הלכות ברכות פרק ה

Rambam Shiur: Laws of Blessings, Chapter 5 – Women and Slaves in Birkat HaMazon and Birkat HaZimun

Introduction and Announcements

We are learning Rambam, Laws of Blessings, Chapter 5 in Sefer Ahava. Yesterday we learned in the Rambam that there is a blessing of "Baruch HaTov VeHaMeitiv," which one makes when things are good and they get even better.

I want to first greet the sponsor, the "bracha l'rosh mashbir," the sponsor of the shiurim, the Rav, the chassid, lover of Torah, Rabbi Yoel Weltzberger, for sponsoring the shiurim and for constantly supporting our activities of Torah and chesed. And I want to remind everyone that the entire community is invited to join and go in his footsteps, following Rabbi Yoel. In the coming days there will be a major campaign for the Beit Midrash of Rabbi Yitzchak, so he can continue to be marbitz Torah with his clear, illuminating shiurim that help and enlighten so many people, and it will enable our shiurim to continue with God's help, and the Rambam shiur that the community has such pleasure from.

And I must add that there will be another great siyum Thursday night, we will send the details next Thursday, so the community should look forward to it.

Background – What We Have Learned Until Now in Chapter 5

The Rambam says as follows: In this chapter, we have already learned the essential mitzvah of Birkat HaMazon, the order of "Zan," "Eretz," "Yerushalayim," and so forth. And after that we learned what are the types of bread, and what exempts, and so on, on which things one must make an extra blessing or it is included in the meal.

Now we are going to learn primarily, first who is obligated in Birkat HaMazon, that is the first thing, but after that primarily we are going to learn about the mitzvah of zimun. This is that when people eat together, they bentch together.

Law 1 – Women and Slaves in Birkat HaMazon

The Rambam's Language

The Rambam says as follows: "Women and slaves are obligated in Birkat HaMazon." It is certain that women and slaves must bentch. But the Rambam says, you should know that it is not certain whether they are obligated in Birkat HaMazon from the Torah or rabbinically. The Rambam says as follows: "And there is a doubt in the matter whether they are obligated from the Torah." Seemingly they should have been obligated from the Torah, "because it is a positive commandment that is not time-bound," it is not a positive time-bound commandment, it is a mitzvah that the act of eating causes. And why shouldn't they have to thank the Almighty just like everyone else? Ah, "except that they also are not obligated from the Torah, therefore they do not fulfill the obligation for adults." Except that they also are not obligated from the Torah. Wait a minute, why aren't they obligated from the Torah?

Explanation of the Doubt – Why Are Women Perhaps Not Obligated from the Torah?

The commentators on the Rambam say, the Gemara brings it this way, either because women cannot bentch on the land, because they were not part of the division of the land. The division of the land was distributed to the men, each man of the Jews who entered received an inheritance. And women cannot give thanks on brit and Torah.

Question: How Can a Rabbinic Text Exempt from a Torah Obligation?

It is a very interesting thing, very difficult to understand at first glance, because Eretz, Brit and Torah, is an enactment of the Sages to add to Birkat HaMazon. So how could they become exempt from Birkat HaMazon because of something rabbinic, because they are not obligated in the rabbinic parts? It could be, I thought that here we're talking about one being obligated and one not being obligated, meaning to say the entire text. But it's difficult.

Discussion: The Connection Between the Land and Birkat HaMazon

Speaker 1: No, I'll tell you this way, it could be you're right seemingly that we have learned and argued that our text from the Rambam has a more narrow implication. And there is an issue that the text of Brit and Torah is perhaps not essential, and if one forgot one doesn't have to repeat it, and so forth. But still, they spoke about the fact that the combination of Birkat HaMazon is still one gift that was given to the men. Right, by the way, the text is perhaps not essential, you're right, the text is perhaps from the Rabbis. But the idea of Birkat HaMazon stands in the Torah that it is on the land and the brit is a part of the land. And it happens to be that it fits very well with the verses, "the land which He swore," for the men He gave the land. He gave it to the women too, but from this itself one can understand, because they are not homeowners, she sits on the land.

Speaker 2: Okay, it's an interesting thing, because I would still be able to say that the essence of thanking the Almighty "thank you for giving us bread" is a Torah obligation for women too. Perhaps the question is the text of the blessing, because they have... No, but we see that the question is the Torah obligation. The question is, the text of Eretz is from the Torah. "On the good land which He gave you," it's land. Or the land that one inherits and possesses, and also the brit is connected to the land, because the brit, in the merit of the brit one receives the land, something like that we learned. Right, it has something to do with it. But it is certainly that the blessing is on the food. It's even when one bentches on Eretz, you said it very well. For example, there is a famine, God forbid, there is a famine and there is no bread, one eats potatoes, one doesn't go thank the Almighty "at least I have land," on land alone. The blessing is on land that gives you food.

Speaker 1: Really, you wanted also in exile, but one thanks for Eretz in the context that I am satisfied, I have gratitude that I have what to eat, and I have a land that gives me food. As I said yesterday, that one who doesn't have land doesn't have what to eat, yes, because he doesn't have a piece of inheritance where he can plant. Yes, that is clear.

Innovation: The Dynamic of a Meal and Who Leads

I mean that, I learn that all these things are after there is a meal. Let's think, a meal is usually led by one person. Birkat HaMazon is led by one person, as we are learning now about zimun, right? And the leader is certainly presumably in a normal home the father, the husband, the homeowner, I don't know, he leads the meal, and the wife can be that she listens. So you understand that it makes sense, and it's a bit backwards. We look from the beginning why ideally should one fulfill the obligation for another, she is also obligated, and he is also obligated. But to fulfill the obligation for one's fellow...

Explanation: Why Women Cannot Fulfill the Obligation for Men Even If It's from the Torah

Speaker 2: Ah, I wanted to tell you, certainly regarding giving the law that one mitzvah causes the other obligations I understand very well. One can even say that even if it were from the Torah, but the part of Eretz and Brit and Torah, they are not obligated in this, they cannot say it in the name of the great one. This I can understand very well. That they cannot fulfill the obligation even if it were from the Torah it would also be a problem, because how can you give thanks for Eretz, Brit and Torah, and also fulfill the obligation for another when it's not your gratitude?

Practical Difference: Doubt If One Has Bentched

But I'll tell you an interesting thing. We learned yesterday, if someone is in doubt whether he said Birkat HaMazon, he must bentch again because it's a doubt about a Torah obligation. Women and slaves will also have to bentch again. Because according to the calculation of what you could say that it's a double doubt, yes, because there's a doubt whether they bentched, and even if not, there's a doubt whether it's really a doubt about a Torah obligation. I mean, it's enough of a Torah doubt to be stringent in this one reality, the parameters of their obligation. Because the Rambam didn't say regarding doubt that women and slaves are exempt in case of doubt. He wouldn't have had to say it, but I would say that women and slaves are obligated even in case of doubt. Meaning, they are obligated from the Torah, they just don't have the Torah doubt.

Minors – A Brief Note

Speaker 1: But regarding minors, very good. That is the point about women and slaves, you're right that certainly women and slaves are presumably from the Torah. But a minor, minors are different. They are not yet obligated in the mitzvot, they are not yet obligated in the blessings of mitzvot, with the blessings of enjoyment, with the mitzvot of chinuch. They are really not... At what age when they can taste regarding other blessings, what did he say?

Speaker 2: Yes. Ah, it's stated in another place he brings... Where does it say? When he can taste regarding grain? It's stated on... No, no. It's stated on matzah? On blessings we learned that the... The age is when they know about Him they bless.

Speaker 1: Ah, when they know about Him they bless, yes. The Rambam doesn't bring it here?

Speaker 2: He doesn't say it here somewhere? Somewhere? Ah, yes, when they know about Him they bless. He's going to bring it. Hold him in mind.

Law 2 – Birkat HaZimun

The Essential Matter of Zimun

Now the Rambam is going to tell us the law of Birkat HaZimun. I mean that we miss the essence of Birkat HaZimun, because the essence of Birkat HaZimun is that the mezamen is the one who bentches out loud and everyone else listens. At our homes we conduct ourselves this way, I don't know why. But usually it has become just such an honor that he invites, and therefore the community doesn't understand it so strongly. But the matter of Birkat HaZimun, according to the simple understanding is a law that when one eats alone, he has an obligation and he must bentch alone. When two people eat together, we will see the law later. When three people eat together, it's already a bit of a meal, it's already a ceremony, it's already something. Therefore one should make the bentching in a nice way. So what? That one should invite the community, and he should become the prayer leader, and say it out loud and each one should say Amen. This is a nice... I mean it's simply beautiful. It's aesthetic. It's beautiful. One person, everyone listens to him, and he says it nicely, and he invites them, and they answer... First, gentlemen, there is a mitzvah to go over... Yes.

