Zimmun: Part II

We’ve seen that three men or three women can form a chavura to recite zimmun.

We’ve also seen that when there is a chavura of three or more men, everyone eating with them is obligated to recite zimmun. Women may participate in the men’s zimmun, or a group of at least three women can split off and recite it on their own.

What of a zimmun of two men and one woman, or two women and one man?

The mishna seems to address this question, though its meaning has been debated:

On the whole, halachic authorities understand this mishna as prohibiting men from combining with women, bondsmen or minors to create a zimmun.¹ But there is a minority view that understands it differently. Let’s look at both approaches, starting with the minority view.

Minority View

We could understand the mishna as simply prohibiting women, bondsmen, and minors from combining with each other to create a zimmun. On this view, the mishna may imply that women and free men are permitted to combine to create a zimmun.

This type of reading likely explains the halachic position of Rav Yehuda Ha-kohen (end of tenth century Mainz), who rules that women are permitted to combine with free men to create a zimmun:

Rav Yehuda Ha-kohen reasons that if women’s ability to combine with men for zimmun were in question, the Talmud should have raised that question prior to discussing women discharging men’s obligations in birkat ha-mazon. (We’ll see Maharam’s rebuttal of this point below.)

A few later authorities have suggested that Rav Yehuda Ha-kohen’s view had more limited application, based on a more mainstream reading of the mishna. Taz, for example, suggests that Rav Yehuda Ha-kohen in fact does read the mishna as restricting combinations of women and free men, but specifically when the combination would be two women to one man:

Rav Yehuda Ha-kohen’s view in all its versions, and men and women combining to create a zimmun, have been widely rejected in practice.

Prevalent View

The prevalent view is that the mishna simply prohibits a mixed zimmun of fewer than three women with fewer than three men. Those who take this view need to account for why mixed zimmun is a problem. Here are some of the main possibilities:

I. Different Text Zimmun ideally creates a communal birkat ha-mazon, in which the mezammen can discharge the obligations of all participants. Therefore, the people instrumental to creating the zimmun should recite the same core text.

Rashi says men and women cannot combine to create a zimmun because they recite different texts of birkat ha-mazon. He assumes that women omit mention of circumcision, which is an obligatory part of birkat ha-mazon for men.

Nowadays, many women do recite the lines of birkat ha-mazon that refer to circumcision. According to Or Zarua, this might enable a woman to discharge a man’s obligation. But since this recitation is voluntary and reflects a different relationship to circumcision than men’s, one could still argue that Rashi’s rationale remains in place.

II. Different Obligation This interpretation parallels the previous one. Zimmun ideally creates a communal birkat ha-mazon, in which the mezammen can discharge the obligations of all participants. So the people instrumental to creating the zimmun should share the same level of obligation in birkat ha-mazon.

Maharam takes this perspective. He writes that, if women clearly had a Torah-level obligation in birkat ha-mazon, then men and women would be able to combine to form a zimmun. However, since it is possible that women are obligated only rabbinically in birkat ha-mazon, a combination of this sort cannot work.

These first two views see the inability of women and free men to combine to create a zimmun as purely the result of technical halachic reasoning.

III. Lack of Kevi’ut Status Unlike Maharam, Ra’avad views women as definitively obligated on a Torah level in birkat ha-mazon. Yet he, too, reads the mishna as ruling out the possibility that free men and women could combine to create a zimmun. His stated reason is that women and men cannot halachically create kevi’ut as a joint chavura, i.e. cannot halachically establish a joint eating fellowship together. (For more on what this means, see here.)

Because he is so terse, it’s hard to be certain what Ra’avad means. His idea seems to be that a mixed-gender group cannot formally, ritually create a chavura together because halacha does not recognize their eating together as a fully integrated communal act on the same level as single-gender groups.² This might be related to the range of halachic perspectives on the propriety of men and women eating together, especially on festive occasions. (We discuss these more here.)

On this view, a mixed zimmun is simply impossible because the group is not considered a halachic chavura.

IV. Propriety A last view maintains that, while a mixed zimmun might be technically possible, concerns for propriety make it impermissible.

A baraita stipulates that women and bondsmen may not combine for zimmun. The Talmud explains that this constraint stems from concern that such mixing will lead to inappropriate behavior.

Rashi comments that these mixed groups could potentially lead to inappropriate behavior. Therefore, it is unfitting for them to create established halachic status, keviut, as a chavura, fellowship of eaters:

Now, one could argue that we are specifically concerned about inappropriate behavior on the part of bondsmen, and that we would not have this concern regarding free men. Along these lines, Sefer Ha-me’orot explains that Halacha makes negative assumptions of this sort about bondsmen:

Rabbeinu Yona disagrees. He writes that Rashi is concerned about the propriety of gender-mixing even with free men (though this claim does not appear in our versions of Rashi).

Following this logic, Halacha might rule out any mixed zimmun across the board, regardless of context, due to concerns for propriety. Alternatively, it might allow for mixed zimmun where propriety is assured.

