Siman 196

We learned at the beginning of the chapter "Three who ate": If one ate tevel, or ma'aser rishon from which terumah was not taken, or ma'aser sheni or hekdesh that were not redeemed – one does not form a zimmun over him. And the Rambam wrote at the end of the first chapter: Anyone who eats a forbidden thing, whether intentionally or unintentionally – does not recite a berakhah over it, neither at the beginning nor at the end. How so? If one ate tevel of rabbinic origin... he does not recite a berakhah; and it goes without saying if he ate nevelot or terefot, or drank yayin nesech and the like. But if he ate demai... – he recites a berakhah at the beginning and at the end, and so too for anything similar to them. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words: For certainly even when eating a rabbinic prohibition one should not recite a berakhah. However, regarding a light prohibition like demai – he recites a berakhah. And since he wrote "and so too for anything similar to them," it implies explicitly that there are other light rabbinic prohibitions over which one recites a berakhah. And it seems to me that this refers to bishul akum, and milk milked by a non-Jew, regarding which they were lenient to permit the purging of earthenware vessels, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 113, see there. (And in the Be'er Heitev he wrote regarding stam yeinam, see there. And it does not seem correct to me. And examine carefully and you will find it light.)

However, the Ra'avad disagreed with him, and wrote that regarding all prohibitions one is obligated to recite a blessing before and after since he derives benefit. It is only regarding the matter of zimun that he does not join, because there is no permanence to a prohibited matter, and it is like the eating of fruits which has no permanence for zimun. And according to the Rambam, one must say that which we learned in the Mishnah, "zimun," is to teach a greater point: that it is not only necessary to say that he may not recite the blessing himself, but even to join a zimun where another recites the blessing and he is only for the joining, that this is also prohibited (Bach). And the Rosh agreed with the Ra'avad as the Tur wrote, see there.

But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, cited an explicit Tosefta like the Rambam (Demai chapter two), and this is the wording of the Tosefta: An Israelite may not extend a limb from a living animal to the children of Noah, nor a cup of wine to a nazir… and one does not recite a berakhah over them, and one does not invite for a zimun over them, and one does not respond "Amen" after them. Thus far its words. And so too in the Yerushalmi, the first chapter of Challah: It is forbidden to recite a berakhah over stolen matzah, "And the robber who blesses, blasphemes…". Rabbi Yose says: A transgression is not a mitzvah. Rabbi Ila said: "These are the mitzvot"—if you perform them according to their commandment, they are mitzvot. And if not, they are not mitzvot. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit like the Rambam, and so too it is explained from the Mishnah in Demai: One recites a berakhah over demai and invites for a zimun over it—implying clearly that specifically over demai one recites a berakhah, and not over other prohibitions, even those of rabbinic origin. And so too our teacher Yonah and the Rashba ruled like the Rambam. And so too it is explained from the wording of Rashi in the Mishnah of "Three who ate," see there. And so too our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 1. And it seems to me that if one ate bread with prohibited meat, even the Rambam admits that he should recite a berakhah over the bread at the beginning and the end. For in the bread there is no prohibition, and why should he not recite a berakhah over it?

And there is one who ruled that if one ate a forbidden thing inadvertently—he recites a blessing over it (Taz, subsection 1). That is to say: if it became known to him after his eating that it was forbidden, he recites Birkat HaMazon or another blessing. And he brings proof from that which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 2, that if one ate a forbidden thing in a place of danger—one recites a blessing over it. And if so, what distinction is there between danger and inadvertence (ibid.)? And these matters are astounding: for in a case of inadvertence, although he is not liable for this, nevertheless, ultimately he is eating a forbidden thing, and this is not within the category of a blessing. But in a place of danger, he is eating a permitted thing, for the Torah permitted it to him and it is like a truly permitted thing. And what is the connection of this to that? (And regarding what he wrote from the Responsa of the Rashba, Part 1, Siman 794, regarding a sick person on Yom Kippur, the Rashba, of blessed memory, did not see fit to elaborate on the reasons since he ruled that he should recite a blessing. And besides this, the words of the Rashba there are astounding, for he agreed with the Ra'avad, yet in the Chiddushim at the beginning of the chapter "Three Who Ate" he ruled explicitly like the Rambam, see there. And perforce this responsum is not accurate. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great work: If one stole wheat, ground it, and baked it, even though he acquired it through a change—he does not recite a blessing, neither at the beginning nor at the end. This is like that which is in Bava Kamma (94a), that this is not one who blesses but one who blasphemes. And so we hold regarding a lulav, as is explained below in siman 649, see there; because regarding a blessing, a change is not effective, for one does not mention the Name of Heaven over a matter whose essence is through a transgression (Tosafot Sukkah 30a). And there is one who says that regarding Birkat HaMazon, since it is a Torah obligation, it is different, since according to the law it is his. Furthermore: regarding lulav they are in doubt there about this, see there. And if so, regarding Birkat HaMazon which is from the Torah, we follow the stringent view. (Magen Avraham. And there is a proof for this from the words of the Maggid Mishneh, chapter six of the Laws of Chametz and Matzah, law 7, see there.)

