Berakhot 45b — the Talmud in English

because it is agreeable to them

that he eat with them so that

it establishes for them

the blessing of the zimun

as an obligation,

for one who is commanded and performs is greater than one who is not commanded and performs.

Come and hear

from a beraita in accordance with the view that two may make a zimun on their own: Three

women make a zimun for themselves,

and

likewise three

slaves make a zimun

for themselves,

but if

women, slaves, and minors

ate together, even

if they wish to make a zimun, they do not make a zimun [

and the reason for this is explained nearby],

but this

is concerning zimun:

a hundred women are considered like two men,

for they never have an obligation of zimun,

and

nevertheless

it teaches: “Women make a zimun for themselves, and slaves make a zimun for themselves,”

and if so, two men should also be permitted to make a zimun, even though they are not obligated in zimun.

The Gemara rejects:

It is different there,

with women and slaves, for although they are not fit for the obligation of zimun, they possess an advantage over two men, since

there are

three

persons of understanding. They derived from “Magnify the Lord with me” that the blessing of the zimun is thanksgiving recited by at least three persons of understanding, which is not so with two men by themselves.

The Gemara asks:

The Gemara asks:

If so,

say the latter clause

of the beraita:

Women and slaves

who ate together, even

if they wished to make a zimun, they do not make a zimun. Why do they not

make a zimun together?

But there are persons of understanding!?

The Gemara answers:

It is different there,

with women and slaves together, for they should not make a zimun

because

their gathering together is considered

promiscuity . [And likewise, minors should not make a zimun with slaves, because they fear that the slaves might engage in male homosexual intercourse with the minors.] The Gemara considers:

And similarly, minors may not recite the communal invitation together with slaves, because there is concern that the slaves might engage in homosexual relations with the minors.] The Gemara considers this:

Let it be concluded

that it can be proved

that Rav

is the one

who said: “If they wished to make a zimun, they do not make a zimun.”

For Rav Dimi bar Yosef said in the name of Rav: Three who ate as one, and

before they recited the Birkat ha-Mazon

one of them went out to the marketplace, they call him

and inform him that they wish to make a zimun with him, and he answers with them from his place,

and they make a zimun with him,

even though he is not in one room with them.

And it is implied:

the reason

that they can make a zimun is only because

“they call him”

and he joins them to complete three.

If they do not call him, they do not

make a zimun. And it is proved that according to Rav, two by themselves do not make a zimun.

The Gemara rejects:

It is different there,

in the case where they ate together and one of them went out, for they cannot make a zimun unless he joins them, since

they

had already

fixed

themselves in an obligation from the outset,

and they are no longer permitted to divide, so that they may fulfill together the obligatory zimun. But it nevertheless remains possible that two who ate by themselves are permitted to make a zimun.

Rather, let it be concluded

that the opposite can be proved:

that Rabbi Yohanan is the one who said: “If they wished to make a zimun, they do not make a zimun.”

For Rabbah bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Two who ate as one, one of them may fulfill the blessing

of the food

through his fellow.

And we raised it: What does it come to teach us?

For we have already

learned: If he heard

a blessing

and did not answer

with his mouth,

he has fulfilled [his obligation],

because “one who hears is like one who answers.” What is the novelty in his fulfilling the Birkat ha-Mazon through his fellow’s mouth?

And Rabbi Zeira said,

the intention of Rabbi Yohanan is

to say that there is no blessing of the zimun between them.

That is, they are not permitted to recite the blessing of the zimun, which is the blessing of both of them together, in which one calls out, “Let us bless,” and his fellow answers, “Blessed”; rather, one hears the Birkat ha-Mazon from his fellow. And it follows that Rabbi Yohanan holds that they are not permitted to make a zimun.

And the Gemara’s conclusion: Indeed,

let it be concluded

that Rabbi Yohanan is the one who said, “If they wished to make a zimun, they do not make a zimun,” whereas Rav held that they do make a zimun.

Rava bar Rav Huna said to Rav Huna:

How is it possible to say that Rabbi Yohanan is the one who said, “If they wished to make a zimun, they do not make a zimun,”

when the Sages who came from the West said: “If they wished to make a zimun, they make a zimun”?

Is it not that they heard it from Rabbi Yohanan,

who was in the Land of Israel, since they could not have heard it from Rav, who was in Babylonia?

The Gemara rejects:

No; they heard it from Rav, before he descended

before he went down

to Babylonia.

The essential text: Rav Dimi bar Yosef said in the name of Rav: Three who ate as one, and one of them went out to the marketplace, they call him and make a zimun with him .

Abaye said: And

this law

is

specifically in a case

that they called him and he answered

with them, “Blessed is He of whose [food] we ate,” but if he is far away and cannot answer with them, he does not join them.

Mar Zutra said: And we said this

that they join the one who went out in order to make a zimun with them,

only in

a case where there were only

three

who ate together;

but with ten,

who ate together and wish to mention the Divine Name in the zimun, the one who went out does not join them

until he comes [A0172][returns]

and is with them in one place.

