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

December 5, 2021 | ב׳ בטבת תשפ״ב | TODAY'S DAF: Taanit 23

Today's Daf Yomi

February 17, 2020 | כ״ב בשבט תש״פ

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?

תוכן זה תורגם גם ל: עברית

דחנקתיה אומצא:

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

רבי טרפון אומר בורא נפשות רבות וחסרונן אמר ליה רבא בר רב חנן לאביי ואמרי לה לרב יוסף הלכתא מאי אמר ליה פוק חזי מאי עמא דבר:

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 Ḥanan 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.

הדרן עלך כיצד מברכין

 

מתני׳ שלשה שאכלו כאחת חייבין לזמן אכל דמאי ומעשר ראשון שנטלה תרומתו מעשר שני והקדש שנפדו והשמש שאכל כזית והכותי מזמנין עליו

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.

אכל טבל ומעשר ראשון שלא נטלה תרומתו ומעשר שני והקדש שלא נפדו והשמש שאכל פחות מכזית והנכרי אין מזמנין עליו נשים ועבדים וקטנים אין מזמנין עליהן עד כמה מזמנין עד כזית רבי יהודה אומר עד כביצה:

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.

גמ׳ מנא הני מילי אמר רב אסי דאמר קרא גדלו לה׳ אתי ונרוממה שמו יחדו רבי אבהו אמר מהכא כי שם ה׳ אקרא הבו גדל לאלהינו

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: “Praise God with me, and we will exalt His name together” (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: “When I call the Name of the Lord, give [plural] praise to our God” (Deuteronomy 32:3).

אמר רב חנן בר אבא מנין לעונה אמן שלא יגביה קולו יותר מן המברך שנאמר גדלו לה׳ אתי ונרוממה שמו יחדו

Having mentioned these verses, the Gemara cites related matters. Rav Ḥanan 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: “Praise God with me, and we will exalt His Name together”; together and not with the respondent raising his voice louder than the one reciting the blessing.

אמר רבי שמעון בן פזי מנין שאין המתרגם רשאי להגביה קולו יותר מן הקורא שנאמר משה ידבר והאלהים יעננו בקול שאין תלמוד לומר בקול ומה תלמוד לומר בקול בקולו של משה

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: “Moses spoke, and God responded in a voice” (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’ voice, i.e., in a voice no louder than Moses’ voice. This verse instructs subsequent generations that Torah readers and translators should keep their voices at an equal volume just as Moses transmitted God’s word to the people and their voices were equal in volume.

תניא נמי הכי אין המתרגם רשאי להגביה קולו יותר מן הקורא ואם אי אפשר למתרגם להגביה קולו כנגד הקורא ימעך הקורא קולו ויקרא:

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.

אתמר שנים שאכלו כאחת פליגי רב ורבי יוחנן חד אמר אם רצו לזמן מזמנין וחד אמר אם רצו לזמן אין מזמנין

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 Yoḥanan 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.

תנן שלשה שאכלו כאחת חייבין לזמן שלשה אין שנים לא

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.

התם חובה הכא רשות

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

תא שמע שלשה שאכלו כאחת חייבין לזמן ואין רשאין ליחלק שלשה אין שנים לא

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.

שאני התם דקבעו להו בחובה מעיקרא

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.

תא שמע השמש שהיה משמש על השנים הרי זה אוכל עמהם אף על פי שלא נתנו לו רשות היה משמש על השלשה הרי זה אינו אוכל עמהם אלא אם כן נתנו לו רשות

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.

שאני התם

The Gemara responds: It is different there,

דניחא להו דמקבע להו בחובה מעיקרא

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

תא שמע נשים מזמנות לעצמן ועבדים מזמנים לעצמן נשים ועבדים וקטנים אם רצו לזמן אין מזמנין (והא נשים אפילו מאה) והא מאה נשי כתרי גברי דמיין וקתני נשים מזמנות לעצמן ועבדים מזמנין לעצמן

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’t 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.

שאני התם דאיכא דעות

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: “Praise God with me, and we will exalt His name together.” Two men cannot.

אי הכי אימא סיפא נשים ועבדים אם רצו לזמן אין מזמנין אמאי לא והא איכא דעות

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’t they individual minds, which should enable the collective praise of God?

שאני התם משום פריצותא

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.