In Arachin (3a) we say that kohanim and Israelites [combine], for kohanim eat terumah and Israelites eat chullin, even though the Israelite cannot eat terumah. But since the kohen can eat chullin, it is called a shared fixed meal, and they join together for zimun. From this our teachers inferred in every such case, such as three who are eating, and one eats the bread of Cutheans, and the [other] two are careful regarding this, nevertheless since this one who is eating can eat from theirs—they join for zimun. But if both of them cannot eat from one another, such as one who is a kohen and eats terumah or challah, and the second is an Israelite and eats the bread of Cutheans, and the kohen is careful regarding this; for the Israelite cannot eat that of the kohen, and the kohen is also careful regarding the bread that the Israelite eats—they do not join.

And similarly, three people, two of whom are under a vow of prohibition from one another—they do not combine for zimmun, because one is forbidden from the other's food. And even though they could annul their vow through a sage, nevertheless, for now they have not annulled it. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that this is specifically when each one eats from his own loaf. But if they eat from the loaf of a homeowner—they combine, for they are eating from one loaf. Thus far his words. And seemingly there is no novelty in this, and what is he teaching us? But in truth there is a great novelty in this, for in Yoreh Deah siman 221 it is explained that they are forbidden to eat from one bowl at a homeowner's, for perhaps one will eat less than the other, and it will turn out that he benefits him, unless there is always some left in the bowl, see there. And for this he teaches us that regarding bread we are not concerned for this, for presumably the homeowner provides plenty of bread. (See Taz subsection 3. And according to his words, he should have specified that there is plenty. But according to what I have written it works well, for presumably it is so. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

From the law that has been explained, the poskim inferred that if one is eating meat and one is eating milk, they join together. For even though the one eating meat cannot eat milk for six hours, by which time the food will already be digested, nevertheless, since the one eating milk can eat meat immediately by means of wiping and rinsing the mouth, they join together, as with terumah and chullin that has been explained. And if the one eating milk is not eating meat then, such as before Tisha B'Av, they do not join; or if he is eating hard cheese where he must wait a long time, they also do not join. However, on this they asked: what does meat and milk matter to us, since they are eating bread? For if not so, zimun is not relevant, and behold they can eat the bread with one another. And in truth, it is not a difficulty at all, for the essence of zimun is the joining together, and two who are eating, this one meat and this one cheese, are forced to eat in separation; for it is forbidden to bring them up onto one table, or they must make a distinction such as with two tablecloths and the like, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 88, see there. And if so, how shall they join for zimun? And if you say that if so, even this one eating milk and this one meat there is no joining? That is not so, for the one eating milk can immediately join the one eating meat. And even if in truth he does not join, since it is within his power to join, it is considered like joining. This is not the case when both of them cannot eat from one another. And know that it is common to say that the one eating milk should recite the blessing and not the one eating meat, because the one eating milk can eat from the other's food (Magen Avraham subsection 1). And it seems to me that there is no great insistence on this, since the Gemara in Arachin there did not specify that the Kohen recites the blessing. But it is possible to say that it was not necessary to specify, for regardless, a Kohen recites the blessing because of "and you shall sanctify him," as I wrote in siman 201, see there. But regardless, this is not logical, for if the one eating meat cannot recite the blessing, how does he join for zimun? Rather, certainly they said this as an initial preference, but if it is the way of honor to honor the one eating meat, there is no insistence. And it seems to me that such is the custom. (That which the Taz wrote in subsection 2, the Eliyah Rabbah rejected in subsection 3, see there.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: One does not include in a zimun one who ate less than a kezait. Thus far his words, and it is a simple matter. Rather, it comes to teach us that even according to the opinion that will be explained in the next siman, that one who ate a vegetable also joins for three; and I would have said that bread less than a kezait is no worse than a vegetable—it comes to teach us that this is not so. (See Taz, subsection 4. And according to our words, it settles well with simplicity. Examine and you will find it easy.)