52
edits
Zimmun: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
corrected source error and added links
(added sources) |
(corrected source error and added links) |
||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
==Who can join a Zimmun== | ==Who can join a Zimmun== | ||
===Women=== | ===Women=== | ||
# Women who ate with a group of men who became obligated to make a zimmun are obligated to join in their zimmun.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 199: | # Women who ate with a group of men who became obligated to make a zimmun are obligated to join in their zimmun.<ref>[https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh%2C_Orach_Chayim.199.7?lang=he Shulchan Aruch O.C. 199:7], [https://www.sefaria.org/Kitzur_Shulchan_Arukh.45.22?lang=he Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 45:22]. | ||
List of sources from rishonim: | List of sources from rishonim: | ||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
*[https://www.sefaria.org/Tosafot_on_Berakhot.45b.3.1?lang=he Tosafot on Brachot 45b s.v. shani] (as a ''reshut'', since Tosafot hold that women are entirely exempt from zimmun). | *[https://www.sefaria.org/Tosafot_on_Berakhot.45b.3.1?lang=he Tosafot on Brachot 45b s.v. shani] (as a ''reshut'', since Tosafot hold that women are entirely exempt from zimmun). | ||
**However, the Maharam MiRotenburg himself ([https://www.sefaria.org/Teshuvot_Maharam%2C_Prague_Edition.227?lang=bi ibid.]) seems to disagree with this point, although it's possible he just meant to make an argument within the assumption of his interlocutor Rabbeinu Yehuda ("לדידך" or "arguendo"-- for the sake of argument) but he himself really doesn't accept the point he's making. | **However, the Maharam MiRotenburg himself ([https://www.sefaria.org/Teshuvot_Maharam%2C_Prague_Edition.227?lang=bi ibid.]) seems to disagree with this point, although it's possible he just meant to make an argument within the assumption of his interlocutor Rabbeinu Yehuda ("לדידך" or "arguendo"-- for the sake of argument) but he himself really doesn't accept the point he's making. | ||
**Tosafot Chachmei Anglia (Brachot 45b s.v. veha) seem to understand Rabbeinu Avraham ben Rav Yosef as not allowing women to join a men's zimmun ("והר"ר אברהם ב"ר יוסף הנהיג הנשים לזמן לעצמ' כשהן שלשה ואינן יכולים לסמוך על הזימון שלנו."). (This seems to be the same Rabbeinu Avraham mentioned in Tosafot on Brachot 45b s.v. shani, although Tosafot makes no comment as to whether Rabbeinu Avraham would '''''allow''''' women to join a men's zimmun; and when Tosafot later go on to discuss women joining a men's zimmun, they make no comment that Rabbeinu Avraham would hold that women are not allowed to join a men's zimmun.) | **Tosafot Chachmei Anglia (Brachot 45b s.v. veha) seem to understand Rabbeinu Avraham ben Rav Yosef as not allowing women to join a men's zimmun ("והר"ר אברהם ב"ר יוסף הנהיג הנשים לזמן לעצמ' כשהן שלשה ואינן יכולים לסמוך על הזימון שלנו."). (This seems to be the same Rabbeinu Avraham mentioned in [https://www.sefaria.org/Tosafot_on_Berakhot.45b.3.1?lang=he Tosafot on Brachot 45b s.v. shani], although Tosafot makes no comment as to whether Rabbeinu Avraham would '''''allow''''' women to join a men's zimmun; and when Tosafot later go on to discuss women joining a men's zimmun, they make no comment that Rabbeinu Avraham would hold that women are not allowed to join a men's zimmun.) | ||
<small>(See further Hilchot Yom Beyom vol. 2 10:12 footnote 22 pg 306-307 who assumes that this is only a minority opinion of the Smag and Ri; similarly, Rav Immanuel Molekandov in Kovetz Menorah Badarom Gilyon 58, Adar Sheini 5784, pg 271 s.v. umei’idach claims that– at least regarding it being an '''''obligation'''''– this is a minority opinion of Smag, Ri, Raah, and Ritva [all mentioned above]. Hilchot Yom Beyom’s point is contradicted by the abovementioned sources– see especially Rosh and Tosafot who he explicitly mentions as having to agree with him, who explicitly say that women may be yotzei zimmun from a man. Even Rav Molekandov’s point that women shouldn't be '''''obligated''''' in such a zimmun does not have a clear basis– once there is no prohibition for women to join such a zimmun, any opinion which would obligate 3 women in zimmun should obligate women in this case too. [Although [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=60387#p=208&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr=%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%90%20%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%94 Shaar Hatziyun’s {199:9}] logic would seem to exempt women from zimmun entirely in this case, it seems that Shaar Hatziyun only meant that it’s not logical that Chazal required women to join a men’s zimmun '''''as opposed to a women’s zimmun''''', but not that it’s not logical that women can '''''ever''''' be required to join a men’s zimmun. Otherwise, the Shaar Hatziyun’s logic would run up against an explicit Shulchan Aruch {199:7} based on the Smag and Ri, whose opinion the Shaar Hatziyun is currently discussing.])