Siman 193

It has already been explained in siman 167 that the blessings of enjoyment are not similar to the blessings of the mitzvot. For with the blessings of the mitzvot, one can fulfill the obligation of his fellow with his blessing even if he himself is not obligated in it, due to the principle that all Israel are guarantors for one another. However, regarding the blessings of enjoyment, one who does not enjoy cannot fulfill the obligation of one who enjoys; and even one who enjoys cannot fulfill the obligation of another who enjoys unless they were established together in a matter where establishment is effective, such as bread and the like, where their establishment joins them together to be as one body and one blessing for all of them. And even this is only regarding the first blessing, for their intention is to join and establish themselves together to eat. But regarding the final blessing, since they are about to separate from one another—they do not join with one another such that all would be exempt through the blessing of one. Therefore, regarding other final blessings, one does not exempt his fellow, but rather each one shall bless for himself.

And so too regarding birkat hamazon: two who ate must divide, for each one shall bless for himself. But three who ate, since they have become obligated in zimun and say together "let us bless" – the zimun makes them as if joined together. And the one who blesses can recite the entire birkat hamazon, and the listeners shall intend to fulfill their obligation through their hearing and answer "amen," even if they are proficient enough to bless. For so it appears clear from the Shas and the poskim, that since the zimun joins them – their law is like prayer in a tzibur, where the shliach tzibur fulfills their obligation. And even though in prayer he does not fulfill the obligation of the proficient one, as I wrote at the beginning of siman 124 – this is a specific law regarding prayer because it is a request for mercy, and each one must seek mercy. But in other matters, it is surely more preferable that one should bless and everyone listens because of "in the multitude of people is the King's glory," in kiddush and havdalah and the like. And why should birkat hamazon be less than them, since the zimun joins them? And that which we do not practice so is because we do not practice in all blessings to fulfill the obligation through hearing, except for kiddush and havdalah, and the blessing of mitzvot such as shofar and megillah. But from the essential law it appears clear that it is so. And so it is explained explicitly from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, above in siman 183, who wrote: It is proper that each one should say in a whisper with the one who blesses... see there, for the reason that perhaps they will not hear well. But by the law, each one does not need to bless for himself. (And so wrote the Bach there, and so it is implied from the words of the Magen Avraham, subsection 2.)

And this, that two people each bless for themselves, this is when both are able to bless. But if one is able to bless and the second is an ignoramus—the one who is able blesses and the ignoramus fulfills his obligation. And the ignoramus must focus on every single word that the one blessing says. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 1 that this is when he does not know how to bless. But he understands the holy tongue [...], see there. But if he does not understand at all—he does not fulfill his obligation through his hearing. And the Tur concluded that therefore women do not fulfill their obligation through the blessing of the men, since they do not understand at all. And what is their remedy? That they should say word for word after the one blessing, for when one says it himself—he has fulfilled his obligation even if he does not understand at all (Levush). And this is the difference between the holy tongue and a foreign tongue, for in a foreign tongue one must understand what he says, as I wrote in siman 185; not like the "there is one who says" that even in the holy tongue one must understand, as I wrote there in section 7, see there.

And know that the opinion of Rashi, of blessed memory, is that even one who hears in the Holy Tongue fulfills his obligation even when he does not understand; and also the Tosafot and the Rosh did not explicitly disagree with him, but rather they were in doubt. And we have already wondered above in siman 185 regarding the essence of this opinion, and also the great later authorities wrote that the custom is according to Rashi (the Rema in Darkhei Moshe, and the Bach and Taz and Magen Avraham, subsection 2). And the women who are unable to recite the blessing hear from the men, and fulfill their obligation even though they do not understand at all. And even regarding Kiddush of Torah status, women and the unlearned fulfill the obligation through hearing (ibid.). And it is simple that the one hearing must intend to fulfill the obligation, and the one reciting the blessing must intend to discharge them of their obligation.