The Rambam's Language

The Rambam says, "Three who ate bread..." Okay, "ate bread" is bread, as we learned, "...are obligated to bless Birkat HaZimun before Birkat HaMazon." Before Birkat HaMazon they must say... The Rambam says, he gives it the name "Birkat HaZimun." It's not a name and kingship, it's a text. "And what is Birkat HaZimun? If those who ate were from three to ten..." What is the blessing? He says, there is in this, it depends on the number of people who eat. But from three to ten, less than three there is no zimun. From three there is zimun. What does one say? "Let us bless Him from Whose we have eaten."

Why Specifically Three?

Why three? Seemingly three, because one says, and two answer. They say "let us bless." And it's not a study partnership, it's not a prayer leader, it's two people. If one wants to make the distinction of a measure of a study partnership, the third person is it. It's already a measure of zimun. I, all listeners, you make the zimun. You say to us, we say "let us bless," and we say they "let us bless," and they answer "Blessed." And certainly they say to us "let us bless," because they make us learn the shiur.

How One Makes the Zimun

So, "they answer after him when they say with three, one of them blesses, he begins with Birkat HaZimun, and says". The Rambam doesn't say "one of them," as if the others remain standing, the prayer leader. No, it's just three people, we're in the middle of a shiur today, and he has three people, he has a father-in-law with his son, and his father has two young men, we're already there.

"Let us bless Him from Whose we have eaten." "And everyone answers Blessed is He from Whose we have eaten."

Explanation: "Blessed is He from Whose we have eaten"

"Blessed is He from Whose we have eaten" - thank you, Creator, that we ate from His. Baruch is praised or blessed. Baruch is praised. Baruch is blessed in Yiddish. Thank you means we give thanks. But it's also not thanks, it's not acknowledgment. Baruch is blessed. Blessed is the Almighty that we eat from His. Because He is the master of the matter that it is forbidden for a person to benefit from this world without a blessing, the earth and its fullness belong to God, and we have the right to benefit from it after a blessing.

Discussion: "And in His goodness we live" – What Is the Translation?

"And in His goodness we live." And with His goodness we have lived. Chayinu or chayinu? The Rambam says chayinu, the Rambam doesn't punctuate. The Rambam says two yuds, that we live. Chayinu is in present tense, we live. No, chayinu means our life. Not "and in His goodness we live." Chayinu is it means our life. Not "and in His goodness" we live. Chayinu, do we live? No, it means to say... I don't know, chayinu we have lived. Chayinu we live. No, chayinu is past tense, "and in His goodness we have lived," "and in His goodness we live." Chayinu is our life. No, I mean that chayinu is past tense. I mean that chayinu... We will have to ask Dr. Kind what chayinu means. I would translate chayinu as we receive life from this, not that we have lived and are now dead. I mean, I still live, thank God. That's how I would think.

Nusach Ashkenaz – "Gentlemen, let us bless"

Our Ashkenazic custom has added, before the "let us bless Him from Whose we have eaten" we have added the "Gentlemen, let us bless." May His great name be blessed forever and ever.

What is this? In Yiddish, what is the source for this? Do the Hagahot Maimoniyot say something here on this place? I don't know. Okay, I would have wanted that the...

Explanation of "Chayinu" in Birkat HaZimun

Speaker 1: Many say "chayinu," and many say without the dot. Many say two yuds, that we live.

What is the translation of "chayinu"? "Chayinu" is in present tense, we live.

What is the translation of "chayinu"? "Chayinu" means our life. Not that we have lived. "Chayinu" have we lived? No. "Chayinu" we live.

No, I mean that "chayinu" is in present tense. One says "I live" or "my life."

No, I mean that "chayinu" is not that we have lived. I mean that "chayinu" is that we receive life.

Right, we have... I need to ask my doctor.

What is the translation of "chayinu"? I would translate "chayinu" — we receive life from Him. Not that we have lived and we are now dead. I mean that we still live, thank God. That's how I would translate it.

Nusach Ashkenaz: "Gentlemen, we will bentch" — Taking Permission

Speaker 1: Our Ashkenazic custom has added, before the "let us bless our God," we have added the "Gentlemen, we will bentch." "May the name of God be blessed from now and forever."

It's interesting in Yiddish, what is the source for this? Do the Hagahot Maimoniyot say something here in this place? I don't know.

Okay, but this is the zimun of the Rambam. Let's see. The "let us bless" is certainly the essential text. That is the blessing.

The "Gentlemen, we will bentch" is interesting, this is such an invitation to Birkat HaZimun. It's really inviting to what one says before Birkat HaZimun.

Where does this actually come from? It's not an obligation. What is the "Gentlemen" situation? Where does this come from? I don't know.

Speaker 2: Ah, he brings here from below, our custom is indeed to do this thing, the "May the name."

Ah, it's a Zohar. It's not a Zohar. Not clear. It has something to do with the Zohar, but...

You're right seemingly, it's permission for the permission. It's inviting to the... Yes, it's interesting.

Discussion: Why Does One Need to Take Permission Before Birkat HaZimun?

Speaker 1: It could be that it has to do with the question, who gave you the right to be the mezamen? The "Gentlemen" is as if, do you agree that I should be the one who bentches?

Ah, "Gentlemen, we will bentch." And they say, "Sure, may the name of God be blessed from now and forever." Yes, let us always bless.

And he says, "let us bless," he then stands there eighth. Ah, I agree, I agree, I say "well done."

Speaker 2: The Sephardim make it clear, that they make "give us and we will bless." But they mean this, that really, in the text, one doesn't have to become connected with Birkat HaZimun. But a person can give himself a call.

Gentlemen, it is a voluntary meal. Gentlemen, do you want to bentch? It's a language of question. Do you want to bentch with me? I am ready to bentch. Do you want to hear my bentching?

Speaker 1: The latter makes a lot of sense. Also by davening, by the way, it makes sense to be the one who leads, because the entire community listens to him. And it can really get on one's nerves, if that person has a voice that grates.

It doesn't mean to finish the "four who entered with intention," it doesn't mean to finish the piece. It means to say the whole time and the community listens.

So here too one has taking permission. By us, where one just invites and bentches alone, the entire taking permission is a bit of an interesting thing. But if I'm going to bentch and going to say it with me together... But even also him, there is a much greater place for taking permission, and going to listen to my entire bentching and answering with me...

Speaker 2: It's not just about that. It's that he has a bad text, and it grates. Or it's like they say, by the angels one asks permission. It's the awe before the honor of Heaven, not just for the honor of the people.

Speaker 1: But it doesn't fit... It's both things.

Speaker 2: But it doesn't fit that I... But for a prayer leader one must be an important person, and one should for someone who has a pleasant voice. Both are necessary...

Even by the shaliach tzibbur (prayer leader) there's a concept of asking permission, and one doesn't just say into the world, who are you? Who are you to be mevarech (bless) the Name? The entire olam (world) agrees, should I ask them? Okay.

Speaker 1: So, the Sephardim make it a bit more normal, they actually say, "hav lan venvarech", give me permission to "hav lan venvarech", and they give out loud the permission, they say "shamayim", which means one gives permission, and the doctor begins "birshut, nevarech".

Halacha 5 — Zimun with Ten with Hashem's Name

Speaker 1: Veheichi dami, the entire olam, the other two answer, "Baruch she'achalnu mishelo uvtuvo chayinu", and he answers "Baruch she'achalnu mishelo uvtuvo chayinu", ve'achar kach, continues whoever continues, the mezamen. He says "Baruch Hashem Elokeinu melech ha'olam hazan", ad shehu gomer arba berachot, until he finishes after "Hatov vehametiv".

I mean, excuse me, all four berachot. Yes, yes, yes. Gomer, yes. Vehen onin, yes, "Hatov vehametiv" lechol, all four berachot. Vehen onin amen achar kol beracha uveracha. Besides what one hears, one also says amen. This is the nusach by three, three to seven.

Hayu ochlin asara ulema'ala me'asara, mevarchin beshem. Then one adds the shem shamayim, which is already a more chashuv (important) thing, because we've learned that when there's an edah (congregation) one can already be mazkir (mention) shem shamayim, there's already a concept of tefillah betzibbur (communal prayer) like. One makes like a mini tefillah betzibbur.

It's interesting, yes, a birkat hamazon when there are ten is like, it has a certain koach (power), a certain point.

Speaker 2: No, it's like a davar shebekedusha (matter of sanctity). The difference is only that one says the Name.

Speaker 1: No, automatically comes along many halachot of if one left in the middle... One can talk more about this.

No, I'm saying, when you think that it's a concept of tefillah betzibbur, it's like a mini tefillah betzibbur, one understands such halachot that will come later.

Speaker 1: Says the Rambam, hamvarech omer, when there are ten and more, he says "nevarech lElokeinu", he adds "Elokeinu", "she'achalnu mishelo". And the olam also answers, "Baruch Elokeinu she'achalnu mishelo uvtuvo chayinu", and he benches.

Says the Rambam, vechen bebeit chatanim, if this is a proper benching, a regular benching. There are other nuscha'ot, we'll still see that one added... There are other nuscha'ot, when one is in a beit chatanim (house of grooms).

And we'll still learn that for a mourner one added some harachaman, and for a chatan (groom) one added a piece by birkat hamazon, by the seven berachot.

Speaker 2: No, you're talking about the berachot, a chatan one also added, one makes sheva berachot (seven blessings).

Speaker 1: Ah, the chatan one also added berachot after benching. But fine, the chatan also gets a special nusach of birkat hazimun.

Halacha 6 — Nusach in Beit Chatanim: "Shehashimcha Bime'ono"

Definition of "Beit Chatanim"

Speaker 1: So, seudah bebeit chatanim. He says, what does beit chatanim mean? Beit chatanim means, I mean the Hebrew translation is that one used to build a place where to make the seudat hachatuna (wedding feast), a tent. But I mean that the name has already become like that. A place that is in honor of simchat hachatuna (wedding celebration).

The Rambam tells us, from when is it called a seudah bebeit hachatuna? "Mish'at hetchilu lehit'aseik betzorchei chatanot venisu'in". From when one begins to occupy oneself, to prepare... I mean, the Gemara says when one begins to soak the barley, the grains to make beer. It's a long preparation. We're not talking here about a sudden preparation, but a long preparation.

"Vele'echol ad sheloshim yom achar hanisu'in". From when one begins to prepare the wedding until thirty days after the wedding, if one eats there, and one doesn't say that it's in honor of the wedding, but when one eats bebeit chatanim, then it is...

Nusach Hazimun in Beit Chatanim

Speaker 1: "Nevarech... shehashimcha bime'ono". One says like this, "nevarech" one adds, "nevarech", let us bless the Almighty, "shehashimcha bime'ono", that the simcha is bime'ono shel Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

I just want to say what the translation is, a bit of a difficult translation, not like I've always explained.

Discussion: Explanation of "Shehashimcha Bime'ono"

Speaker 1: "Shehashimcha bime'ono" — I always thought that this is to say what I said. I mean the simple peshat, the best peshat is, that this is a joyous place, which is a beit chatanim, one is busy with simchat chatanim, one benches, one remembers the whole time that the main simcha is by the Almighty.

We can have the middat hashimcha, but "oz vechedva bimkomo", or the middat hashimcha, I don't know what that means, that the middot that we have are remez (hint) toward the sefirot of the Almighty, or whatever it is, that...

Speaker 2: No, because "shehashimcha bime'oni" or "shehashimcha bime'ono" of the Almighty? We are here in a hall.

Speaker 1: No, "shehashimcha shelanu" is from the "simcha shebime'ono", or is the "simcha shebime'ono".

The point is not to say... "shehashimcha bime'ono" is a difficult lashon (language), because one could have thanked the Almighty for giving simcha in our me'on (dwelling). One doesn't say that. One says, "bime'ono".

Hear my peshat. We are here at a simcha, and one reminds the Almighty that the true simcha is by Him, "bime'ono", not "bime'oneinu".

Speaker 2: The other peshat is that "bime'ono" — it says in the sefarim actually "bime'ono", not "bime'oneinu". Or he said that the one who was mechabeir (composed) birkat hazimun wasn't so careful about Hebrew, he wrote "chayinu" instead of "chayeinu".

Speaker 1: No. A nice way of saying, like one says in other places, "asher bara sason vesimcha".

The Almighty gives simcha. Like "galya hakhoret dina". "Asher bara sason vesimcha". Simcha is His.

One way of saying that things are His is when it says "oz vechedva bimkomo". But when we rejoice it's such a feat. It's not easy with effort. The Almighty created for Himself the koach hashimcha (power of joy).

Speaker 2: Very good. Simcha is a creation of the Almighty. One of the things that He made. It's not relevant by me'ona. The Almighty gives us a bit of it. One doesn't even need to say it like that.

It's a way of saying, "bime'ono" is a way of darshen'ing (expounding) pesukim many times. "Lehodot ulhalel lefanav". One can say that one translation is like, by the Almighty one conducts oneself with hodu vehalel. But another way of translating in other places where such things are written, means such an introduction.

It's a nice way of saying that "shehu ba'al hadavar", He made it, it's in His possession. What does bime'ono mean? It's in His? I don't know exactly what me'ona translates to.

Speaker 1: "Me'on Elokim kedem", there where the Almighty is. "Me'ona Elokim kedem", the entire world is the Almighty's me'on. It's such a derasha to say at the end of a wedding, when one wants to bring down the emotions.

Speaker 2: Or because the Almighty made simcha.

Speaker 1: No, he says the other peshat is because when it says in the Gemara "asara bara", "asara bara", "asara bara", simcha, it comes out that the chatan receives now simcha.

Every time, how does the matter of being mazkir "me'ona", "zman", "chedva" go? One speaks every time, one praises the Almighty for the midda, for the pe'ula (action) that He does now.

What does the Almighty do now? He is mesamei'ach (brings joy). In order that the tefillah should be relevant, should be me'inyana deyoma (relevant to the day).

The truth is that the idea of chatuna the Almighty made. The Almighty is mechabeir (joins). The Almighty made that men and women should meet each other and make simcha. So we are all here, all the mechutanim in the Almighty's hall. The Almighty made men and made women and made simcha.

Seudot Because of the Nisu'in

Speaker 1: He says further, "Vechen seder hasimcha achar hanisu'in, matchil be'asher hu yatzar, shekvar amarta bime'ono yismechu". If in the beit hachatanim there's a seudah, one says "Elokeinu mi she'achalnu mishelo", and so one answers "Baruch Elokeinu mi she'achalnu mishelo".

And it's the Rav Chaim, we learned, by beit chatanim one makes from tzorchei nisu'in until 30 days. But this is when it's not in honor of the nisu'in, but it's just the beit chatanim.

But any seudot that one makes achar hanisu'in, because of the nisu'in, one makes a sheva berachot, or the new couple goes to their grandmother and one makes a big one in honor of the newly, the newlywed, ad shneim asar chodesh, until a year one can make shehashimcha bime'ono.

The Custom Today – Not Over a Year

Very good. I mean that it's not implemented that it's by us to do over a year. I saw that people conduct themselves like this, and so it says in Shulchan Aruch, that what does he mean, erev kol simcha veyayin, but not any me'on except at the time of mishteh.

Ah, it was like Rav Yonah menucha, they were broken Jews. But the one who is broken, he is drawn, the one who is sad, when a couple comes, he begins to think how much the wedding cost him, he shouldn't make. One who is yes satisfied, he should yes say.

Discussion: Opposite Reasoning – "Fake it Until You Make It"

Speaker 1: I would say the opposite, one who is satisfied, it makes no difference what you say, but one who is sad, fake it until you make it, say shehashimcha bime'ono, you fight with yourself, but you'll become besimcha.

Speaker 2: But the Shulchan Aruch doesn't say so for the one who is already happy. No, he says that since erev kol simcha, does that mean that one doesn't conduct oneself to say shehashimcha bime'ono. Nu nu, I go it will need to answer. One has a matter now to fight with the Shulchan Aruch.

Seudot After the Nisu'in – Obligation of Zimun

The Rambam says further, vechen seudot she'osin otan achar hanisu'in mechmat hazman, yes, hakol chayavin bebirkat hazimun.

Why does he say this here? Perhaps there is in the Gemara some hava amina that for some reason they shouldn't have any zimun or what.

Kohen and Yisrael Who Ate Together – Teruma and Chullin

The Rambam says, kohen veyisraeli she'achlu ke'echad, even two people ate two categories of food, the kohen and the yisraeli ate together, and they ate teruma and chullin. You should say that it's like two types of seudot, because they ate two different types of things. If a Brisker would say that it's two different dinim, he eats kodesh and he eats just his breakfast. Yes, chayavin bezimun, because they eat together.

Why Not? The Difference Between Kohen and Yisrael and Mudar Hana'a

Why not? Think. He says that a holy rav here, I already know why he says it, that it goes backwards for you. The Jew may not eat teruma, but the kohen may eat chullin, so they still eat together. Specifically the kohen has his own thing that you may not eat. Okay. I don't understand.

Ah, he says that for example there's a halacha with mudar hana'a who eat one next to the other one can't say, because they don't eat together. Why? He may not eat from his food. That doesn't mean eating together. Here, although each one eats his own, but it can still mean a seudah like one eats together. This the Gemara says. The Gemara says this. The Gemara says this. Kohen, the zar can't eat with the kohen, but the kohen can yes eat with him. Ah, automatically it means like one seudah. Very good.

Practical Application: Pat Akum, Klausenburg and Satmar

Women. Ah, it's good to know. It means for example that... I see the Hagahot Maimoniyot for example thinks considers about if one eats pat akum, one is careful about pat akum and the other two are not careful about pat akum if they can have zimun together, because... You hear? Yes, but I don't see this is ours. But I think, what happens when there's such a type of situation that he can eat from him, but he can't? Means, a Klausenburger and a Satmarer may eat from the Klausenburger shechita, or from the eggs of the Klausenburger... As long as there's a way that it should be one seudah, one is obligated in zimun.

Women, Slaves, and Minors – Obligation of Zimun

Let's go further. Nashim, avadim, uketanim are also chayavin bezimun kechayavin bebirkat hamazon. Just like they are obligated in birkat hamazon, they are also obligated in zimun. It means, that if there is... There's a good mistake that people think many times that Shabbat by the seudah is a men's thing, but women should also answer and be a part of the birkat hazimun.

Ein Mezamnin Aleihem – But Mezamnin Le'atzman

The Rambam says that he is more explaining what is the zimun that women, slaves, minors? He says that nashim, avadim, uketanim ein mezamnin aleihem. It means, if there's one man with two women or vice versa, or a slave minor, one can't use them for three, one can't be mezamen based on them, aval mezamnin le'atzman. It means, but among themselves, three women eat together or three minors eat together, they can make birkat hazimun. This is the point. They must make birkat hazimun. There is a point, they must make birkat hazimun.

This means like this, the Shulchan Aruch's lashon "chayavot bezimun" means like this, means that they must, that when there are three men and them, they should be there and also hear the ba'al hamezamen and be yotzei the benching with him and so on, they should be a part of it. If they are three women, they should properly make zimun, that one woman should be the mezamen. But if there are only three of men and women, one shouldn't make, one can't make birkat hazimun.

Why Can't One Mix? Safek Chiyuv De'oraita

The simple reason is the same thing that we learned earlier, because the obligation of women in zimun is a safek (doubt), everyone the obligation is not the same as men, and one can't add together two levels of obligations. You can't use a yotzei chiyuv de'oraita, a yotzei chiyuv de'oraita with a safek chiyuv de'oraita, one can't be motzi, one can't use the zimun, as if you use her to complete your zimun. You can't do that.

Discussion: Women with Minors? Slaves with Minors?

Speaker 1: It's a bit interesting, by birkat hazimun itself is certainly a derabbanan. I mean, women with minors together is a problem?

Speaker 2: No, kal vachomer.

Speaker 1: I mean, the slaves make the problem.

Speaker 2: Uva'aretz lo yezamnu beshem. Why shouldn't one say beshem? Ah, simple, because a minyan, a davar shebekedusha, one shouldn't, the din of ten becomes a davar shebekedusha, a fixed thing for a... But why can't there be women with minors? What's the problem? I mean, seriously, one can't trust women with minors? I understand, the slaves, they are the ones who go here make the problem, because they are not the best Jews.

Speaker 1: He means like this, the slaves with the minors. Slaves with minors or slaves with women? If slaves...

Speaker 2: The truth is simple. One doesn't need to put in. No, the point is what he says here is that three minors alone can make a zimun, three slaves alone can make a zimun, three women alone can make a zimun. Not a bunch of women, slaves, minors together that they shouldn't make any zimun. They shouldn't meanwhile eat together at all, that's what he means to say, right? That's the whole thing.

Androginus – Mezamnin Alav Mino

Okay, androginus. What is my reason? The androginus, what is he? A safek zachar, safek zachar safek nekeva. So what is with him? Yes? Androginus. It's interesting that the Rambam brings here again androginus. It's brought like in Berachot, kriat shema. It's interesting, every halacha one needs to know what is androginus. No, you already know that androginus... Look what's going on here.

Yes, androginus mezamnin alav mino, he can be mezamen al mino, because all who are his type are... also have a din zachar, are both... not a din zachar. Whatever din he is, we don't know. Whatever safek is, he must also make mezamen al zachar when he can.

Because one mezamen, but he can't be mezamen lo lenashim velo la'anashim. Rashi is safek. Yes, not lenashim, although three women can, because perhaps he is an ish, that he can't be mitztaref with women. Not with two women, because he is an androginus, so perhaps he is an isha, right?

Tumtum – Ein Mezamnin Klal

A tumtum one mezamen klal? Why not? Because every tumtum is different. Tumtum is not the same problem every tumtum. Because every tumtum can be that he is a zachar or a nekeva. It should tomorrow be discovered. So it's not peshat that every tumtum is the same, for whatever the halacha is in a tumtum, are all tumtumim already the same tumtum. No, every tumtum is an extra tumtum, you understand? It's not the same thing.

Katan Hayodei'a Lemi Mevarchin – Mezamnin Alav

Katan, the Rambam says further. So earlier we learned, apparently this is a chiluk in the Tosafot we learned. We learned... One must be mechanech a katan, says the Rambam, at which age? We learned that a katan one can't be mezamen alone. Now we're going to learn that there is yes a katan that one can yes be mezamen alav. Right? Katan hayodei'a lemi mevarchin.

Discussion: Difference Between Chinuch Berachot and Chinuch Zimun

English Translation

Speaker 1: But why doesn't he say a contradiction with the essential mitzvah of blessing from the "knows Whom he is blessing"? It's not a contradiction with the zimun itself. Right. It could be that... It could be... Aha, it's not a problem. What's going to happen? He's going to err? Let him err.

Speaker 2: It could be, exactly, it could be that... there's relevance. Then one shouldn't trust that his bentching doesn't have the status of Birkat HaMazon, so that one could count him with the "knows Whom he is blessing" for zimun. It could be, exactly, it could be that for chinuch (education) it's a... one teaches him, one educates him this way. In practice, one teaches very small children to make berachot (blessings), and one doesn't wait until they know "Whom they are blessing." And it could be that it's correct. No, it could be that it's correct. If the distinction we're making now is correct, then it's correct. The difference of "knows Whom he is blessing" is only, for zimun, one can't count him. His berachah isn't a real berachah, because he doesn't know what he's saying.

Speaker 1: I can think the fathers know "Whom they are blessing"? I mean, "mara dehai pita," who takes care of the world.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Even a Seven or Eight Year Old – Joins the Count of Three and Thirteen

"A minor who knows Whom he is blessing, we make zimun over him." Can one already use him for zimun, just in a group of minors? Yes? No, even with adults. With minors it's certainly so.

This we've now learned, yes? He joins, says the Rema. And even though, yes, says the Rema, he joins. Ah, that means, what we learned "minors we don't make zimun over them," is referring to very small children. A minor who knows Whom he is blessing, one can already make zimun over him. Even if he is seven or eight years old, before he's still young, seven or eight. That means that "knows Whom he is blessing" means quite a smart boy, not that a four-year-old can already translate the bentching. No, certainly, certainly it doesn't mean knows Whom he is blessing. The Rambam says even if he is seven or eight years old. It could be that he needs to be normally twelve. He has a small understanding of Whom he is blessing, but he can already have some understanding. "He joins both for the count of three and for the count of ten to make zimun over him." He can also be part of the... That is, although in other matters we've learned, for devarim shebikedushah (matters of sanctity) one needs to be twelve, regarding zimun thirteen. Regarding Birkat HaMazon we trust us already in a seven or eight year old.

The Position of the Rambam vs. the Position of the Rema

Very good. This is the position of the Rambam, which is how it stands simply in the Gemara, that a minor who knows Whom he is blessing, we make zimun over him. So indeed rules the Rambam. The Rema rules differently, he rules that one does wait for the thirteen years, we haven't yet seen that one should count the children. If someone follows the customs of the Mechaber or the customs of the Rambam, certainly he can count the minors who know Whom they are blessing. One can say that the reason we don't follow this way is because no one knows Whom he is blessing. Either an adult is obligated, he has something. Or the Rambam, the Rambam tries to establish a bentching of minors who know Whom they are blessing. Not everyone holds that one can establish this. But he follows the Gemara. The simple Gemara is like the Rambam.

A Non-Jew – We Don't Make Zimun Over Him

The Rambam says further, "and a non-Jew, we don't make zimun over him." A non-Jew cannot be joined. Although we learned earlier that on a gentile's blessing one doesn't say amen. Did we learn that you want to argue that when he hears the entire blessing he can... yes, a gentile may bentch, but can one make zimun? We and he don't go together. No, he may bentch. That's the novelty. Not that I told you, but another thing. The Rambam says that one...