</small></ref> | <small>(See further Hilchot Yom Beyom vol. 2 10:12 footnote 22 pg 306-307 who assumes that this is only a minority opinion of the [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=21359#p=92&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr=%D7%93%D7%9C%D7%A2%D7%A6%D7%9E%D7%9F%20%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%90%20%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA Smag and Ri]; similarly, Rav Immanuel Molekandov in [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=68385#p=271&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr=%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D%20%D7%9E%D7%96%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D Kovetz Menorah Badarom Gilyon 58, Adar Sheini 5784, pg 271] s.v. umei’idach claims that– at least regarding it being an '''''obligation'''''– this is a minority opinion of Smag, Ri, Raah, and Ritva [all mentioned above]. Hilchot Yom Beyom’s point is contradicted by the abovementioned sources– see especially [https://www.sefaria.org/Teshuvot_HaRosh.4.16.1?lang=he Rosh (Tshuvot, 4:16)] and [https://www.sefaria.org/Tosafot_on_Berakhot.45b.3.1?lang=he Tosafot (Berakhot 45b s.v. shani)] who he explicitly mentions as having to agree with him, who explicitly say that women may be yotzei zimmun from a man. Even Rav Molekandov’s point that women shouldn't be '''''obligated''''' in such a zimmun does not have a clear basis– once there is no prohibition for women to join such a zimmun, any opinion which would obligate 3 women in zimmun should obligate women in this case too. [Although [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=60387#p=208&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr=%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%90%20%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%94 Shaar Hatziyun’s {199:9}] logic would seem to exempt women from zimmun entirely in this case, it seems that Shaar Hatziyun only meant that it’s not logical that Chazal required women to join a men’s zimmun '''''as opposed to a women’s zimmun''''', but not that it’s not logical that women can '''''ever''''' be required to join a men’s zimmun. Otherwise, the Shaar Hatziyun’s logic would run up against an explicit Shulchan Aruch {[https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh%2C_Orach_Chayim.199.7?lang=he 199:7]} based on the Smag and Ri, whose opinion the Shaar Hatziyun is currently discussing.])</small></ref> | ||
# Women who ate together can optionally make a zimmun for themselves. The zimmun for women doesn't change whether it is three or ten or more women; either way they do not mention Hashem's name, ''Elokenu'', in the zimmun.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 199:7</ref> | # Women who ate together can optionally make a zimmun for themselves. The zimmun for women doesn't change whether it is three or ten or more women; either way they do not mention Hashem's name, ''Elokenu'', in the zimmun.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 199:7</ref> | ||
# Some say that if a man ate with three women, the man may lead the zimmun.<ref>[https://www.sefaria.org/Responsa_Benei_Banim%2C_Volume_III.1?lang=he Benei Banim 3:1].</ref> However, some say that this is not allowed.<ref>Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach quoted in [https://www.sefaria.org/Responsa_Benei_Banim,_Volume_IV.4.9/?vhe=hebrew%7CResponsa+Benei+Banim%2C+Jerusalem+1981-2005 Benei Banim 4:4:9 s.v. beram] from Halichos Beisa. See exact quote from Halichos Beisa in Aliba Dehilcheta [https://gilyonot.jewishoffice.co.il/1pQoe7FbSchNTCCsfQX-vNYZhrJE2kHbo gilyon 33] [https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=64133&st=&pgnum=93 pg 17] (see [https://tablet.otzar.org/#/book/151387/p/17/t/0.31053137306437261234/fs/m_hCWkf9Vli8X73f6YDWlpIcP4MMa4ZVKfhP2gX91arZ/start/6/end/9/c here] for color version of pg 17). Although Benei Banim doesn’t agree with R’ S.Z. Auerbach based on evidence from rishonim, he says it’s better not to be lenient unless necessary.</ref> <small>(See footnote for many additional sources relating to this topic.<ref>List of sources that allow 1 man to lead a zimmun of 3 women: | # Some say that if a man ate with three women, the man may lead the zimmun.<ref>[https://www.sefaria.org/Responsa_Benei_Banim%2C_Volume_III.1?lang=he Benei Banim 3:1].</ref> However, some say that this is not allowed.<ref>Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach quoted in [https://www.sefaria.org/Responsa_Benei_Banim,_Volume_IV.4.9/?vhe=hebrew%7CResponsa+Benei+Banim%2C+Jerusalem+1981-2005 Benei Banim 4:4:9 s.v. beram] from Halichos Beisa. See exact quote from Halichos Beisa in Aliba Dehilcheta [https://gilyonot.jewishoffice.co.il/1pQoe7FbSchNTCCsfQX-vNYZhrJE2kHbo gilyon 33] [https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=64133&st=&pgnum=93 pg 17] (see [https://tablet.otzar.org/#/book/151387/p/17/t/0.31053137306437261234/fs/m_hCWkf9Vli8X73f6YDWlpIcP4MMa4ZVKfhP2gX91arZ/start/6/end/9/c here] for color version of pg 17). Although Benei Banim doesn’t agree with R’ S.Z. Auerbach based on evidence from rishonim, he says it’s better not to be lenient unless necessary.</ref> <small>(See footnote for many additional sources relating to this topic.<ref>List of sources that allow 1 man to lead a zimmun of 3 women: | ||
