Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 17, 2020 | 讻状讘 讘砖讘讟 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Berakhot 45

Three people who eat together are obligated to do a “zimun” – to say birkhat hamazon together – and one blesses on behalf of all. In which case would the three not be obligated? What is the source for it? Can two people also do a zimun if they want? Can women do a zimun? Are they obligated to or is it optional? Why can they not join together with slaves to get to three? What happens when three people eat together and one leaves early? Someone who walks into the room while they are saying the zimun, what does he answer? Why do we add the word amen to the end of the third blessing in birkhat hamazon?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讚讞谞拽转讬讛 讗讜诪爪讗:

who was choked by a piece of meat and drank water in order to wash it down. He need not recite a blessing.

专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 谞驻砖讜转 专讘讜转 讜讞住专讜谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讛诇讻转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讜拽 讞讝讬 诪讗讬 注诪讗 讚讘专:

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Tarfon says: Over water one recites: Who creates the many forms of life and their needs. Rava bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye, and some say to Rav Yosef: What is the halakha in this dispute? He said to him: Go out and observe what the people are doing and act accordingly.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻讬爪讚 诪讘专讻讬谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讝诪谉 讗讻诇 讚诪讗讬 讜诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖谞驻讚讜 讜讛砖诪砖 砖讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讜讛讻讜转讬 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜

MISHNA: This mishna sets out the essential halakhot pertaining to the invitation to recite Grace after Meals after a joint meal [zimmun]: Three people who ate as one are required to form a zimmun and recite Grace after Meals. If, among the diners, one ate doubtfully tithed produce [demai], and first tithe from which its teruma was already taken, or second tithe, and consecrated food that were redeemed and therefore permitted to be eaten; and even the waiter who served the meal to the diners and who ate at least an olive-bulk from the meal, and the Samaritan [Kuti] who ate with two others at a meal; each of these people is included among the three to obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun.

讗讻诇 讟讘诇 讜诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讗 谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讜 讜讛砖诪砖 砖讗讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 讜讛谞讻专讬 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 注讚 讻诪讛 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注讚 讻讝讬转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 讻讘讬爪讛:

However, one who ate untithed produce [tevel], and first tithe from which its teruma was not separated, and second tithe, and consecrated food that were not redeemed, and the waiter who did not eat an olive-bulk, and the gentile who ate with two Jews, none of these people is included among the three to obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun. Women, slaves, and minors do not obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun. How much must one eat to obligate those with whom he ate in a zimmun? An olive-bulk of food suffices to obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun. Rabbi Yehuda says: An egg-bulk is the minimum measure to obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讙讚诇讜 诇讛壮 讗转讬 讜谞专讜诪诪讛 砖诪讜 讬讞讚讜 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讻讬 砖诐 讛壮 讗拽专讗 讛讘讜 讙讚诇 诇讗诇讛讬谞讜

GEMARA: With regard to the basic mitzva of zimmun, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that after a meal in which three diners participated, a zimmun must be recited? Rav Asi said: As the verse states: 鈥淧raise God with me, and we will exalt His name together鈥 (Psalms 34:4), i.e., the one reciting the blessing turns to at least two others to praise God together. Rabbi Abbahu said: The source of the mitzva of zimmun is derived from the verse here: 鈥淲hen I call the Name of the Lord, give [plural] praise to our God鈥 (Deuteronomy 32:3).

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗讘讗 诪谞讬谉 诇注讜谞讛 讗诪谉 砖诇讗 讬讙讘讬讛 拽讜诇讜 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛诪讘专讱 砖谞讗诪专 讙讚诇讜 诇讛壮 讗转讬 讜谞专讜诪诪讛 砖诪讜 讬讞讚讜

Having mentioned these verses, the Gemara cites related matters. Rav 岣nan bar Abba said: From where is it derived that one who answers amen should not raise his voice louder than the one reciting the blessing? As it is stated: 鈥淧raise God with me, and we will exalt His Name together鈥; together and not with the respondent raising his voice louder than the one reciting the blessing.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讛诪转专讙诐 专砖讗讬 诇讛讙讘讬讛 拽讜诇讜 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛拽讜专讗 砖谞讗诪专 诪砖讛 讬讚讘专 讜讛讗诇讛讬诐 讬注谞谞讜 讘拽讜诇 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘拽讜诇 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘拽讜诇 讘拽讜诇讜 砖诇 诪砖讛

Similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: From where is it derived that the translator who translated the public Torah reading into Aramaic is not permitted to raise his voice louder than the reader? As it is stated: 鈥淢oses spoke, and God responded in a voice鈥 (Exodus 19:19). This verse requires further consideration, as there is no need for the verse to state: In a voice. The phrase, in a voice, adds nothing. Rather, to what purpose did the verse state: In a voice? In Moses鈥 voice, i.e., in a voice no louder than Moses鈥 voice. This verse instructs subsequent generations that Torah readers and translators should keep their voices at an equal volume just as Moses transmitted God鈥檚 word to the people and their voices were equal in volume.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讬谉 讛诪转专讙诐 专砖讗讬 诇讛讙讘讬讛 拽讜诇讜 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛拽讜专讗 讜讗诐 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇诪转专讙诐 诇讛讙讘讬讛 拽讜诇讜 讻谞讙讚 讛拽讜专讗 讬诪注讱 讛拽讜专讗 拽讜诇讜 讜讬拽专讗:

This was also taught in a baraita: The translator is not permitted to raise his voice louder than the reader. The converse is also true; and if the translator cannot raise his voice to match that of the reader, the reader should lower his voice and read.

讗转诪专 砖谞讬诐 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 讗诐 专爪讜 诇讝诪谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗诐 专爪讜 诇讝诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉

The mishna rules that three who ate as one are required to join together and recite Grace after Meals. The Gemara discusses this halakha further: It was stated: Two who ate as one and wish to join together in a zimmun, although they are under no obligation, are they permitted to do so? Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagreed: One said: If they wanted to join together, they may form a zimmun. The other said: Even if they wanted to join together, they may not form a zimmun.

转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讝诪谉 砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara cites a proof from what we learned in our mishna: Three who ate as one are required to join together and recite Grace after Meals. By inference: Three, yes, they form a zimmun; two, no, they do not form a zimmun. This contradicts the opinion that holds that two individuals who wish to form a zimmun may do so.

讛转诐 讞讜讘讛 讛讻讗 专砖讜转

The Gemara answers: There is no proof from the mishna, as there, the mishna discussed an obligatory zimmun; here, the amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to an optional zimmun.

转讗 砖诪注 砖诇砖讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讝诪谉 讜讗讬谉 专砖讗讬谉 诇讬讞诇拽 砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear: Three who ate as one are required to join together and recite Grace after Meals and may not disperse to recite Grace after Meals individually. Apparently, three, yes, they form a zimmun; two, no, they do not form a zimmun. If a zimmun was possible with two people, three people would not be forbidden to disperse, as even if one recited Grace after Meals alone, the remaining two would constitute a zimmun.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚拽讘注讜 诇讛讜 讘讞讜讘讛 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara rejects this proof: It is different there, in the case of a group of three who dispersed, because from the outset, they established themselves as a group of three who were obligated to form a zimmun. Consequently, they are not permitted to forego an obligatory zimmun in favor of an optional one.

转讗 砖诪注 讛砖诪砖 砖讛讬讛 诪砖诪砖 注诇 讛砖谞讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜讻诇 注诪讛诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谞讜 诇讜 专砖讜转 讛讬讛 诪砖诪砖 注诇 讛砖诇砖讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 注诪讛诐 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞转谞讜 诇讜 专砖讜转

The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear, based on what was taught in a baraita: A waiter who was serving two people eats with them, although they did not give him permission to do so, because he will thereby be eligible to join them in a zimmun. If a waiter was serving three people, he may not eat with them unless they gave him permission to do so. Evidently, two may not form a zimmun. If that were the case, the waiter would require permission even when serving two people.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐

The Gemara responds: It is different there,

讚谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 讚诪拽讘注 诇讛讜 讘讞讜讘讛 诪注讬拽专讗

in the case of a waiter, because from the outset, they prefer to establish their zimmun as an obligation rather than as an option.

转讗 砖诪注 谞砖讬诐 诪讝诪谞讜转 诇注爪诪谉 讜注讘讚讬诐 诪讝诪谞讬诐 诇注爪诪谉 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 讗诐 专爪讜 诇讝诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 (讜讛讗 谞砖讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛) 讜讛讗 诪讗讛 谞砖讬 讻转专讬 讙讘专讬 讚诪讬讬谉 讜拽转谞讬 谞砖讬诐 诪讝诪谞讜转 诇注爪诪谉 讜注讘讚讬诐 诪讝诪谞讬谉 诇注爪诪谉

The Gemara cites yet another proof. Come and hear: Women form a zimmun for themselves and slaves form a zimmun for themselves; however, women, slaves, and minors, even if they wish to form a zimmun together, they may not form a zimmun. But aren鈥檛 one hundred women considered the equivalent of two men, in that they cannot constitute a prayer quorum? And yet, the baraita teaches that women form a zimmun for themselves and Canaanite slaves form a zimmun for themselves. Apparently, like women, two men can form a zimmun on their own.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讚注讜转

The Gemara rejects this: There it is different because, although women cannot constitute a prayer quorum, since there are three individual minds, i.e., people, three women can fulfill the verse: 鈥淧raise God with me, and we will exalt His name together.鈥 Two men cannot.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讗诐 专爪讜 诇讝诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讚注讜转

The Gemara objects: If so, say the latter clause of this baraita: Women and slaves, if they wish to form a zimmun, they may not form a zimmun. Why not? Aren鈥檛 they individual minds, which should enable the collective praise of God?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 驻专讬爪讜转讗

The Gemara responds: That is not the reason that women and slaves were prohibited from forming a zimmun together. Rather, it is different there, as the Sages were concerned with regard to women and slaves joining together due to promiscuity.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 讗诐 专爪讜 诇讝诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 砖诇砖讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 讜讬爪讗 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 诇砖讜拽 拽讜专讗讬谉 诇讜 讜诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讟注诪讗 讚拽讜专讗讬谉 诇讜 讛讗 诇讗 拽讜专讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讗

In the dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan, it is unclear which amora held which opinion. The Gemara seeks to resolve this: Conclude that Rav is the one who said: If they wanted to join together, they may not form a zimmun. As Rav Dimi bar Yosef said that Rav said: Three people who ate as one and one of them went out to the marketplace, they call him and include him in the zimmun. The reason is because they call him; by inference, if they do not call him, no, they cannot form a zimmun.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗拽讘注讜 诇讛讜 讘讞讜讘讛 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara rejects this proof: It is different there, in the case of three who ate together and one of them left, because from the outset, they established themselves as a group of three who were obligated to form a zimmun. That is why they need to call him and include him in their zimmun.

讗诇讗 转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗诐 专爪讜 诇讝诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬诐 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬讜爪讗 讘讘专讻转 讞讘讬专讜

The Gemara now attempts to prove the opposite: Rather, conclude that Rabbi Yo岣nan is the one who said: If they wanted to join together, they may not form a zimmun, as Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Two people who ate as one, one fulfills his obligation to recite a blessing with the recitation of the blessing of the other.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 砖诪注 讜诇讗 注谞讛 讬爪讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 讘专讻转 讛讝讬诪讜谉 讘讬谞讬讛诐 转住转讬讬诐

The Gemara comments: And we discussed it in an attempt to clarify the halakha. What is he teaching us? We already learned this halakha explicitly: One who heard a blessing and did not respond, nevertheless he fulfilled his obligation And Rabbi Zeira said: Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement teaches us that there is no blessing of zimmun among them. Indeed, conclude that Rabbi Yo岣nan is the amora who held that two may not form a zimmun.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚讗转讜 诪诪注专讘讗 讗诪专讬 讗诐 专爪讜 诇讝诪谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讚砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 诪专讘 诪拽诪讬 讚谞讞讬转 诇讘讘诇:

With regard to this, Rava bar Rav Huna said to his father Rav Huna: Didn鈥檛 the Sages who came from the West, from Eretz Yisrael, say that two individuals who ate together, if they wanted to join together, they may form a zimmun? What, is it not that they heard it from Rabbi Yo岣nan, who was from Eretz Yisrael? Rav Huna answered: No, this is not a proof, as it is possible that they heard this halakha from Rav before he left Eretz Yisrael and descended to Babylonia.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 砖诇砖讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 讜讬爪讗 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 诇砖讜拽 拽讜专讗讬谉 诇讜 讜诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讜讗 讚拽专讜 诇讬讛 讜注谞讬

The Gemara now explains the matter of Rav鈥檚 statement itself: Rav Dimi bar Yosef said that Rav said: Three people who ate as one and one of them went out to the marketplace, they call him and include him in the zimmun, even if he is not beside them. And Abaye said: This is only in a case that they call him and he responds, but if he is too far away to answer he cannot be included.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘砖诇砖讛 讗讘诇 讘注砖专讛 注讚 讚谞讬讬转讬

Mar Zutra said: We only said this, that it is sufficient to hear and answer, with regard to a zimmun of three; but, with regard to a quorum of ten, they may not form a zimmun which includes mention of God鈥檚 name until the one who left comes and sits with them.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讚专讘讗 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 转砖注讛 谞专讗讬谉 讻注砖专讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讬谉 谞专讗讬谉 讻砖诇砖讛

Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable. Nine people who ate together appear like ten, so even if one is missing, the quorum does not seem to be incomplete. Two people who ate together do not appear like three, so it would be reasonable to require the actual presence of the third.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘注讬 诇讗讚讻讜专讬 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 讘爪讬专 诪注砖专讛 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞 讗专注讗

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Mar Zutra. What is the reason? Because in a zimmun of ten they need to mention the Name of Heaven, and it is not proper conduct to invoke the Name of Heaven with fewer than ten people present.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讬讟讬谞谉 砖谞讬诐 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 诪爪讜讛 诇讬讞诇拽 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 砖谞讬诐 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 诪爪讜讛 诇讬讞诇拽 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖砖谞讬讛诐 住讜驻专讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讞讚 住讜驻专 讜讗讞讚 讘讜专 住讜驻专 诪讘专讱 讜讘讜专 讬讜爪讗:

With regard to the halakhot of zimmun, Abaye said that we have a tradition: Two people who ate as one, it is a mitzva for them to separate and for each to recite a blessing for himself. This was also taught in a baraita: Two people who ate as one, it is a mitzva for them to separate The baraita, however, adds: In what case are these matters stated? Specifically when both individuals are learned people [soferim] and capable of reciting prayers and blessings. However, if one of them was a learned person and the other an ignoramus, the learned person recites the blessing and the ignoramus thereby fulfills his obligation.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专讬转讗 讗谞讗 讜讗讬转诪专讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讜讜转讬 砖诇砖讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 讗讞讚 诪驻住讬拽 诇砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇讗讞讚

Rava said: This is a statement that I said and it was stated in the name of Rabbi Zeira in accordance with my opinion: Three people who ate as one but did not conclude their meals together, one interrupts his meal in order to join the other two in a zimmun, but two do not interrupt their meal to join the other one in a zimmun.