Law: A Non-Jew Doesn't Join With Them

He indeed agrees with the Gemara, the simple meaning is a Gemara like the Rambam.

The Rambam says further, "and a non-Jew doesn't join with them." A non-Jew cannot be joined. Although we learned earlier that on a gentile's blessing one doesn't say amen, we learned that here you'll argue that when one hears the entire blessing one can... yes, a gentile may bentch, but can one join? We and he don't go together. I can bentch, and he may bentch. That's the novelty, not that one should say that a non-Jew is in... Yes, the Rambam says further, "we only make zimun over one who ate a kezayit (olive-size) of bread and more." Those making zimun need to have eaten together a measure of a kezayit of bread and more.

Law: Seven Who Ate Bread — Joining with Vegetable-Eaters for "Elokeinu"

The Rambam says further, "seven who ate bread." So, the essential law is that all Jews, all three people or all ten people if one wants to say "Elokeinu," should all have eaten a kezayit of bread. If all ate a kezayit, it's according to everyone. But it sometimes happens that the majority, seven people ate bread, and another three didn't eat bread. There are ten people, but not all ten ate bread, only seven. Three only ate something, they were part of the meal, they ate but they didn't eat the bread. Can they join with the seven and with the Name? Can they bentch with the Name? There's a minyan. But the Rambam says, the one who will bentch must be from the bread-eaters, because the one who didn't eat isn't sufficiently obligated to exert himself, he can't properly say the Birkat HaMazon.

The Rambam says, this is only when there are a full seven who ate bread. But "six who ate bread and four vegetables, they don't join." Six ate bread and four... It needs to be more than a majority. Six is indeed a majority against four, but it needs to be over the number, it's called, say the poskim. It needs to be a stronger majority of two more. So "six who ate bread and four vegetables, they don't join, until the bread-eaters are a noticeable majority." Ah, "noticeable majority" it's called. "Until the bread-eaters are a noticeable majority," of two more.

Story: The Torat Tzvi and the Seven Eaters

Our grandfather the Torat Tzvi said that one bentches when one has seven eaters, and for tefillin enough six daveners. Why shouldn't one grab another eater? One must focus. How can one honor a Jew? Another Jew. He took his son at the meal.

Ah, yes, yes. Another Jew would have eaten, just without any connection. Yes, it's a great matter this.

Law: Two Who Ate and Finished — Joining with a Third

The Rema says further, "two who ate and finished eating," two people ate and they've already finished. But for three one can't say that two people ate a kezayit and the third didn't eat. There must at least be three people who ate. Do you understand the law? The law only works for the minyan, it doesn't work for the three that are required. Why? Because he doesn't have here two who ask him to bentch for them. He must say "havu nevarech," he must say "birshut." There's no whole concept of zimun.

Now there's another way how one can make zimun. What if two people ate and finished eating, and a third came to join them at their end, when they've already finished eating, and he comes to the rebbe's table. "If they can eat with him anything," if the two eat something more, "they join," but if they don't eat with him the bread.

Discussion: What Does "Can" Mean?

Speaker 1: What does "can" mean? What comes in "can" if they don't eat?

Speaker 2: Ah, no, "if they were to bring to them, they could."

Speaker 1: Ah, and in practice they don't need to?

Speaker 2: That means, if they haven't yet finished the meal on such a level that they can't eat anything more, they're still capable of eating, it means it can still be called like somewhat one group.

Speaker 1: And then do they need to eat or don't need to eat?

Speaker 2: Not oh, no, "can eat with him," they don't need to eat at all. It still needs to be such a sort of "can."

Speaker 1: But how does one now assess if I'm overfilled? A person is never, a person can always stuff in another piece, such a kind of challah.

Speaker 2: No, a piece yes, but not a...

Speaker 1: Ah, even a bit.

Speaker 2: No, not a bit. Something, he's not crazily overeaten and... How does a person assess? It's an interesting law.

Speaker 1: Ah... can. We were on the track that "can" you need to prove, eat something. You prove something, "can."

Speaker 2: No, it's a law that the meal isn't yet finished. It means to say that they haven't completely given up eating.

Speaker 1: It means to say if they are... yes, apparently the word is... I mean so. A person who sits at the meal, sometimes another one comes, and one sits a bit.

Speaker 2: Perhaps as long as the dessert hasn't yet come. But if they've already completely finished, perhaps that's the word. But it's facing the "can." I also thought that "can" means that you should do.

Speaker 1: Okay.

Speaker 2: I understand that the Shulchan Aruch could have said...

Speaker 1: No, "even though they didn't eat."

Speaker 2: Yes, apparently the word is... perhaps the second name, so we can say. They need either... if they finished the meal, one can still eat more, they've finished, even if they're going to sit again to eat, but they need to make another blessing. They're not the same meal as him. In general, if they haven't yet finished, and they give him to eat with him something a piece, so here it stands... It's they need to have finished eating. Finished is on a level. But... something like this we must say. Finished eating, fits. Eat with him fits. If eat with him fits, if eat with him fits certainly... So, the person comes now and he says, ah, come, let's make him for us we'll zimun together. If they can be like taking neighbors, if they're going to eat with him a bit, then it means one meal. I know already you'll say to me my you'll say, but it must be. No it must be yes, but you'll say together not also is your say. Like the third person comes now and he eats, but they've already finished their meal. Says the Rambam, I have advice for you, do you know Birkat HaMazon? No, no, I say that it's also not in agreement, because the Rambam was a bit eating with him then can join. The sick also you can do it becomes an obligation what is an obligation Birkat HaMazon. Now a bit an obligation. I want is a condition that if they start a new meal, it's not interesting. If they start a new meal, I see indeed. But if they eat only a piece that they can't, it doesn't help! You need to see that one could, or not that it's an interruption.

Speaker 1: Okay. I hear, also it's the whole street and not. I'll say if they can't and they, and also before themselves they push themselves in. The before means they hold there, and before doesn't mean that they can eat the whole thing.

Speaker 2: No, I say that the Rambam not the what what means goes out to the new meal? It doesn't mean that he's overeaten, it means that the meal is coming, he made a new break. But it can only be that they eat yogurt, it's enough with that, because in practice the three ate together bread.

Speaker 1: Not bread. If one eats bread the question doesn't begin. The question is only when they eat something else. If three people eat bread together, what concerns me? They need to make another institution. But the third person doesn't come the institution. It's part of a meal, like they should have learned earlier that everything is indeed exempt because of the bread.

Speaker 2: Again, only if they can. If they can't, the meal isn't finished.

Speaker 1: Yes. Very good.

Law: The Greatest Scholar Among Those Reclining Should Bless

Who among the people bentches? We spoke earlier about this, that one needs permission. "The greatest scholar among those reclining, he should bless for all, and even he shouldn't bless except after others," even he says after me. That means, the third is quite a scholar. Now not only that he joins him if one can, but he also, he bentches also for also.

Discussion: Why Doesn't the Rambam Mention a Kohen?

It's interesting, because the Rambam doesn't say it here about a Kohen.

Speaker 1: You said in... how did he say in... honoring a Kohen.

Speaker 2: He didn't say. He didn't say. Even in... even in the aliyot.

Speaker 1: Yes, you mean to say by the Torah reading. By the Torah reading it stands... one follows to honor a Kohen. But what comes in here? Why shouldn't one honor the Kohen? Why is there a concept of honor? Why should one give for this?

Speaker 2: The Rambam truly holds that the same as the Kohen goes up first. Ah, the Rambam truly holds that the greatest scholar goes up first, even by aliyot. We indeed learned this by the way. And also it's very different, because here we're speaking that only the one who will bentch. There's such a thing that one should honor a Kohen, but with... how does it mean? There's a Gemara about this that one should honor a Kohen. But I say it doesn't make sense. A Kohen, every time will a Kohen be the prayer leader? What does it have to do? One does three aliyot, one gives the Kohen the first. Or three readers, as the Rambam calls it.

Law: Three Who Ate Together May Not Divide

Okay, now we're going to learn, that what? That since there's an obligation of zimun, and the simple meaning is, part of the obligation is that one may not divide. Once the Sages instituted the blessing, one must do it. Three don't get out of it. And make sure you have three when you can. This is interesting, because until now we didn't have this. Until now it was like a person eats, and after eating one must thank the Almighty. Here he adds that there's an obligation to eat in order to make zimun. There's an obligation to make zimun together. That once there are three people one shouldn't nullify the zimun.