And know that in the Mordechai at the beginning of the seventh chapter he wrote, and this is his wording: The Ra'avyah wrote in the name of Rav Hai Gaon that three who ate from the seven species are obligated to perform zimun. Thus far his words. And according to this, we have not found our hands and feet, for many times when eating in a group rolls and fruits of the seven species, they do not perform zimun at all. And there is one who wrote that it is good that they should not establish a meal upon the seven species (the Bach and Magen Avraham there), and this is almost impossible regarding refreshments, celebrations, guests, and the like. However, in truth, there is no concern for this, and in no posek was this opinion cited at all. And our teachers, the Tosafot (37a in the comment beginning "Natan"), wrote explicitly to the contrary. And so the Rambam and the Tur and all the poskim wrote explicitly that three who ate bread are obligated to perform zimun; and in Chullin (106a) we say that one does not perform zimun over fruits, and in all types of fruits even from the seven species, since it did not say "except for the seven species." And as for why it did not say "one only performs zimun over bread," it is because it is dealing there with an incident involving fruits, and it infers several laws from this incident, therefore it uses this wording. And the Rif brought this in the eighth chapter of Berakhot (and so wrote the Tosafot of R. Y.), and therefore there is no concern for this at all. And it appears that an error fell into the Mordechai, and it should say: "are not obligated to perform zimun" (and so wrote the Sha'arei Teshuvah in the name of the Peri Chadash and Birkei Yosef, see there).

Three who ate—they are not permitted to divide, for they have become obligated in zimun. And even two who ate, it is a mitzvah that they seek a third to join with them for zimun. Thus ruled the Rosh, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch, section 1. And we have not seen anyone who is careful in this to fulfill this mitzvah. And more than this, it is a wonder that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book at the beginning of siman 197, wrote in the name of the Rashba that two who ate and a third arrived, there is an obligation to give to him, see there. And why are they not careful in this? And it seems to me to offer a merit: for behold, their proof is from that which was taught at the beginning of the chapter "Three Who Ate": A waiter who was serving two—he eats with them; even though they did not give him permission, so that he may join for zimun. And in truth, the Rif and the Rambam did not bring this at all (and the author of Ein Mishpat noted it, see there, but it is not so). And also the Rosh himself in the chapter "Arvei Pesachim" (siman 32) wrote that there is no obligation to seek three except on the first night of Pesach, see there (Ma'adanei Yom Tov). And a waiter is no proof, for in any case they are obligated to give the waiter to taste from every type, as I wrote in siman 170. However, they brought another proof from Chullin (106a), where Rava bar bar Chana said: I was standing before Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Assi and they brought before them a basket of fruit, and they ate and did not give to me. We learn from this: we do not perform zimun over fruit. For if we did perform zimun, they would have given to him in order to join for zimun. And aside from the fact that one should not learn from these supreme holy ones, furthermore it appears explicitly that they were not in their home, and the fruit was not theirs, and in such a case they certainly would have invited him as well. This is not the case for a homeowner when he eats in his home with one other; how can we impose upon him that when another man comes he must invite him to eat as well? And in most cases, there will not be a sufficient meal. And therefore they are not careful in this. (Thus it seems to my humble opinion to offer a merit for the community of Israel.)

And just as three who ate are forbidden to divide, so too four or five are forbidden to divide. For even though if two divide from five there still remain three for zimun, nevertheless those two will not fulfill the mitzvah of zimun for which they became obligated. But six may divide into three and three, for there will be zimun for both groups. And so seven, eight, and nine may divide until ten. For ten are obligated to bless with the Name, and if they divide they will not bless with the Name. And it is a mitzvah to seek out ten in order to bless with the Name. And ten do not divide until they are twenty. And it is obvious that with twenty there is no obligation to divide, but rather if they wish to divide they may divide. And so with six there is no obligation to divide.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 1: However, if many were reclining together and they are unable to hear the zimun blessing from the mouth of the one reciting the blessing, and they are not permitted to divide into groups of ten each because they would need to bless in a loud voice and the homeowner would hear and be annoyed with them – they may divide into groups of three each and bless quietly so that the homeowner will not hear. And this is better for them than not fulfilling the obligation of the zimun blessing, for they are unable to hear from the mouth of the one reciting the blessing. Thus far his words. And this is specifically when they are unable to hear the zimun blessing from the mouth of the one reciting the blessing. But when they are able to hear the zimun blessing, even though they are unable to hear the entire Birkat HaMazon from the mouth of the one reciting the blessing – it is of no concern, for they are able to bless for themselves, and they are not permitted to divide into threes (Taz subsection 5). And there is one who says that even if it is not possible to hear the end of the blessings and answer "Amen," it is better to divide into threes (Magen Avraham subsection 4). And the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch agrees with the first opinion. (And the Eliyah Rabbah agreed with the Magen Avraham, and it requires further study.)

From what has been explained, it seems to me that at large meals where they remain for many hours, and there are individuals for whom the sitting is difficult and they wish to leave the meal, and it is impossible for them to gather ten of those reclining to bless, they may bless with three. And it is an a fortiori argument from the previous law, that for the sake of the master of the house's insistence they were exempted from this; all the more so here where they are entirely unable to bless with ten, and they are under duress to bless with fewer than ten. (And the source of this law is from Berakhot 51a, from that of Rabban Gamliel. And it is implied to me from Rashi there, in the comment starting "we bless," that specifically when they wish to sit until after the conclusion of the meal the Talmud needed to search for reasons, but when they wish to leave earlier all this is unnecessary, see there. Examine it and you will find it simple.) (And so wrote the Taz in siman 200, see there.)

And it is a kal vachomer if they must go for a mitzvah matter in the middle of the meal, that they may divide into groups of three (Magen Avraham subsection 7). And there is reason to doubt if one needs to leave the meal for a mitzvah matter, and he cannot find even three to bless with a zimun, if he is permitted to bless by himself on the grounds of "one who is engaged in a mitzvah is exempt from a mitzvah." And it appears to me that it is forbidden to do so, for he has already become obligated in the blessing of zimun; and this is not an exemption from a mitzvah but rather like committing a transgression. And it is not similar to what is permitted with fewer than ten, for there he fulfills the mitzvah of zimun, only that he could have fulfilled it in the optimal manner. This is not the case when he will not fulfill it at all.

There are some of the poskim who said that specifically when all three sat from the beginning to eat together, then they are not permitted to separate. But if at the beginning two sat to eat, and in the middle of the meal the third arrived and ate with them, they are able to separate because the obligation of zimun did not take effect upon them at the beginning of the meal (Tur in the name of the Ri). And the Rosh rejected these words, for since he sat to eat with them, the obligation of zimun took effect upon all of them, and it is forbidden for all of them to separate. And so we hold; and so our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 2, and he did not bring the first opinion at all, see there. And even if they joined together only at the end of the meal – they are obligated to perform zimun, and it is forbidden for them to recite the blessing without zimun. And there is no difference between when two ate and the third arrived, or one ate and afterward two arrived. And it is simple.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: Nevertheless, if he eats with them without establishing a fixed place—they are permitted to divide, unless he is a waiter. Thus far his words. That is to say: that when the third person came, he did not sit with them at the table but rather ate while standing or while walking—the obligation of zimun does not fall upon them; for three who eat with fixity, the obligation of zimun falls, but not those without fixity. And only the waiter, this is his manner of fixity. And the novel point is that even though the two are with fixity, we do not say that the third is secondary and is like all of them with fixity, for it is not so. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote: Nevertheless, even in a place where they are permitted to divide, it is much better with zimun, because "in a multitude of people is the King's glory." Thus far his words. That is to say: that the third person should sit with them at the table during the Grace After Meals and they shall perform zimun. And we do not say that there is no obligation of zimun here at all and it is forbidden for them to perform zimun, for it is not so. And it appears clear to me that this is specifically in a place where the law permits them to divide, such as in this case that has been explained here—it is much better with zimun. But in a place where we say they do not join for zimun, such as if they all ate scattered and separated and the like, in such a case they certainly cannot perform zimun at all.

That which we learned in the Mishnah: Three who ate as one are obligated to form a zimun – certainly this is when they ate at one table; or at small tables as was common in their days, but close to one another. However, when they ate separated, such as for us where each one eats at a table for himself, even if they are all in one room – they do not join for a zimun, as this is not "as one." And this is what will be explained in siman 195, that two groups join together – this is when there are three in each group. (And so wrote the Magen Avraham in subsection 8, see there. However, regarding what I wrote concerning the intention of our teacher, the Rema, in the previous section, that his intention is that they should all eat a little with fixedness, see there – in my humble opinion it does not appear so from his wording. For there, this is not necessary, since two are sitting with fixedness and the third is also standing over them – they can form a zimun, similar to a shamash. Rather, there is no obligation upon them to form a zimun, for if it were according to the words of the Magen Avraham, that without this a zimun is not relevant at all, how does the shamash join? And so it is implied from the Eliyah Rabbah subsection 6, and from the Taz subsection 7, see there. Examine it and you will find it simple.) (And in siman 195 section 4 another answer will be explained regarding that of two groups, see there.)

If they were riding and said "let us eat," even though each one eats from his own loaf and they did not descend from the animals – they join together, since they stood in one place. But if they were walking and eating – they do not join together. And likewise, if they were eating in a field scattered and separated, even though they all eat at one time and from one loaf, since they did not establish to eat in one place – they do not join together. And those traveling in a wagon, if they stopped the horses and three ate in the wagon – they join together. And if they ate while the horses were moving, it seems to me that they do not join together. But those traveling in a ship, it seems to me that they join together even when it is moving, for a ship is a place of establishment (so it seems in my humble opinion).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: Three who sat to eat and recited the blessing of "Hamotzi," even if each one eats from his own loaf, and even if he has not yet eaten a kezayit of bread—they are not permitted to separate. Thus far his words. And there are those who say that specifically when they eat from one loaf does the obligation take effect, even if they have not yet eaten a kezayit. But when each one eats from his own loaf—the obligation does not take effect unless they have eaten a kezayit of bread (Bach and Magen Avraham subsection 10). And there is one who says that if they began to eat together, then even if one wishes to finish his meal before they finish—it is forbidden, for they all became obligated in zimun. But if one began to eat beforehand, and afterwards the second and third began, then if one wishes to finish his meal beforehand, he may finish and recite the blessing by himself (Taz subsection 6). And thus wrote the Tosafot at the beginning of the chapter "Three who ate," see there. And this they wrote according to their interpretation of the Yerushalmi, see there. But the Rashba and the Rosh interpreted it in a different manner, and according to their words, this distinction does not exist, obviously. Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, did not bring this matter (Eliyah Rabbah subsection 6). Therefore, one should not be lenient in this. And see what I wrote in siman 200, section 2.

Three who came from three groups of three people each, who ate and have not yet recited birkat hamazon, and these three joined together—certainly the obligation of zimun falls upon them. And these three are obligated to recite the blessing now with a zimun even if they did not eat together now but each one by himself, for if they had not eaten here at all, it would be impossible for them to recite the blessing here at all; as I wrote in siman 178, that one should not recite the blessing except in the place where he ate. And according to the opinion of the Rambam there, even in such a case it is forbidden. Rather, we are dealing here with a case where they all ate in one room, but these ate in this corner and those in the second corner and those in the third corner, for regarding the matter of birkat hamazon in the place of eating, it is considered as one place. And this is when there was no birkat hamazon at all in the first places in the presence of these three separated individuals, for since they did not perform a zimun for them in their place, they became obligated in a zimun. But if they performed a zimun for them in their place, such as if he waited for the two who recited birkat hamazon with a zimun, and he paused from his eating until the blessing of "hazan" or until the blessing of the land according to the opinions that will be explained in siman 200, and afterwards he ate more—they no longer join together for a zimun, even if they ate together afterwards and finished their meal; for the obligation of zimun has already departed from them, and each one recites the blessing by himself. And even if one did so for his group—he no longer joins for a zimun. And there remain only two, and with two there is no zimun. (See Taz subsection 8 and Magen Avraham subsection 13, and we have already included their words. Examine and you will find it simple.)

And there are times when even if those who separated did not join for a zimun at all in their previous groups, the obligation of zimun has departed from them and they no longer join for a zimun even if they ate afterward. For example, three groups of four people each, and one separated from each group and they joined into another group, and the three remaining in each group recited the blessing with a zimun—the obligation of zimun has completely departed from those who separated, since their groups performed a zimun. And similarly, if there were only three in each group, and one from each of them separated from their group and joined together, but to the two who remained in each group came three others, one to each group, and they ate with them, and each group performed a zimun for itself—the zimun has also departed from those who separated since their groups already performed a zimun, even though they did not perform the zimun with them. And the reason for the matter is: for there is no zimun except with three who are obligated, and how shall the one who separated from the group perform a zimun now, when his group already performed a zimun? For he is now left only as an individual.

And all this is post facto once they have separated. But initially, three who ate together—it is forbidden for one to separate from the two and join two others who are obligated in zimun, for he would nullify the two who remain from the mitzvah of zimun that took effect upon them. But from four who ate, one may separate from them and join two others who are obligated in zimun, for three still remain for zimun.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3: The custom is not to form a zimmun in the house of a Cuthite. And it seems to me the reason is because they could not establish themselves in his house due to fear of him, and it is as if they ate without a fixed manner. Furthermore: there is concern for danger if they change the version of the blessing and do not say "May the Merciful One bless the master of this house." Therefore, from the outset they did not establish themselves except to bless each one alone. Therefore, one should not change the custom; even if these reasons were not sufficient, in any case, since they have already conducted themselves so—it is as if they did not establish themselves together. Thus far his words. But several great authorities disagreed with this, and they hold that one does form a zimmun there, and "the master of this house" refers to the host of the meal. And several great authorities did so in practice, and particularly now that there are specific rooms for guests in the inns where they form a zimmun. And so we do in practice, unless they eat there in a temporary manner and not in a fixed manner, for then one does not form a zimmun there. (The Levush, and the Bach, and the Matteh Moshe in the name of the Maharshal, and the Magen Avraham subsection 9 in the name of the Maharil—all of them ruled that one should form a zimmun there.)