תסתיים דרב דאמר אם רצו לזמן אין מזמנין דאמר רב דימי בר יוסף אמר רב שלשה שאכלו כאחת ויצא אחד מהם לשוק קוראין לו ומזמנין עליו טעמא דקוראין לו הא לא קוראין לו לא

In the dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan, 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.

שאני התם דאקבעו להו בחובה מעיקרא

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.

אלא תסתיים דרבי יוחנן הוא דאמר אם רצו לזמן אין מזמנין דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן שנים שאכלו כאחת אחד מהן יוצא בברכת חבירו

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

והוינן בה מאי קא משמע לן תנינא שמע ולא ענה יצא ואמר רבי זירא לומר שאין ברכת הזימון ביניהם תסתיים

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 Yoḥanan’s statement teaches us that there is no blessing of zimmun among them. Indeed, conclude that Rabbi Yoḥanan is the amora who held that two may not form a zimmun.

אמר ליה רבא בר רב הונא לרב הונא והא רבנן דאתו ממערבא אמרי אם רצו לזמן מזמנין מאי לאו דשמיע להו מרבי יוחנן לא דשמיע להו מרב מקמי דנחית לבבל:

With regard to this, Rava bar Rav Huna said to his father Rav Huna: Didn’t 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 Yoḥanan, 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.

גופא אמר רב דימי בר יוסף אמר רב שלשה שאכלו כאחת ויצא אחד מהם לשוק קוראין לו ומזמנין עליו אמר אביי והוא דקרו ליה ועני

The Gemara now explains the matter of Rav’s 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.

אמר מר זוטרא ולא אמרן אלא בשלשה אבל בעשרה עד דנייתי

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’s name until the one who left comes and sits with them.

מתקיף לה רב אשי אדרבא איפכא מסתברא תשעה נראין כעשרה שנים אין נראין כשלשה

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.

והלכתא כמר זוטרא מאי טעמא כיון דבעי לאדכורי שם שמים בציר מעשרה לאו אורח ארעא

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.

אמר אביי נקיטינן שנים שאכלו כאחת מצוה ליחלק תניא נמי הכי שנים שאכלו כאחת מצוה ליחלק במה דברים אמורים כששניהם סופרים אבל אחד סופר ואחד בור סופר מברך ובור יוצא:

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.

אמר רבא הא מילתא אמריתא אנא ואיתמרה משמיה דרבי זירא כוותי שלשה שאכלו כאחת אחד מפסיק לשנים ואין שנים מפסיקין לאחד

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.

ולא והא רב פפא אפסיק ליה לאבא מר בריה איהו וחד שאני רב פפא דלפנים משורת הדין הוא דעבד

The Gemara challenges: And do two really not interrupt their meal to join the other one in a zimmun? Didn’t 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.

יהודה בר מרימר ומר בר רב אשי ורב אחא מדיפתי כרכי ריפתא בהדי הדדי לא הוה בהו חד דהוה מופלג מחבריה לברוכי להו יתבי וקא מיבעיא להו הא דתנן שלשה שאכלו כאחת חייבין לזמן הני מילי היכא דאיכא אדם גדול אבל היכא דכי הדדי נינהו חלוק ברכות עדיף

The Gemara relates that three Sages, Yehuda bar Mareimar, Mar bar Rav Ashi and Rav Aḥa 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?

בריך איניש לנפשיה אתו לקמיה דמרימר אמר להו ידי ברכה יצאתם ידי זימון לא יצאתם וכי תימרו ניהדר ונזמן אין זימון למפרע

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.

בא ומצאן כשהן מברכים מהו אומר אחריהם רב זביד אמר ברוך ומבורך רב פפא אמר עונה אמן

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.

ולא פליגי הא דאשכחינהו דקא אמרי נברך והא דאשכחינהו דקא אמרי ברוך אשכחינהו דקא אמרי נברך אומר ברוך ומבורך אשכחינהו דקא אמרי ברוך עונה אמן

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.

תני חדא העונה אמן אחר ברכותיו הרי זה משובח ותניא אידך הרי זה מגונה

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.

לא קשיא הא בבונה ירושלים הא בשאר ברכות

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.

אביי עני ליה בקלא כי היכי דלשמעו פועלים וליקומו דהטוב והמטיב לאו דאורייתא רב אשי עני ליה בלחישא כי היכי דלא נזלזלו בהטוב והמטיב

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.

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

דחנקתיה אומצא:

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

רבי טרפון אומר בורא נפשות רבות וחסרונן אמר ליה רבא בר רב חנן לאביי ואמרי לה לרב יוסף הלכתא מאי אמר ליה פוק חזי מאי עמא דבר:

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 Ḥanan 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.

הדרן עלך כיצד מברכין

 

מתני׳ שלשה שאכלו כאחת חייבין לזמן אכל דמאי ומעשר ראשון שנטלה תרומתו מעשר שני והקדש שנפדו והשמש שאכל כזית והכותי מזמנין עליו

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.

אכל טבל ומעשר ראשון שלא נטלה תרומתו ומעשר שני והקדש שלא נפדו והשמש שאכל פחות מכזית והנכרי אין מזמנין עליו נשים ועבדים וקטנים אין מזמנין עליהן עד כמה מזמנין עד כזית רבי יהודה אומר עד כביצה:

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.

גמ׳ מנא הני מילי אמר רב אסי דאמר קרא גדלו לה׳ אתי ונרוממה שמו יחדו רבי אבהו אמר מהכא כי שם ה׳ אקרא הבו גדל לאלהינו

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: “Praise God with me, and we will exalt His name together” (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: “When I call the Name of the Lord, give [plural] praise to our God” (Deuteronomy 32:3).

אמר רב חנן בר אבא מנין לעונה אמן שלא יגביה קולו יותר מן המברך שנאמר גדלו לה׳ אתי ונרוממה שמו יחדו

Having mentioned these verses, the Gemara cites related matters. Rav Ḥanan 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: “Praise God with me, and we will exalt His Name together”; together and not with the respondent raising his voice louder than the one reciting the blessing.

אמר רבי שמעון בן פזי מנין שאין המתרגם רשאי להגביה קולו יותר מן הקורא שנאמר משה ידבר והאלהים יעננו בקול שאין תלמוד לומר בקול ומה תלמוד לומר בקול בקולו של משה

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: “Moses spoke, and God responded in a voice” (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’ voice, i.e., in a voice no louder than Moses’ voice. This verse instructs subsequent generations that Torah readers and translators should keep their voices at an equal volume just as Moses transmitted God’s word to the people and their voices were equal in volume.

תניא נמי הכי אין המתרגם רשאי להגביה קולו יותר מן הקורא ואם אי אפשר למתרגם להגביה קולו כנגד הקורא ימעך הקורא קולו ויקרא:

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.

אתמר שנים שאכלו כאחת פליגי רב ורבי יוחנן חד אמר אם רצו לזמן מזמנין וחד אמר אם רצו לזמן אין מזמנין

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 Yoḥanan 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.

תנן שלשה שאכלו כאחת חייבין לזמן שלשה אין שנים לא

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.

התם חובה הכא רשות

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

תא שמע שלשה שאכלו כאחת חייבין לזמן ואין רשאין ליחלק שלשה אין שנים לא

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.

שאני התם דקבעו להו בחובה מעיקרא

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.

תא שמע השמש שהיה משמש על השנים הרי זה אוכל עמהם אף על פי שלא נתנו לו רשות היה משמש על השלשה הרי זה אינו אוכל עמהם אלא אם כן נתנו לו רשות

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.

שאני התם

The Gemara responds: It is different there,

דניחא להו דמקבע להו בחובה מעיקרא

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

תא שמע נשים מזמנות לעצמן ועבדים מזמנים לעצמן נשים ועבדים וקטנים אם רצו לזמן אין מזמנין (והא נשים אפילו מאה) והא מאה נשי כתרי גברי דמיין וקתני נשים מזמנות לעצמן ועבדים מזמנין לעצמן

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’t 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.

שאני התם דאיכא דעות

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: “Praise God with me, and we will exalt His name together.” Two men cannot.

אי הכי אימא סיפא נשים ועבדים אם רצו לזמן אין מזמנין אמאי לא והא איכא דעות

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’t they individual minds, which should enable the collective praise of God?

שאני התם משום פריצותא

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.