The Rambam says "three who ate together are not permitted to divide," they may not divide and each go his way and bentch separately. That means they have no right, they may not divide and finish eating separately and bentch separately. This means they may not bentch separately. That is, in practice how today people conduct themselves that they bentch separately even when one makes zimun, if the Rambam is correct, one may not do this according to the law.

Once they make the blessing of zimun, then you can bentch separately. Let's say clearly: if zimun means that one bentches for everyone, one also adds the invitation, but if that's the meaning, and you bentch separately, you hold that you have some reason because you convinced yourself that one must have in mind when the other bentches, and one can't have in mind because people don't pay attention, and we're not obligated to think how this works - so say today's later authorities - then you're transgressing the law, you say you have a reason, but you're transgressing. Unless you say that no, it's not correct the distinction they say, we learned in the Rambam that the essence of zimun is that one blesses. It's two things.

No, it's certain that the Rambam is one blesses. But "they're not permitted to divide," we don't mean that one can miss the "Blessed is He Whose world," the separate piece of blessing. But afterwards, it's not less when each one... certainly it's less. That one bentches for another is easier to do for the people. No, it's not easier to do, it's a question of honor certainly. It's not in the honor the thing. Like prayer in public, like everything. Do you understand what I'm saying to you? It's not a thing. We don't say that by Shemoneh Esrei, the Amidah prayer, we learned that the Rambam said that the prayer of the cantor is only to fulfill the obligation of one who isn't expert. But it doesn't stand here the thing of one who isn't expert. Birkat HaMazon is even one who is expert.

"And it's forbidden for more than ten to divide until each and every one makes zimun for himself." That means, if there's a permission not to listen to the Birkat HaMazon from the one making zimun... it's certainly without choice. You say I have no desire to be, because I have a bit of nerves that I won't listen. Or you say that one doesn't agree with the law, one doesn't agree at all with the thing that this is how to do.

Law 5 (Continued) — Laws of Dividing Groups

So is the law.

From ten and up, one already divides. The only permission not to listen to the Birkat HaMazon from the one making zimun is either without choice, you say I can't fulfill because I have such nerves that I won't listen, or you say that you don't agree with the law, you don't agree at all with the thing that this is the zimun. Okay, could be.

English Translation

And similarly four and five may not divide themselves in such a way that there would be no zimun. Six may divide, but ten may divide into two and make two birchat hazimun. But ten, up to ten, may not divide further, because they would miss the zimun with mentioning God's name.

Up to twenty they can further divide into two parts. As long as each and every part will have birchat zimun for each and every part, and the zimun of all is equal, they should all have the same type of birchat hazimun. He says that when there are thirteen, one should not separate out three, because in practice the three will miss out, they will downgrade, they won't have the mention of God's name.

Halacha 6 — Three Who Came from Three Groups

What does he say further? Three people who came from three groups of three each, three people have now come from three other groups, and at home there was zimun, then they may not. Why? They have already become obligated in zimun. They have already eaten with zimun. Even though now when they have come together as three, they wouldn't have just sat together perhaps casually, but now they must, because they have already become obligated in zimun. Now when he comes to a new place, he must fulfill his zimun from before. The previous one was incomplete, yes.

What did you say before, that one is permitted to divide? Perhaps he means from three or more, he came from a group of four, or from a group of five, and the four left. Perhaps.

And if each one of them has already made zimun in his group, they are permitted to divide, they may indeed divide. The bentching there is already done.

Question: Why Would One Think They Need to Make Zimun Again?

What is the question? Why would one think otherwise? They have each already fulfilled their obligation. Actually a good question. It's not even if they ate more, or what? But zimun he has already fulfilled. He doesn't need to bentch again by himself. The zimun, the matter of bentching in public according to halacha, he has already fulfilled.

Why wouldn't one say that a new eating has begun, because one has already bentched before this, and now they have gone to another place, met with new people. Why wouldn't one say that a new eating has begun, and one must make a new zimun? He is no longer obligated in zimun by himself.

I don't know, I can't say that the Raavad is... the Raavad is a great Rishon. I don't know what he says.

The Raavad's Position: The Obligation of Zimun Flies Away from Them

This is what the Raavad says. The Raavad says that even if they ate afterwards more, not forgotten, "the obligation of zimun flies away from them, zimun flies away from them". The Raavad says like our question, that if they have now met in a new place, three new people, and began eating fresh, what is the assumption that they should not be obligated? The previous zimun has already flown away.

No, the Raavad says they are exempt. "Even if the three of them ate, and even if one of the three did not eat together with them at the beginning". The zimun, the Raavad argues, must come together. What we say now, this comes later, this is only when one is continuing a previous obligation. But the three people who meet together, the Raavad argues, this is not three people who have now sat down to a meal. It's just that three people happened to meet at another place. This doesn't mean "they ate together", one doesn't need to.

Practical Application from the Raavad: Weddings and Other Situations

From this Raavad one can learn that... I don't know, one needs to check what this leads to. Is this discussing a Gemara?

I just want to tell you this. What is the problem? Three people are sitting here, each one of them comes from another group where he has already eaten. They come here now and they will eat bread together. They have already begun the meal before, zimun was already made for them, and they have already fulfilled birchat hamazon in essence.

What does it mean zimun was made for them? They have already heard birchat hamazon? They have already heard. Zimun itself, your meal, your group has already done it. There was already a zimun.

I don't know who says. Does the cell phone also work? Does the satellite also work? That the mezamen can be motzi the people in another house? He's not connected at all.

Discussion: Shomea K'oneh by Zimun

Again, zimun is an obligation on the group. Your group has already done it, there was already a zimun. But zimun is that one hears and one says even amen. Yes, not the order, but we don't. How can I be motzi someone who hasn't heard? In general I don't need any communal obligation, an obligation on your eating, on your satiation. Can you fulfill your obligation with someone else saying after zimun, and you hear, and you answer amen, are you yotzei? That's the question, am I anyway yotzei with shomea k'oneh? Okay, we'll soon see if two people can hear from one another. I don't know, the halacha is not clear. Each person should ask his posek.

Rabbeinu Yonah's Explanation

Okay, let's just continue. The nations and the peoples of the world were mixed up with us. They weren't the first who were mixed up. But all Jews before them were also mixed up, and they tried to do both. And the great difference between us and them is that they did their maximum to become mixed up. Ah, and us too, we do our maximum. The question is what is our maximum. Our life is, we can, the Torah is very great, and everywhere one can dig, and one must move further.

A novelty however, according to the Raavad, if I have understood well what I see from the Raavad, that the simple meaning is the Raavad says that the three people now have no new obligation. Even if they eat now together, because they were not gathered together initially, it comes out a great leniency for many times. Many times a person comes to a wedding, I know, and he says, "Now you can't go home until we bentch." There are people who are nervous about this, because he has become obligated in zimun. He says, "I was not gathered initially." Okay, it's simple, you go to a wedding, what should I tell you? This is not gathered initially. But let's say, a person eats just together. We learned before, or we didn't learn, do you remember we learned before that there is a halacha of mesabin le'echol. Apparently, zimun, the obligation of zimun is only when "they ate as one". Here we learned that "they ate as one" means, it must be that they sat down together to eat for a reason together. Not just three people sitting in a lunch room and they eat next to each other, one next to the other, they don't need zimun apparently. What is stated here? There must be some gathering initially, yes, some mesabin, some situation, so it seems. From this the Raavad says that the three people in the new place are completely exempt, because they have already fulfilled the previous one, but they don't need to do it again.

Rabbeinu Yonah indeed says so, that it says that zimun was already made, it says that the blessing of "simcha bim'ono" or whatever it is, "borei shehakol nivra lichvodo" was said, but they didn't hear birchat hamazon. So they must, with birchat hamazon they are still obligated, they must bentch more, but they don't need to make a mezuman among the three people. Let's say a novelty: even when there are three people that you say perhaps, because I am indeed obligated in birchat hamazon, should I also become obligated with a fresh zimun. He says, "No, if you have already fulfilled zimun, even if you still need to say birchat hamazon, the zimun you have already fulfilled, and the birchat hamazon you still need to fulfill." And he indeed becomes obligated, but he becomes exempted, he becomes exempted, he becomes exempted, he hasn't heard birchat hamazon, he must indeed make a new zimun. They haven't yet become obligated in birchat hazimun. But should one have said to them, "Can we eat together and make birchat hazimun?" Yes. Okay. Three who ate as one. But I think the novelty of this is that birchat hazimun is indeed connected to birchat hamazon, but it can also play a separate role. That is, I am still obligated in birchat hamazon, but the birchat hazimun I have already fulfilled in birchat hamazon.

