawn protests and calls for Israel’s exclusion over the Gaza war. Video shows Waldman extending his hand toward a protester amid “Free Palestine” chants. The protester recoiled, and the crowd grew hostile as security rushed Waldman inside for safety.

The moment has gone viral, highlighting the painful irony for a man who once saw tech jobs and partnerships as tools for peace. Waldman, who received Israel’s prestigious Israel Prize in 2024, remains active in tech investing and public calls for pragmatic solutions on both sides.