讜诇讗 讜讛讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻住讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讗 诪专 讘专讬讛 讗讬讛讜 讜讞讚 砖讗谞讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讚诇驻谞讬诐 诪砖讜专转 讛讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚

The Gemara challenges: And do two really not interrupt their meal to join the other one in a zimmun? Didn鈥檛 Rav Pappa interrupt his meal to enable Abba Mar, his son, to recite the zimmun blessing; and, in that case, it was Rav Pappa and one other person? The Gemara responds: The case of Rav Pappa is different, as he acted beyond the letter of the law.

讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 诪专讬诪专 讜诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚讬驻转讬 讻专讻讬 专讬驻转讗 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讛讜 讞讚 讚讛讜讛 诪讜驻诇讙 诪讞讘专讬讛 诇讘专讜讻讬 诇讛讜 讬转讘讬 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讝诪谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讚诐 讙讚讜诇 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讞诇讜拽 讘专讻讜转 注讚讬祝

The Gemara relates that three Sages, Yehuda bar Mareimar, Mar bar Rav Ashi and Rav A岣 of Difti ate bread together. None among them was greater than the other in either age or wisdom, rendering him the obvious choice to recite the blessing on their behalf. They sat down and raised a dilemma: That which we learned in our mishna: Three people who ate as one are required to join together and recite Grace after Meals, does that apply only when there is a great man among them, but where they are on a par with each other, perhaps separating and reciting independent blessings is preferable?

讘专讬讱 讗讬谞讬砖 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚诪专讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讬讚讬 讘专讻讛 讬爪讗转诐 讬讚讬 讝讬诪讜谉 诇讗 讬爪讗转诐 讜讻讬 转讬诪专讜 谞讬讛讚专 讜谞讝诪谉 讗讬谉 讝讬诪讜谉 诇诪驻专注

Indeed, that is what they did, and each person recited the blessing for himself. Later, they came before Mareimar to ask him if they had acted correctly. Mareimar said to them: Although you fulfilled your obligation to recite a blessing over your food, you did not fulfill your obligation to form a zimmun. And if you say: Let us go back and form a zimmun, there is no retroactive zimmun. Once the blessing over the meal has been recited, one can no longer recite the zimmun.

讘讗 讜诪爪讗谉 讻砖讛谉 诪讘专讻讬诐 诪讛讜 讗讜诪专 讗讞专讬讛诐 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 讘专讜讱 讜诪讘讜专讱 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 注讜谞讛 讗诪谉

The Gemara discusses another question: One who came and found them reciting the zimmun blessing, what does he say after them in response to the zimmun.Rav Zevid said that he says: Blessed is He and blessed is His Name for ever and all time (Tosafot). Rav Pappa said: He answers amen.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讚讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 讚拽讗 讗诪专讬 谞讘专讱 讜讛讗 讚讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 讚拽讗 讗诪专讬 讘专讜讱 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 讚拽讗 讗诪专讬 谞讘专讱 讗讜诪专 讘专讜讱 讜诪讘讜专讱 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 讚拽讗 讗诪专讬 讘专讜讱 注讜谞讛 讗诪谉

The Gemara explains that Rav Zevid and Rav Pappa do not disagree. This is in a case where he found them saying: Let us bless; and that is in a case where he found them saying: Blessed be. The Gemara specifies: Where he found them saying: Let us bless, he says: Blessed is He and blessed is His Name for ever and all time; where he found them saying: Blessed be, he answers amen.

转谞讬 讞讚讗 讛注讜谞讛 讗诪谉 讗讞专 讘专讻讜转讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讜讘讞 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讙讜谞讛

A similar explanation resolves a difficulty in a related topic. One baraita taught: One who answers amen after his own blessings, it is praiseworthy. Another baraita taught: It is reprehensible.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讘讜谞讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讛讗 讘砖讗专 讘专讻讜转

The Gemara resolves this apparent contradiction: This is not difficult. This, where the first baraita says that it is praiseworthy to answer amen after his own blessing, is in the blessing: Who builds Jerusalem; this, where the second baraita deems it offensive, is in other blessings.

讗讘讬讬 注谞讬 诇讬讛 讘拽诇讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇砖诪注讜 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜诇讬拽讜诪讜 讚讛讟讜讘 讜讛诪讟讬讘 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 专讘 讗砖讬 注谞讬 诇讬讛 讘诇讞讬砖讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 谞讝诇讝诇讜 讘讛讟讜讘 讜讛诪讟讬讘

The Gemara relates: Abaye would answer amen aloud after reciting the blessing: Who builds Jerusalem, so the workers would hear and stand to return to work, as the ensuing blessing: Who is good and does good, is not required by Torah law, so the laborers working for the homeowner need not recite it. Rav Ashi, on the other hand, would answer amen in a whisper, so that those who heard him would not relate to the blessing: Who is good and does good, with contempt.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Zimun vs. Bentsching. Also Women

You already know much of what is on this daf. From the question of how to determine halakhah when you...

Berakhot 45

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Berakhot 45

讚讞谞拽转讬讛 讗讜诪爪讗:

who was choked by a piece of meat and drank water in order to wash it down. He need not recite a blessing.

专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讗 谞驻砖讜转 专讘讜转 讜讞住专讜谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讛诇讻转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讜拽 讞讝讬 诪讗讬 注诪讗 讚讘专:

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Tarfon says: Over water one recites: Who creates the many forms of life and their needs. Rava bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye, and some say to Rav Yosef: What is the halakha in this dispute? He said to him: Go out and observe what the people are doing and act accordingly.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻讬爪讚 诪讘专讻讬谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讝诪谉 讗讻诇 讚诪讗讬 讜诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖谞驻讚讜 讜讛砖诪砖 砖讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讜讛讻讜转讬 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜

MISHNA: This mishna sets out the essential halakhot pertaining to the invitation to recite Grace after Meals after a joint meal [zimmun]: Three people who ate as one are required to form a zimmun and recite Grace after Meals. If, among the diners, one ate doubtfully tithed produce [demai], and first tithe from which its teruma was already taken, or second tithe, and consecrated food that were redeemed and therefore permitted to be eaten; and even the waiter who served the meal to the diners and who ate at least an olive-bulk from the meal, and the Samaritan [Kuti] who ate with two others at a meal; each of these people is included among the three to obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun.

讗讻诇 讟讘诇 讜诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讗 谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讜 讜讛砖诪砖 砖讗讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 讜讛谞讻专讬 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 注讚 讻诪讛 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注讚 讻讝讬转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 讻讘讬爪讛:

However, one who ate untithed produce [tevel], and first tithe from which its teruma was not separated, and second tithe, and consecrated food that were not redeemed, and the waiter who did not eat an olive-bulk, and the gentile who ate with two Jews, none of these people is included among the three to obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun. Women, slaves, and minors do not obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun. How much must one eat to obligate those with whom he ate in a zimmun? An olive-bulk of food suffices to obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun. Rabbi Yehuda says: An egg-bulk is the minimum measure to obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讙讚诇讜 诇讛壮 讗转讬 讜谞专讜诪诪讛 砖诪讜 讬讞讚讜 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讻讬 砖诐 讛壮 讗拽专讗 讛讘讜 讙讚诇 诇讗诇讛讬谞讜

GEMARA: With regard to the basic mitzva of zimmun, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that after a meal in which three diners participated, a zimmun must be recited? Rav Asi said: As the verse states: 鈥淧raise God with me, and we will exalt His name together鈥 (Psalms 34:4), i.e., the one reciting the blessing turns to at least two others to praise God together. Rabbi Abbahu said: The source of the mitzva of zimmun is derived from the verse here: 鈥淲hen I call the Name of the Lord, give [plural] praise to our God鈥 (Deuteronomy 32:3).

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗讘讗 诪谞讬谉 诇注讜谞讛 讗诪谉 砖诇讗 讬讙讘讬讛 拽讜诇讜 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛诪讘专讱 砖谞讗诪专 讙讚诇讜 诇讛壮 讗转讬 讜谞专讜诪诪讛 砖诪讜 讬讞讚讜

Having mentioned these verses, the Gemara cites related matters. Rav 岣nan bar Abba said: From where is it derived that one who answers amen should not raise his voice louder than the one reciting the blessing? As it is stated: 鈥淧raise God with me, and we will exalt His Name together鈥; together and not with the respondent raising his voice louder than the one reciting the blessing.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讛诪转专讙诐 专砖讗讬 诇讛讙讘讬讛 拽讜诇讜 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛拽讜专讗 砖谞讗诪专 诪砖讛 讬讚讘专 讜讛讗诇讛讬诐 讬注谞谞讜 讘拽讜诇 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘拽讜诇 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘拽讜诇 讘拽讜诇讜 砖诇 诪砖讛

Similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: From where is it derived that the translator who translated the public Torah reading into Aramaic is not permitted to raise his voice louder than the reader? As it is stated: 鈥淢oses spoke, and God responded in a voice鈥 (Exodus 19:19). This verse requires further consideration, as there is no need for the verse to state: In a voice. The phrase, in a voice, adds nothing. Rather, to what purpose did the verse state: In a voice? In Moses鈥 voice, i.e., in a voice no louder than Moses鈥 voice. This verse instructs subsequent generations that Torah readers and translators should keep their voices at an equal volume just as Moses transmitted God鈥檚 word to the people and their voices were equal in volume.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讬谉 讛诪转专讙诐 专砖讗讬 诇讛讙讘讬讛 拽讜诇讜 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛拽讜专讗 讜讗诐 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇诪转专讙诐 诇讛讙讘讬讛 拽讜诇讜 讻谞讙讚 讛拽讜专讗 讬诪注讱 讛拽讜专讗 拽讜诇讜 讜讬拽专讗:

This was also taught in a baraita: The translator is not permitted to raise his voice louder than the reader. The converse is also true; and if the translator cannot raise his voice to match that of the reader, the reader should lower his voice and read.

讗转诪专 砖谞讬诐 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 讗诐 专爪讜 诇讝诪谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗诐 专爪讜 诇讝诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉

The mishna rules that three who ate as one are required to join together and recite Grace after Meals. The Gemara discusses this halakha further: It was stated: Two who ate as one and wish to join together in a zimmun, although they are under no obligation, are they permitted to do so? Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagreed: One said: If they wanted to join together, they may form a zimmun. The other said: Even if they wanted to join together, they may not form a zimmun.

转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讝诪谉 砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara cites a proof from what we learned in our mishna: Three who ate as one are required to join together and recite Grace after Meals. By inference: Three, yes, they form a zimmun; two, no, they do not form a zimmun. This contradicts the opinion that holds that two individuals who wish to form a zimmun may do so.

讛转诐 讞讜讘讛 讛讻讗 专砖讜转

The Gemara answers: There is no proof from the mishna, as there, the mishna discussed an obligatory zimmun; here, the amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to an optional zimmun.

转讗 砖诪注 砖诇砖讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讝诪谉 讜讗讬谉 专砖讗讬谉 诇讬讞诇拽 砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear: Three who ate as one are required to join together and recite Grace after Meals and may not disperse to recite Grace after Meals individually. Apparently, three, yes, they form a zimmun; two, no, they do not form a zimmun. If a zimmun was possible with two people, three people would not be forbidden to disperse, as even if one recited Grace after Meals alone, the remaining two would constitute a zimmun.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚拽讘注讜 诇讛讜 讘讞讜讘讛 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara rejects this proof: It is different there, in the case of a group of three who dispersed, because from the outset, they established themselves as a group of three who were obligated to form a zimmun. Consequently, they are not permitted to forego an obligatory zimmun in favor of an optional one.

转讗 砖诪注 讛砖诪砖 砖讛讬讛 诪砖诪砖 注诇 讛砖谞讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜讻诇 注诪讛诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谞讜 诇讜 专砖讜转 讛讬讛 诪砖诪砖 注诇 讛砖诇砖讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 注诪讛诐 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞转谞讜 诇讜 专砖讜转

The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear, based on what was taught in a baraita: A waiter who was serving two people eats with them, although they did not give him permission to do so, because he will thereby be eligible to join them in a zimmun. If a waiter was serving three people, he may not eat with them unless they gave him permission to do so. Evidently, two may not form a zimmun. If that were the case, the waiter would require permission even when serving two people.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐

The Gemara responds: It is different there,

讚谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 讚诪拽讘注 诇讛讜 讘讞讜讘讛 诪注讬拽专讗

in the case of a waiter, because from the outset, they prefer to establish their zimmun as an obligation rather than as an option.

转讗 砖诪注 谞砖讬诐 诪讝诪谞讜转 诇注爪诪谉 讜注讘讚讬诐 诪讝诪谞讬诐 诇注爪诪谉 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 讗诐 专爪讜 诇讝诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 (讜讛讗 谞砖讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛) 讜讛讗 诪讗讛 谞砖讬 讻转专讬 讙讘专讬 讚诪讬讬谉 讜拽转谞讬 谞砖讬诐 诪讝诪谞讜转 诇注爪诪谉 讜注讘讚讬诐 诪讝诪谞讬谉 诇注爪诪谉

The Gemara cites yet another proof. Come and hear: Women form a zimmun for themselves and slaves form a zimmun for themselves; however, women, slaves, and minors, even if they wish to form a zimmun together, they may not form a zimmun. But aren鈥檛 one hundred women considered the equivalent of two men, in that they cannot constitute a prayer quorum? And yet, the baraita teaches that women form a zimmun for themselves and Canaanite slaves form a zimmun for themselves. Apparently, like women, two men can form a zimmun on their own.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讚注讜转

The Gemara rejects this: There it is different because, although women cannot constitute a prayer quorum, since there are three individual minds, i.e., people, three women can fulfill the verse: 鈥淧raise God with me, and we will exalt His name together.鈥 Two men cannot.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讗诐 专爪讜 诇讝诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讚注讜转

The Gemara objects: If so, say the latter clause of this baraita: Women and slaves, if they wish to form a zimmun, they may not form a zimmun. Why not? Aren鈥檛 they individual minds, which should enable the collective praise of God?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 驻专讬爪讜转讗

The Gemara responds: That is not the reason that women and slaves were prohibited from forming a zimmun together. Rather, it is different there, as the Sages were concerned with regard to women and slaves joining together due to promiscuity.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 讗诐 专爪讜 诇讝诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 砖诇砖讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 讜讬爪讗 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 诇砖讜拽 拽讜专讗讬谉 诇讜 讜诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讟注诪讗 讚拽讜专讗讬谉 诇讜 讛讗 诇讗 拽讜专讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讗

In the dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan, it is unclear which amora held which opinion. The Gemara seeks to resolve this: Conclude that Rav is the one who said: If they wanted to join together, they may not form a zimmun. As Rav Dimi bar Yosef said that Rav said: Three people who ate as one and one of them went out to the marketplace, they call him and include him in the zimmun. The reason is because they call him; by inference, if they do not call him, no, they cannot form a zimmun.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗拽讘注讜 诇讛讜 讘讞讜讘讛 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara rejects this proof: It is different there, in the case of three who ate together and one of them left, because from the outset, they established themselves as a group of three who were obligated to form a zimmun. That is why they need to call him and include him in their zimmun.

讗诇讗 转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗诐 专爪讜 诇讝诪谉 讗讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬诐 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬讜爪讗 讘讘专讻转 讞讘讬专讜

The Gemara now attempts to prove the opposite: Rather, conclude that Rabbi Yo岣nan is the one who said: If they wanted to join together, they may not form a zimmun, as Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Two people who ate as one, one fulfills his obligation to recite a blessing with the recitation of the blessing of the other.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 砖诪注 讜诇讗 注谞讛 讬爪讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 讘专讻转 讛讝讬诪讜谉 讘讬谞讬讛诐 转住转讬讬诐

The Gemara comments: And we discussed it in an attempt to clarify the halakha. What is he teaching us? We already learned this halakha explicitly: One who heard a blessing and did not respond, nevertheless he fulfilled his obligation And Rabbi Zeira said: Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement teaches us that there is no blessing of zimmun among them. Indeed, conclude that Rabbi Yo岣nan is the amora who held that two may not form a zimmun.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚讗转讜 诪诪注专讘讗 讗诪专讬 讗诐 专爪讜 诇讝诪谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讚砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 诪专讘 诪拽诪讬 讚谞讞讬转 诇讘讘诇:

With regard to this, Rava bar Rav Huna said to his father Rav Huna: Didn鈥檛 the Sages who came from the West, from Eretz Yisrael, say that two individuals who ate together, if they wanted to join together, they may form a zimmun? What, is it not that they heard it from Rabbi Yo岣nan, who was from Eretz Yisrael? Rav Huna answered: No, this is not a proof, as it is possible that they heard this halakha from Rav before he left Eretz Yisrael and descended to Babylonia.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 砖诇砖讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 讜讬爪讗 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 诇砖讜拽 拽讜专讗讬谉 诇讜 讜诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讜讗 讚拽专讜 诇讬讛 讜注谞讬

The Gemara now explains the matter of Rav鈥檚 statement itself: Rav Dimi bar Yosef said that Rav said: Three people who ate as one and one of them went out to the marketplace, they call him and include him in the zimmun, even if he is not beside them. And Abaye said: This is only in a case that they call him and he responds, but if he is too far away to answer he cannot be included.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘砖诇砖讛 讗讘诇 讘注砖专讛 注讚 讚谞讬讬转讬

Mar Zutra said: We only said this, that it is sufficient to hear and answer, with regard to a zimmun of three; but, with regard to a quorum of ten, they may not form a zimmun which includes mention of God鈥檚 name until the one who left comes and sits with them.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讚专讘讗 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 转砖注讛 谞专讗讬谉 讻注砖专讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讬谉 谞专讗讬谉 讻砖诇砖讛

Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable. Nine people who ate together appear like ten, so even if one is missing, the quorum does not seem to be incomplete. Two people who ate together do not appear like three, so it would be reasonable to require the actual presence of the third.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘注讬 诇讗讚讻讜专讬 砖诐 砖诪讬诐 讘爪讬专 诪注砖专讛 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞 讗专注讗

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Mar Zutra. What is the reason? Because in a zimmun of ten they need to mention the Name of Heaven, and it is not proper conduct to invoke the Name of Heaven with fewer than ten people present.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讬讟讬谞谉 砖谞讬诐 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 诪爪讜讛 诇讬讞诇拽 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 砖谞讬诐 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 诪爪讜讛 诇讬讞诇拽 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖砖谞讬讛诐 住讜驻专讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讞讚 住讜驻专 讜讗讞讚 讘讜专 住讜驻专 诪讘专讱 讜讘讜专 讬讜爪讗:

With regard to the halakhot of zimmun, Abaye said that we have a tradition: Two people who ate as one, it is a mitzva for them to separate and for each to recite a blessing for himself. This was also taught in a baraita: Two people who ate as one, it is a mitzva for them to separate The baraita, however, adds: In what case are these matters stated? Specifically when both individuals are learned people [soferim] and capable of reciting prayers and blessings. However, if one of them was a learned person and the other an ignoramus, the learned person recites the blessing and the ignoramus thereby fulfills his obligation.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专讬转讗 讗谞讗 讜讗讬转诪专讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讜讜转讬 砖诇砖讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 讗讞讚 诪驻住讬拽 诇砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇讗讞讚

Rava said: This is a statement that I said and it was stated in the name of Rabbi Zeira in accordance with my opinion: Three people who ate as one but did not conclude their meals together, one interrupts his meal in order to join the other two in a zimmun, but two do not interrupt their meal to join the other one in a zimmun.

