Siman 199

The attendant who ate a kezayit—one may include him in a zimun, even though his eating is not with a fixed sitting at the table but rather he eats while walking or standing; nevertheless, he joins, for since this is his way—his walking and standing are his fixed manner. But for another man it is not so, as I wrote in siman 193. And the Kuti who is of the Samaritans, in this time they are like complete idolaters in all their matters. And an am ha'aretz, from the essential law, one does not include him in a zimun, because his company is not pleasant. However, we hold that we do include an am ha'aretz in a zimun, and we rely on those Tannaim who hold: Who is an am ha'aretz? Anyone who does not recite Kriyat Shema morning and evening, or does not don tefillin (47b). And we do not have such an am ha'aretz among us. And even though we hold in the Gemara there that even if he read and studied, but did not serve Torah scholars—he is an am ha'aretz, nevertheless, it is impossible to uphold this now, for if so, they will go and build an altar for themselves (Tosafot ibid.). And our sages, of blessed memory, said similarly in Chagigah (22a), and we rely on this. And nevertheless, one who does not recite Kriyat Shema, or does not don tefillin—one does not include him in a zimun, for such a person is a rasha. And all the more so a min or an apikores, that one does not include them in a zimun, and likewise for a convert (in ancient times) who circumcised but did not immerse—one does not include him in a zimun. And all the more so one does not include an idolater in a zimun, even when he blesses Hashem. But when he circumcised and immersed—one includes him in a zimun. And one should not ask: How can he say "for You have given our fathers a desirable land as a heritage"? For this is no question: for the land was given to Avraham, and Avraham is called "the father of a multitude of nations"; meaning: that anyone who enters under the wings of the Shekhinah is a son of Avraham our father. And an onan during the time that aninut applies to him—one does not join him to a zimun, as he is exempt from all the mitzvot. And even according to the one who holds that he may perform them, nevertheless, he has no connection to zimun. Furthermore: we do not hold so, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 341. And on Shabbat, when aninut does not apply to him—he joins for a zimun. And a mourner always joins for a zimun, and for him there is an addition in the blessing of "HaTov VeHaMeitiv" as I wrote in siman 189.

It is stated in the Gemara (45b): Women may form a zimun for themselves, and slaves may form a zimun for themselves. Women, slaves, and minors, if they wished to form a zimun—they may not form a zimun because of licentiousness. According to Rashi there, it is not an obligation upon women to form a zimun; rather, if they wished to form a zimun—they may form a zimun. The Tosafot agreed as well. However, the Rosh wrote that they are obligated to form a zimun, for it implies this explicitly at the beginning of Arachin which says: All are obligated in zimun... to include women, see there. The students of our teacher Yonah wrote similarly. However, even according to the approach of Rashi and Tosafot it is settled, for certainly they are obligated when they ate with three men—they are also obligated to hear and answer the blessing of the zimun. But for themselves, there is no obligation. Likewise, they do not join with men for a zimun, for the joining of men and women is licentiousness. Even a husband, his wife, and his daughter—they do not join for a zimun, and only when there is a zimun without them are they also obligated (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol). The custom of the world is like Rashi and Tosafot, and we have never heard of women forming a zimun for themselves. Also from the Rambam in the fifth chapter there is proof for the approach of Rashi and Tosafot: for behold, the Rambam's words are opaque like the wording of the Shas, except that he wrote that they do not form a zimun with the Name, see there. And if it should enter your mind that there is an obligation upon them, why should they not form a zimun with ten using the Name? Rather, it is certain that there is no obligation upon them, and therefore one does not mention the Name in a place where there is no obligation. Thus ruled our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch. And they wrote that they fulfill their obligation with our zimun even though they do not understand, and we explained this in siman 193, section 4. (And see Magen Avraham, subsection 5. And be precise and you will find it easy.) In the Tur, he brought an opinion of one who instructed that a woman joins for a zimun. We do not hold accordingly, and we have not heard nor seen anyone who instructed so. (And the Taz who elaborated in subsection 2, did so not for the law, but to explain the words of R.Y. HaKohen in the Tur.)

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote: An androgynos may lead the zimmun for his own kind, but he may not lead the zimmun for men nor for women. And a tumtum does not lead the zimmun at all. Thus far his words. For all androgynos are equal, and he is a distinct creature. But with a tumtum, there is male and there is female, and therefore he does not even fulfill the obligation for his own kind. And one who was distanced because of a transgression, or who violated the regulation as explained in Yoreh Deah siman 334 – we do not include him in a zimmun.

Regarding a minor, the dispute among the Rishonim is extensive. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled that a minor who has reached the age of "pe'otot," approximately nine or ten years old (Magen Avraham), and knows to Whom we bless—we include him in a zimun, and he joins both for three and for ten. Thus far his words. However, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who say we do not join him at all until he is thirteen years old, for then we establish a presumption for him as an adult who has produced two hairs. And such is the custom, and one should not deviate. And a deaf-mute and an imbecile, if they focus and understand—they join for a zimun, even though the deaf-mute does not hear the blessing. Thus far his words. And even though regarding a Torah matter we do not establish a minor of thirteen years old in the presumption that he produced two hairs, and an examination is required, nevertheless, to join him for a zimun there is no concern. However, for him to fulfill the obligation for others—he specifically requires an examination (ibid.). But if everyone blesses for themselves, and he only says the blessing of the zimun—there is no concern (ibid.). And such is the simple custom, that one who becomes bar mitzvah and they make a feast—he blesses. And that which he wrote regarding a deaf-mute and an imbecile—the intention is not a complete deaf-mute or imbecile; for these have no intellect at all, and are inferior to a minor. Rather, the intention is that he is a deaf person who does not hear but speaks, or a slight imbecile. Therefore, if they focus and understand—they join. And a mute who hears but does not speak, it seems to me that he does not join since he is unable to answer and bless (see Magen Avraham subsection 8, and so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah).