Zimmun II זימון (ב)

Women, bondsmen, and minors, we don’t recite zimmun over them.

Rav Yehuda Kohen said that a woman can combine [with men to create a zimmun] of three for birkat ha-mazon…He brought a proof from the Talmud’s doubt (Berachot 20b) whether [women’s obligation in birkat ha-mazon] is on a Torah level or rabbinic [and presenting the practical outcome] as discharging the masses [in their obligation]. That implies that it is clear to us that women combine [with men for zimmun], for if you don’t say so, rather than asking if she can discharge [a man’s obligation], it [the Talmud] should ask if she can combine [with men to create a zimmun].

…Regarding women in our mishna, that is if they [women] are the majority, one man cannot recite zimmun for them [as a group]. But to combine two men and her as the third, she can well combine [with them to form a zimmun]. That is the view of Rav Yehuda Ha-kohen.

They [women] recite for themselves – Three women, and similarly three bondsmen, but two women or two bondsmen do not combine with men, for men have something that women, and bondsmen, don’t have. For women don’t mention “berit” [in birkat ha-mazon]…

Rav Yehuda Kohen said that a woman can combine [with men to create a zimmun] of three for birkat ha-mazon…And Maharam responded to him: …Would you say that regarding a woman, who can never come to be [certainly] obligated on a Torah level [in birkat ha-mazon]?…For if she [could] discharge others’ obligations [in birkat ha-mazon] if so, her obligation would be on a Torah level, and it would be simple that she can combine [with men to create a zimmun].

“Women and bondsmen, if they wish to [combine to] recite zimmun, they do not recite zimmun.” Why not? … because of immodesty.

[Women, bondsmen, and minors] If they want, do not [combine] to recite – as the rationale is explained later: that establishing eating with them [kevi’ut] is not fitting, because of immodesty, whether [bondsmen] with women, or whether male sexual relations of bondsmen with minors.

Women, bondsmen, and minors, [men] don’t combine to recite zimmun with them. Rashi explains that women don’t combine for this reason to create zimmun, even with their husbands, for forming a chavura with them is not fitting.

[That they (women) don’t combine] for zimmun. This case is different because there is a major combining, for there is a change in birkat ha-mazon on their account, to add birkat ha-zimmun on account of them, and one should be concerned for immodesty…Wherever there is a zimmun of three men without them [the women], they [women] join and recite zimmun with them [men] to discharge their beracha [obligation], for it is not considered combining wherever the men do not fully need their [women’s] combining, for there is a zimmun without them [the women] …

Rabbeinu Yona wrote in his commentary on the Rif: Women, bondsmen, and minors, [men] don’t combine to recite zimmun with them. Rashi explains that women don’t combine to create zimmun, even with their husbands, because forming a chavura with them is not fitting…For even if we accept this version of Rashi, he must have said that only specifically regarding birkat zimmun, whose halachic meaning is expressing special gratitude over the fellowship and his opportunity to be together with them. This is truly not a fitting matter since it includes an aspect with a sense of immodesty. But in any other gathering that does not include such an expression, no one would say we are concerned for immodesty…the request of this [mixed] fellowship to come together without it being required and to express their joy over their combining together, this is a matter that is not fitting and appears immodest, even with respect to her husband, for this [eating together] is within the category of a lightheaded interaction between a man and his wife…

…We do not recite zimmun be-Shem [zimmun with God’s name] with fewer than ten…

Every davar she-bikdusha is with no fewer than ten

Since he needs to say “nevarech l-Elokeinu – fewer than ten is not the usual practice.

For zimmun is like a davar she-bikdusha and is not practiced with fewer than three…

It was said: Two who ate as one— Rav and Rabbi Yochanan had a dispute. One said, if they wish to recite zimmun, they recite it; and one said: if they wish to recite zimmun, they do not recite it…Yet a hundred women are similar to two men, and the baraita teaches “women recite zimmun for themselves…” That [a women’s zimmun] is different, for there are [still three] distinct minds.

For a hundred women are like two men: Regarding gathering for prayer and regarding any matter requiring ten, and even so we consider them [women] as three and this is the law for two [men]. But one cannot say they are like one man, that they [women] would be unable to recite zimmun, for the baraita teaches that women recite zimmun for themselves.

For even 100 [women] are similar to two [men] — with respect to obligation, for they [women] are not obligated to recite zimmun, and if they want to, they recite zimmun, and this is the law for two [men]. For there are distinct minds – For even though regarding obligation they [women] are not obligated, regarding voluntary performance, they are considered three minds to give thanks to God, more than are two men, for there is an aspect of “Make God great along with me.”

Once [the Talmud] concludes that “minds are different” and [a group of women] is legally distinct from two men, they [women] have also gone back to [being unlike two men] in the matter of being obligated like three [men, for zimmun].

Women and bondsmen and minors [men] do not combine with them to recite zimmun, but they recite zimmun for themselves. And there should not be a chavura made up of women and slaves and minors because of immodesty, but women recite zimmun for themselves or bondsmen for themselves, so long as they do not recite zimmun be-Shem.

Women…recite zimmun…for themselves, as long as they do not recite zimmun be-Shem.

…He says, “Let us bless (nevarech) [the One] from Whose [food] we have eaten.” And everyone responds, “Blessed is [the One] from Whose [food] we have eaten and through Whose goodness we live.” And he repeats and recites “Blessed is [the One] from Whose [food] we have eaten and through Whose goodness we live.”

They said to him: Give us [the cup of wine] and let us recite a blessing (ve-nivrich).

If you say “let us bless [the One] from Whose we ate,” that is the invitation. “Blessed is [the One] from Whose we ate,” that is the beracha. This is certain. But “let us bless,” is a different invitation, an invitation for “Who creates the fruit of the vine.” For first recites an invitation just for the cup of blessing. And this cup, once he takes it, he recites another invitation with the word “let us bless” regarding the Exalted World from which all of our food and berachot emerge…

Regarding the language of the zimmun, and whether it is permitted to include men and women together and to say “gevirotai ve-rabotai nevarech” or “birshut gevirotai ve-rabotai nevarech she-achalnu mi-shelo” and so on, I do not see a halachic objection… In any case, if three women ate with one or two men, it is preferable for the mezammenet to say “gevirotai nevarech” or “chavrotai nevarech” without including the men, since they are not drawn after the women’s zimmun at all, even though it is permissible for men to answer a women’s zimmun… But when she says “birshut…” she can ask permission from men as well, and similarly a man from women, and especially from the master and mistress of the house. Asking permission is primarily from someone who is greater than him in Torah and derech eretz, but today there are those who ask permission from all those eating, and it is even possible to shorten and say “hav lan nevarech” and “birshut ha-mesubin nevarech she-achalnu mi-shelo” without enumerating who they are.