讜诇讗 讜讛讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻住讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讗 诪专 讘专讬讛 讗讬讛讜 讜讞讚 砖讗谞讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讚诇驻谞讬诐 诪砖讜专转 讛讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚

The Gemara challenges: And do two really not interrupt their meal to join the other one in a zimmun? Didn鈥檛 Rav Pappa interrupt his meal to enable Abba Mar, his son, to recite the zimmun blessing; and, in that case, it was Rav Pappa and one other person? The Gemara responds: The case of Rav Pappa is different, as he acted beyond the letter of the law.

讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 诪专讬诪专 讜诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚讬驻转讬 讻专讻讬 专讬驻转讗 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讛讜 讞讚 讚讛讜讛 诪讜驻诇讙 诪讞讘专讬讛 诇讘专讜讻讬 诇讛讜 讬转讘讬 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 砖讗讻诇讜 讻讗讞转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讝诪谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讚诐 讙讚讜诇 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讞诇讜拽 讘专讻讜转 注讚讬祝

The Gemara relates that three Sages, Yehuda bar Mareimar, Mar bar Rav Ashi and Rav A岣 of Difti ate bread together. None among them was greater than the other in either age or wisdom, rendering him the obvious choice to recite the blessing on their behalf. They sat down and raised a dilemma: That which we learned in our mishna: Three people who ate as one are required to join together and recite Grace after Meals, does that apply only when there is a great man among them, but where they are on a par with each other, perhaps separating and reciting independent blessings is preferable?

讘专讬讱 讗讬谞讬砖 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚诪专讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讬讚讬 讘专讻讛 讬爪讗转诐 讬讚讬 讝讬诪讜谉 诇讗 讬爪讗转诐 讜讻讬 转讬诪专讜 谞讬讛讚专 讜谞讝诪谉 讗讬谉 讝讬诪讜谉 诇诪驻专注

Indeed, that is what they did, and each person recited the blessing for himself. Later, they came before Mareimar to ask him if they had acted correctly. Mareimar said to them: Although you fulfilled your obligation to recite a blessing over your food, you did not fulfill your obligation to form a zimmun. And if you say: Let us go back and form a zimmun, there is no retroactive zimmun. Once the blessing over the meal has been recited, one can no longer recite the zimmun.

讘讗 讜诪爪讗谉 讻砖讛谉 诪讘专讻讬诐 诪讛讜 讗讜诪专 讗讞专讬讛诐 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 讘专讜讱 讜诪讘讜专讱 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 注讜谞讛 讗诪谉

The Gemara discusses another question: One who came and found them reciting the zimmun blessing, what does he say after them in response to the zimmun.Rav Zevid said that he says: Blessed is He and blessed is His Name for ever and all time (Tosafot). Rav Pappa said: He answers amen.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讚讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 讚拽讗 讗诪专讬 谞讘专讱 讜讛讗 讚讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 讚拽讗 讗诪专讬 讘专讜讱 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 讚拽讗 讗诪专讬 谞讘专讱 讗讜诪专 讘专讜讱 讜诪讘讜专讱 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 讚拽讗 讗诪专讬 讘专讜讱 注讜谞讛 讗诪谉

The Gemara explains that Rav Zevid and Rav Pappa do not disagree. This is in a case where he found them saying: Let us bless; and that is in a case where he found them saying: Blessed be. The Gemara specifies: Where he found them saying: Let us bless, he says: Blessed is He and blessed is His Name for ever and all time; where he found them saying: Blessed be, he answers amen.

转谞讬 讞讚讗 讛注讜谞讛 讗诪谉 讗讞专 讘专讻讜转讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讜讘讞 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讙讜谞讛

A similar explanation resolves a difficulty in a related topic. One baraita taught: One who answers amen after his own blessings, it is praiseworthy. Another baraita taught: It is reprehensible.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讘讜谞讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讛讗 讘砖讗专 讘专讻讜转

The Gemara resolves this apparent contradiction: This is not difficult. This, where the first baraita says that it is praiseworthy to answer amen after his own blessing, is in the blessing: Who builds Jerusalem; this, where the second baraita deems it offensive, is in other blessings.

讗讘讬讬 注谞讬 诇讬讛 讘拽诇讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇砖诪注讜 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜诇讬拽讜诪讜 讚讛讟讜讘 讜讛诪讟讬讘 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 专讘 讗砖讬 注谞讬 诇讬讛 讘诇讞讬砖讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 谞讝诇讝诇讜 讘讛讟讜讘 讜讛诪讟讬讘

The Gemara relates: Abaye would answer amen aloud after reciting the blessing: Who builds Jerusalem, so the workers would hear and stand to return to work, as the ensuing blessing: Who is good and does good, is not required by Torah law, so the laborers working for the homeowner need not recite it. Rav Ashi, on the other hand, would answer amen in a whisper, so that those who heard him would not relate to the blessing: Who is good and does good, with contempt.

Scroll To Top