תסתיים דרב דאמר אם רצו לזמן אין מזמנין דאמר רב דימי בר יוסף אמר רב שלשה שאכלו כאחת ויצא אחד מהם לשוק קוראין לו ומזמנין עליו טעמא דקוראין לו הא לא קוראין לו לא

In the dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan, 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.

שאני התם דאקבעו להו בחובה מעיקרא

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.

אלא תסתיים דרבי יוחנן הוא דאמר אם רצו לזמן אין מזמנין דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן שנים שאכלו כאחת אחד מהן יוצא בברכת חבירו

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

והוינן בה מאי קא משמע לן תנינא שמע ולא ענה יצא ואמר רבי זירא לומר שאין ברכת הזימון ביניהם תסתיים

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 Yoḥanan’s statement teaches us that there is no blessing of zimmun among them. Indeed, conclude that Rabbi Yoḥanan is the amora who held that two may not form a zimmun.

אמר ליה רבא בר רב הונא לרב הונא והא רבנן דאתו ממערבא אמרי אם רצו לזמן מזמנין מאי לאו דשמיע להו מרבי יוחנן לא דשמיע להו מרב מקמי דנחית לבבל:

With regard to this, Rava bar Rav Huna said to his father Rav Huna: Didn’t 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 Yoḥanan, 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.

גופא אמר רב דימי בר יוסף אמר רב שלשה שאכלו כאחת ויצא אחד מהם לשוק קוראין לו ומזמנין עליו אמר אביי והוא דקרו ליה ועני

The Gemara now explains the matter of Rav’s 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.

אמר מר זוטרא ולא אמרן אלא בשלשה אבל בעשרה עד דנייתי

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’s name until the one who left comes and sits with them.

מתקיף לה רב אשי אדרבא איפכא מסתברא תשעה נראין כעשרה שנים אין נראין כשלשה

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.

והלכתא כמר זוטרא מאי טעמא כיון דבעי לאדכורי שם שמים בציר מעשרה לאו אורח ארעא

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.

אמר אביי נקיטינן שנים שאכלו כאחת מצוה ליחלק תניא נמי הכי שנים שאכלו כאחת מצוה ליחלק במה דברים אמורים כששניהם סופרים אבל אחד סופר ואחד בור סופר מברך ובור יוצא:

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.

אמר רבא הא מילתא אמריתא אנא ואיתמרה משמיה דרבי זירא כוותי שלשה שאכלו כאחת אחד מפסיק לשנים ואין שנים מפסיקין לאחד

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.

ולא והא רב פפא אפסיק ליה לאבא מר בריה איהו וחד שאני רב פפא דלפנים משורת הדין הוא דעבד

The Gemara challenges: And do two really not interrupt their meal to join the other one in a zimmun? Didn’t 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.

יהודה בר מרימר ומר בר רב אשי ורב אחא מדיפתי כרכי ריפתא בהדי הדדי לא הוה בהו חד דהוה מופלג מחבריה לברוכי להו יתבי וקא מיבעיא להו הא דתנן שלשה שאכלו כאחת חייבין לזמן הני מילי היכא דאיכא אדם גדול אבל היכא דכי הדדי נינהו חלוק ברכות עדיף

The Gemara relates that three Sages, Yehuda bar Mareimar, Mar bar Rav Ashi and Rav Aḥa 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?

בריך איניש לנפשיה אתו לקמיה דמרימר אמר להו ידי ברכה יצאתם ידי זימון לא יצאתם וכי תימרו ניהדר ונזמן אין זימון למפרע

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.

בא ומצאן כשהן מברכים מהו אומר אחריהם רב זביד אמר ברוך ומבורך רב פפא אמר עונה אמן

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.

ולא פליגי הא דאשכחינהו דקא אמרי נברך והא דאשכחינהו דקא אמרי ברוך אשכחינהו דקא אמרי נברך אומר ברוך ומבורך אשכחינהו דקא אמרי ברוך עונה אמן

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.

תני חדא העונה אמן אחר ברכותיו הרי זה משובח ותניא אידך הרי זה מגונה

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.

לא קשיא הא בבונה ירושלים הא בשאר ברכות

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.

אביי עני ליה בקלא כי היכי דלשמעו פועלים וליקומו דהטוב והמטיב לאו דאורייתא רב אשי עני ליה בלחישא כי היכי דלא נזלזלו בהטוב והמטיב

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