Halacha 7 — Two Groups in One House

There one certainly sees. I don't know if this is the novelty, but one certainly sees it there. The Rambam says further, a birchat hazimun is indeed several people together. The questions begin of what "together" means. There can be seven people sitting at one table, but what happens when there are two tables, and such things. The Rambam says, "Two groups that are eating in one house, if some of them see each other" - the two tables are one part... the halacha that one can see. Have you learned? But I'm already deep in what one needs. Have you learned this? You need to keep your head straight. I'm keeping my head straight.

"Three who ate as one, even though each one of them ate his own meal" - the Rambam says that when people need to bentch with zimun is not only when they eat from the same host, but even if each one takes out his sandwich, but they sit together, this is mezamen. It could be that three strange people in a restaurant... Okay, one needs to think. He asks, "guests of an inn" - three people sitting next to you at a table, let's say the next table, will they bentch at the same time? Perhaps yes, perhaps one should make it like one big thing. I feel somehow that it doesn't mean that. Okay. We saw before in Mishneh LaMelech how he asks. "Those sitting", yes, yes. It could be the inference is that they sat down to eat. No, I mean it goes with the same halacha of mesubin that we learned before. That's what I would have thought.

The Law of "Seeing Each Other"

The Rambam says further, "Two groups that are eating in one house" - two groups eating in one house. Perhaps from here one can see that one can indeed combine things that are not separate groups. Here one sees that perhaps yes, perhaps I'm wrong. Two groups eating in one house, that means they are two different groups, but if the room is arranged such that "some of them see each other" - not that all ten and ten need to see each other, but that a part can see, but as long as a part that they can see each other, that means the tables are made in such a way, then "they combine for one zimun". They can say that in a way it's like one group. But when they can't see each other, each one for itself, each one for itself. It's a proof for what you say, but when they see each other, even though I am my group, you are your group, but there becomes somewhat of a connection.

Discussion: Obligated or Permitted?

Here it's different from what you say, here it's clearly two groups. It's two groups, one can say it's a proof otherwise, that it's not really completely separate. A minimal connection is enough, when two people sit one next to the other. But it could also be, it could also be that there's a distinction between obligated and permitted. It doesn't say here that he is obligated to make one zimun. That is, it could even be for example if the two groups together only have a minyan, I already know how they may not divide. To divide is when you are still part of the group. The question arises how much one must try to be with ten for God's name. It could be that what it says, if one wants, if one wants to combine someone, that they should say for not for each one, one can, but it doesn't say that one is obligated. I want to explain, this is what the sefer says, I don't have a clear proof.

The Law of a Waiter Combining

"Shmuel said, one waiter between them, who goes and serves from this group to that group..." The same waiter serves both of them. Yes. "They combine for one zimun, even though some of these don't see some of those." Even if they don't see, even if they don't see, they are in separate rooms, or no one sees the other, but the waiter combines the two groups to be in one group. But at all times and it is that both of them hear the voice of the one blessing. They must indeed hear, because they must indeed hear the zimun. It's obvious that one must hear the one blessing. So this one must be able to do.

Discussion: Proof for Restaurant?

So, there's another proof that in a restaurant one should indeed be able to, according to what there is one waiter who serves. No, there's more than one waiter. In a restaurant it means that everyone eats from the same host who gives food. Yes, I understand, I hear. I understand why I don't want to combine their madness. What does a person do who is in a restaurant, have you ever seen that people eat together? What does a restaurant do? I go to meals together. But because it's two meals together. But two yahrzeit meals is the same thing. What is there people who go out, and the reason is that they go together without any yahrzeit?

Three Who Ate as One – One of Them Went Out to the Market

Speaker 1: According to the sefarim, even if it's one waiter, but it's more than one waiter. In a restaurant it means I eat from the same host who gives food.

Speaker 2: Yes, I understand. I hear.

Speaker 1: I understand why I don't want to connect to madness, what do people do? Have you ever been in a restaurant, have you ever seen someone make zimun? What is such a thing? I'm not talking about a restaurant, I'm talking about you go to Yat Cedar's. That's Yat Cedar's, what does one do birchat hamazon. He'll be here, what is Yat Cedar's? Yat Cedar's, to three together. But two Yat Cedar's in the same host, what is there people who go out for fun? What is such a thing?

What is this madness people? Madness people. I think, I don't know, I haven't seen. I go yes, I mean it happened, I go, I don't see that anyone should sit here and he takes the children, and two people who say, perhaps you say rabotai? I have never seen such a thing.

Speaker 2: It actually sounds very yeshivish. In Lakewood it would fit that it should happen, yes. There's perhaps a Lithuanian organization, one comes over to be metzaref. 1-800-BE-METZAREF.

Speaker 1: Okay, regarding sitting from the conversation of ben iyeh, I learned, yes. Three who ate, he says so, three who ate, three people who ate together, one of them went out to the market, one went to the side. When I learned it I understood that the market doesn't mean he went far away to the market, he went to the door. Call him, call him back, come back, so that he will be permitted to answer with them, he should be able to understand and hear what they say, and they make zimun for him, even if he stays there. As long as he hears. As long as he hears. And if he went out with the intention of rabotai, hearing and answering, but he is not yotzei the birchat hamazon because he didn't hear, hearing and answering, he blesses birchat hamazon for himself. He doesn't hear, he doesn't focus on that, he participates. He says the baruch hu uvaruch shemo, baruch hu uvaruch shemo, baruch she'achalnu mishelo. They can combine him, but he is not yotzei with their kiddush. Birchat hamazon.

Ten Who Ate and One of Them Went Out

Speaker 1: But ten who ate and one of them went out, this is for a birchat zimun of three, but with ten, they don't make zimun for him until he returns and sits in his place, because one can't shout from the distance, because there is God's name. When one says God's name it must be with respect, it's not respectful that one combines the other.

Speaker 2: So you mean specifically by market?

Speaker 1: You're right, it means apparently I don't know, it was a celebration, he's standing by the door and talking. Yes yes, one brings to the shoes. He's not because he can't sing, he can't shout.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Speaker 1: Or he's standing in those shoes, he's in a restaurant, he can stand in Machane Yehuda and shout "Rabotai, a minyan!" Everyone answers.

Two Who Ate – Each One Blesses for Himself

Speaker 1: "Two who ate, each and every one blesses for himself". Ah, what happens when two people eat together? Such a thing also happens. Then each person alone, because there is no zimun for this.

He Preceded and Blessed for Himself – One Bentched Before the Zimun

Speaker 2: No no, you're not right. Again, where are you?

Speaker 1: "Three who ate as one, blessed for himself" means to say he wants to bentch already, not he's going to make zimun. He wants to bentch already.

Speaker 2: And they tell him, "What's the meaning?"

Speaker 1: He already bentched. One has... he already bentched. He rushed, he bentched. And the other thinks he did it to him in Turkish. He made zimun for him, but they can use him in making zimun.

They fulfill the obligation of zimun, because yotzei zimun is not zimun retroactively. But what remains with his obligation - nothing? He is stuck, I mean he can't do anything. He went against Chazal, he went "kadam uverach le'atzmo", he stood firm earlier that one cannot rely on them. I had to, but they haven't lost anything, because they still have the thing of two people who say "nevarech".

And what does he have from this? What is the meaning of "lo yatz'u"? "Ein zimun lemafre'a", and now what? He didn't have the mitzvah of zimun. And next, you should remember, he now also says why I said earlier that one may not leave.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Speaker 1: He means to say lechatchilah you shouldn't bentch beforehand. You think one can make zimun afterwards. It makes no difference when I bentch. No, one cannot.

Speaker 2: Okay.

If One Knows and One Doesn't Know

Speaker 1: He says that "shnayim she'achlu", two people who eat, he's talking here about three people who make zimun, and then one will be mevarech and each one listens. But what is two people sitting together? "Shnayim she'achlu, kol echad ve'echad mevarech le'atzmo". Two people who eat, each one must bentch alone for himself. What if not everyone knows how to bentch? "Im hayah echad yodei'a ve'echad eino yodei'a". For me it makes a very big difference, because I have a short version of bentching. One knows how to bentch. I try to have a guest to have zimun, but it happens that I don't have a guest, or one must think about the women, whether one can count the women. One's own wife can be mekayem the mitzvah of zimun, it's only about immodesty. It doesn't make sense that his wife should be a question of women. But this is an argument about women and minors, and for slaves it's also ready. But in any case, I have a different version in bentching, because I make it shorter usually.

So... one who knows, he can only say what's written in the siddur, that's not called a yodei'a. A yodei'a means someone who is a talmid chacham, he knows what one must say, how one can bentch, so you're still called a yodei'a.