Rav Ashi challenged him: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable:

that the one who went out from the group of ten should join them, because

nine

are many, and those who remain

appear to be ten, whereas the one who went out from the group of three should not join them, because

the two

who remain are few,

and do not appear to be three.

do not appear to be three.

And

the Gemara’s conclusion:

The halakha is according to Mar Zutra,

that the one who went out from the group of ten does not join them.

What is the reason? —

Since they need to mention the Divine Name, fewer than ten is not proper conduct.

Abaye said: We have taken as established

for practical halakha,

that two who ate as one—it is a mitzva to divide,

and each one should recite by himself the blessing over the food and the blessing of the zimun. For ideally it is not proper to fulfill [the obligation] by hearing from one’s fellow.

It was taught likewise: Two who ate as one—it is a mitzva to divide. When does this apply? When both are scribes,

learned men who know how to bless by themselves;

but

if there was

one

of them

a scribe and one an unlearned man,

who does not know how to bless,

the scribe recites the blessing and the unlearned man fulfills [his obligation]

by hearing from the scribe.

Rava said: This matter

that follows,

I said it, and it was stated

also

in the name of Rabbi Zeira

in agreement with me: Three who ate as one,

and some of them wish to make a zimun, it is proper conduct that

one interrupt for two

who wish to make a zimun, and wait until the completion of the zimun, which is at the end of the blessing of Ha-Zan [as below], and return to his meal;

and two

do not need to be

interrupting for one,

but he waits until they finish, so that they can make a zimun together.

The Gemara was astonished:

And

when two

do not

interrupt for one,

but Rav Pappa interrupted for

the sake of

“Abba Mar,” his son,

who had finished his meal and wished to make a zimun, even though they had been with him during the meal—

he

[Rav Pappa]

and

another

one?

The Gemara answers:

It is different with Rav Pappa, for he acted beyond the letter of the law,

in order to honor his son.

Yehuda bar Merimar, Mar bar Rav Ashi, and Rav Aha of Difti broke bread together,

they ate bread together, and since they were three, they became obligated in a zimun. But since

there was not among them one who was distinguished above his fellow

in wisdom or age, so as

to bless for them

[the greatest of the group makes the zimun and blesses and discharges all of them through his blessing, as below, 47a],

they said:

“This that we learned: Three who ate as one are obligated to make a zimun”—these

matters

apply only

where there is a distinguished person,

but where

all those reclining

are equal to one another, dividing the blessings is preferable,

and therefore

each person blessed for himself.

Afterward

they came before Marimar,

and asked him whether they had acted properly.

He said to them: You have fulfilled the requirement of the blessing [the blessing after meals]

Grace after Meals]

you have fulfilled,

however,

the

requirement of

the zimmun you have not fulfilled,

because the mitzva of zimmun applies even in a place where there is no greater person reciting on behalf of the other diners.

And should you say, Let us return

now

and perform zimmun,

and now say the blessing of zimmun,

it is impossible to do so, because

there is no retroactive zimmun,

but only before the blessing after meals. The Gemara discussed: In a case where

a

person who did not eat came

and found them while they were blessing [performing zimmun], and he cannot say, “Blessed is He from whose bounty we have eaten,”

inviting others to join], and he cannot say, “Blessed is He from whose bounty we have eaten”;

what does he say after them?

Rav Zevid said: “Blessed and blessed is He,”

Rav Pappa said: He answers, “Amen.”

And they do not disagree,

because their statements concern different circumstances.

This

is where Rav Zevid dealt with the circumstance

that he found them saying [the one leading the zimmun]

the one inviting them]

“Let us bless,” and

if

that,

Rav Pappa spoke of the circumstance

that he found them saying [the respondents]

the participants]

“Blessed.”

That is, if

he found them saying

the one leading the zimmun

says

after him

“Blessed and blessed is He,”

but if

he found them

saying

the respondents

“Blessed,”

and he did not hear the one leading the zimmun say “Let us bless,” thereby requesting that the listeners bless, he cannot say “Blessed and blessed is He”; therefore

he answers

with them

“Amen.”

One [baraita] taught: One who answers “Amen” after

all

his blessings

of his own

is praiseworthy. And another [baraita] taught: He is disgraceful.

explains:

It is not difficult: this

which is considered “praiseworthy” is

in

the blessing

“Who rebuilds Jerusalem”

in the blessing after meals, because it is the last blessing whose obligation is from the Torah, and his answering concerns all three blessings; whereas

that

which is considered “disgraceful” is when he answers “Amen”

in

all

the other blessings,

because as long as he has not completed his blessings, it is disgraceful for him to say “Amen.”

Abaye answered it,

the “Amen” after the blessing “Who rebuilds Jerusalem,”

aloud, so that the laborers would hear

that the blessing after meals had ended, for one answers “Amen” only after all the blessings,

and would rise

to go to their work; and he did not care that they would miss the blessing “Who is good and does good,” since

“Who is good and does good” is not from the Torah,

and when the Sages instituted it, they did not permit laborers to interrupt their work for its sake.

But

Rav Ashi answered it quietly,

so that they would not hear and understand that the blessings had ended,

so that they would not slight

the blessing

“Who is good and does good.”