Therefore it's clear, I conduct myself this way, I tell him a psak halachah lema'aseh. Therefore, if one knows, no, I say that one may, not that one must. I'm learning that if one doesn't know, one may indeed be yotzei from another. I say that essentially it's not proper lechatchilah to make a yotzei when one doesn't make zimun, but if one cannot, one may. Therefore I say that if someone has a different version, I want to learn that one's version, or he wants to learn... you know what? He doesn't have kavanah, I want to be yotzei birkat hamazon with kavanot, he doesn't have kavanot, can I be yotzei from him. It's one yodei'a, what's the chiddush?

Discussion: Davening Al Da'at HaTzaddikim

Speaker 2: You're talking about the whole matter of davening al da'at hatzaddikim. That's one yodei'a with one who doesn't know. But this time the yodei'a is the one who says it out loud.

Speaker 1: No, the yodei'a is mevarech, on the contrary, the yodei'a says and the other listens. The one who davens al da'at hatzaddikim, and he says the words al da'at haBaal Shem HaKadosh, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, it's a different thing. You're not yotzei from him, you can't be yotzei from Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, even... no, there they want it as if I say the words, and you should be the yodei'a. Ah, that's a reversed thing, yes.

A Son Blesses for His Father – May a Curse Come

Speaker 1: Ben mevarech le'aviv, ah, excuse me, ben mevarech le'aviv, the son can be the one who says the blessings for the father because the father cannot. Eved mevarech lerabo, ve'ishah mevarechet leva'alah, motzi'in yedei chovatan, one is yotzei this way also. One is yotzei when the father cannot. But the Chachamim said this, tavo me'erah lemi she'ishto uvanav mevarchin lo. I mean the curse has already come, not tavo. The curse has come, because such a person didn't learn to read. I mean the embarrassments that you can have that your wife knows and you don't, yes, it's a great shame. Therefore, if someone knows what's good for him, he should learn it himself. The me'erah means to say that and tovah me'orot should come a brightness. Today it happens that there are people who can learn about this, I haven't seen that the women learn out many times certain practical halachot that aren't taught to the boys in yeshiva. He says such an aspect of tovah me'orot, not that ishah omedet lilmod halachot uteshuvot, but one must learn oneself that the father must be the... ah, from here one can learn that the father must be the posek in the house, it can't be that the wife says.

Speaker 2: Okay. Lema'aseh is the statement that he can be yotzei with his wife. Ah, but you said earlier a problem, because the wife is only mechuyav miderabbanan. Ah, this only speaks... yes?

The Raavad's Objection – A Woman/Minor Can Only Be Motzi When the Obligation is Derabbanan

Speaker 1: "Because they are not mechuyav in birkat hamazon mide'oraita." The Raavad adds a very interesting condition, which I didn't know. The Raavad speaks about this. The halachah that we just learned that a katan can be motzi a gadol, or a woman can be motzi a male, is only when the male is also not mechuyav in birkat hamazon mide'oraita. That is, they ate a shiur kezayit, because just as they didn't eat shiur sevi'ah they didn't become completely satisfied. And then, as we learned at the beginning of birkat hamazon, they are chayav levarech midivrei sofrim. Then the obligation of a kezayit is only a chiyuv derabbanan. Therefore, because the obligation of the father is the same type of obligation as that of the wife or of the child, that it's derabbanan, they can be yotzei, the husband can be patur, because he also has the same level of chiyuv, because they are both mechuyav miderabbanan.

But for example if someone ate kedei sevi'ah, which then he became chayav birkat hamazon min haTorah, ein ishah o katan o eved motzi'in oto, they cannot bentch for him and be motzi him, shekol hachayav badavar min haTorah eino motzi et harabbim yedei chovatan ela hachayav be'oto davar min haTorah kamotoh. That means the halachah that one can be motzi is only if one is on exactly the same level.

Discussion: Shome'a Ke'oneh and the Raavad's Position

Speaker 1: It's interesting that the Raavad doesn't accept that shome'a ke'oneh means simply that it's as if you said it yourself, but he accepts that it's as if you are being motzi. Clear like this. I would have said here a shome'a ke'oneh simply as if you said it. It could be, but it's still not like the other one was motzi. I said that there is someone who argues on the halachah that one cannot be yotzei from a non-Jew something that one is mechuyav mide'oraita, no one argued about that. I know the lomdut, but I think how it works, I don't see that it can be. I said it, but your saying, let's say you said it, but your saying is not a kosher saying. It means like a mouth that cannot accept the agency. Just as you do instead of me, you're not mechuyav. It means like I did it myself. I don't see, I don't see.

Let's see what the Raavad says. The Raavad says something else. You're asking me, I'm not being lengthy in the halachah. Here is a matter of being yotzei. Don't look at everything in other terms. What is the matter of an agent? What the Raavad is arguing here is, that the Raavad says that even when one eats only a kebeitzah, or even a kezayit, one is already also... he says that lehalachah one must rule... he's arguing with the Rambam on the spot.

Speaker 2: No, he says this, that essentially they are both mechuyav in the same thing, because even on a kezayit he says, basically you can never...

Speaker 1: No, on the contrary, the Raavad's argument is that he doesn't disagree with the Rambam. The Raavad rules that until a kezayit one is mechuyav miderabbanan, and afterwards mide'oraita. The Raavad is from those who hold that with a kezayit one is also mechuyav mide'oraita. He goes with a different position. Therefore one can always be motzi.

Speaker 2: Ah, sorry, sorry, then I'm right, then I'm right. One can never.

Speaker 1: But if so, what does one do with the Baraita that says "benei kefarim machrizin"? The Raavad says that's not what it means. What does "machrizin" mean? He says the words, they are machriz, they say "baruch", and he says "baruch", and so on. That's what it's talking about. It's not talking about saying that I made a mistake. The Raavad means that one cannot, because the Raavad holds that yes, birkat hamazon is de'oraita even without a shiur sevi'ah. This is a dispute which position the Geonim rule. That's the thing.

One Who Enters Among Others and Finds Them Blessing

Speaker 1: The Raavad says, "nichnass etzel acherim umatz'an shehem mevarchin birkat hamazon, eino yachol lomar she'achalnu mishelo, she'eino achal". If he hears them say "nevarech she'achalnu mishelo", and other people say "she'achalnu mishelo", he should not say "I already dreamed a dream and didn't know what it was". Because there is indeed a matter of the Rabbis.

The Words of the Raavad: What Should One Who Didn't Eat Answer

Speaker 1:

This isn't talking about very good, I made a mistake. The Raavad means that one cannot, because the Raavad holds that yes, birkat hamazon is de'oraita even when it's not a shiur sevi'ah. This is a dispute, a matter of the position of the Geonim and Poskim, and he says it just like that.

The Raavad says, "hanichnass etzel acherim umatz'an shehem mevarchin birkat hamazon, eino yachol lomar imahem 'she'achalnu mishelo' lefi shelo achal". So if he hears them say "nevarech she'achalnu mishelo", the other people say "she'achalnu mishelo", he should not say "she'achalnu mishelo", because there is perhaps a matter of not saying a lie. A nice thing.

So he should say something that does make sense, he should say "baruch umvorach". There is such a thing, when we do, when we say "baruch shem kevod malchuto le'olam va'ed", there is such a type of law. It's another extra thing. When they say "nevarech she'achalnu mishelo", he says "baruch umvorach". If he wasn't there when they said "nevarech", he only came in when they said "baruch she'achalnu", he says "amen". Very good. "Amen". What's the problem with "amen"? There's no problem with "amen".

He means to say that he shouldn't ignore it, but he also shouldn't say "she'achalnu mishelo", because it's something you can't say. Can you say "baruch she'achal hu vachaveriv mishelo"?

Discussion: Can One Say "Baruch She'achal Hu Vachaveriv Mishelo"?

Speaker 1:

I mean so. What? I mean that the Gemara means to say that one cannot say a lie, even not by such a small thing as "baruch she'achalnu mishelo". Like the Gemara, he should have said "baruch she'achal Yehudah vachaveriv mishelo", yes?

On the other hand, one may not knowingly make Jews lay down their portion. I didn't eat, so that's not my portion. I must be separate, and I must find a way how to be separate.

We haven't said for example, if a person comes into the beit midrash and the community is davening, that one should say along some certain piece. What's the question? Kedushah? He should say something along. I know, "baruch umvorach". I don't know what. No, it's not a problem. He hears, he'll go say "amen yehei shemei rabba", or "kadosh kadosh kadosh". There are pieces that one can say. Everything here, which thing may one not say twice? We're talking about this whether one is mechuyav, but simply yes. There isn't the problem that one cannot say "she'achalnu mishelo", so you can say along a bit with the community.

But how does one conduct oneself when one goes into the beit midrash and they're saying kiddush, but one says with the community? I mean that there is a custom that one should say along with the community. And as the community is there, one goes with the community?