Peri Megadim suggests that, following this position, Rav Yehuda Ha-kohen permitted men and women to combine to create a zimmun specifically within a family context. Family would be an exception to the mishna’s prohibition because it presents fewer concerns about propriety or modesty:

Peri Megadim , however, goes on to quote Levush, who rejects combining to create a zimmun even within a family even though he views propriety as the central consideration.³

Creating vs. Participating

Women can participate in a zimmun of three or more men, but (according to the prevalent view) cannot join with one or two men to create a zimmun. Why should there be a halachic difference between these scenarios?

According to the first two explanations we saw above, the answer is fairly straightforward. Unity of obligation and of text is more pressing among those needed to create the quorum together than among those who simply participate.

But, from the perspective of propriety, it is harder to explain the difference between men and women participating in a single zimmun and combining to create one.

Furthermore, as we saw in Part I, kevi’ut (formally eating together as a group) enables one person to recite ha-motzi on behalf of all present – without regard for gender. Yet (according to the prevalent view) kevi’ut for zimmun requires a core group of the same gender. Again – why the difference?

Ritva provides a partial answer, taking the propriety approach:⁴

A situation in which zimmun can be recited only by halachically integrating men and women in the ritual is more sensitive than a communal ha-motzi, or a zimmun in which men and women participate but don’t need to combine.

Regarding the comparison to ha-motzi, Chazon Ish adds that birkat ha-motzi is an act of communally praising God, but birkat ha-zimmun is a beracha about the community that forms it:

Rav Ben Tziyon Uziel further develops this line of thought:

Zimmun expresses gratitude and joy at the opportunity for a specific group to join together to eat communally. Where there are enough men to form such a group and express that joy, women join with men as part of the larger group of eaters and blessers without calling ritual attention to the mixed-gender fellowship.

However, when zimmun would only be possible by men and women mixing, it ritually marks the opportunity of men and women to join together as a mixed-gender group. This inherently seems to celebrate the act of women and men coming together to eat. Such a ritual would either highlight an act with potential for frivolity, which would be inappropriate, or formalize it, when our rituals tend to be more separate. (For more on gender mixing, see here.)

Widespread practice follows the view that men and women may not combine to create a zimmun. At the same time, there are some historical attestations of Torah scholars following the view of Rav Yehuda Ha-kohen, at least in the context of family. For example, Rav Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller writes:⁵

On the one hand, this stands to reason since the laws of kevi’ut are more flexible within a household, as are the laws of tzeni’ut. On the other, if the concern relates to potentially different levels or types of obligation, family connection is irrelevant.

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach rejects the possibility of male and female family members combining to create a zimmun:

Rav Eliezer Melamed, however, writes that it is permissible to rely on the rulings allowing for mixed zimmun within the family, though he considers not doing so to be preferable:⁶

Rosh Yeshivat Har Etzion Rav Baruch Gigi permits family members to combine to create zimmun. However, he recognizes the sensitive nature of the issue and thus conditions application of this ruling on taking into account local sensitivities.

Often, communal rituals require a minyan. While we have learned that zimmun requires only three people, the mishna includes a zimmun that mentions God’s name “Elokeinu” as part of a list of ritual recitations requiring ten or more men.

The Talmud explains that many of the recitations listed in the mishna are devarim she-bikdusha. (See more here).

However, the Talmud goes on to suggest that zimmun be-Shem requires a quorum of ten simply because that is how rituals invoking God’s name in a call to others are performed:

Zimmun thus may not technically be considered a davar she-bikdusha.⁷ In this vein, some early authorities refer to a zimmun of any number as akin to a davar she-bikdusha:

Zimmun with God’s name, zimmun be-Shem, raises two interesting questions regarding women. First, given that women can make an all-women’s zimmun of three, may women create a zimmun of ten? Second, may a woman serve as the tenth for zimmun be-Shem?

These questions intersect with the question of whether zimmun with ten is considered a davar she-bikdusha or simply functions like one. If it is a davar she-bikdusha, then women would not count toward the minyan, as is usually the case.⁸

If it is not a davar she-bikdusha, but functions like one, then there might be room for women to count towards a minyan for zimmun be-Shem, even though women do not count towards the minyan for a davar she-bikdusha.

Talmudic Evidence

The Talmud does not directly address the case of a group of ten women reciting zimmun be-Shem. However, a discussion of a different case – whether two men may opt to recite zimmun – sheds some light on our question.

The Talmud likens a group of a hundred women to a group of two men:

To summarize the argument: Two men and many women are comparable; many women recite zimmun; therefore, two men should be able to recite zimmun. But this argument is rejected, because a group of many women (or even just three) includes more people (or minds) than a group of two men, reaching the threshold of three for zimmun.

Early authorities disagree as to what the assumed comparison of a hundred women to two men means, presenting three primary approaches:

I. Neither Can Create a Minyan Tosafot understands the comparison to mean that a hundred women can never constitute a minyan, just as two men do not:

Tosafot states that, for any recitation that requires ten, only men are counted. According to Tosafot, then, a group of ten or more women cannot recite zimmun be-Shem.

II. Neither are Obligated in Rashi understands the comparison to mean that a hundred women are not obligated in zimmun, just as two men are not. Zimmun in these cases is voluntary.

Rashi’s reading does not rule out the possibility of ten or more women voluntarily reciting zimmun be-Shem.

III. The Comparison is Rejected Rabbeinu Asher (Rosh) maintains that the comparison of a hundred women to two men is ultimately rejected by the Talmud.

Rabbeinu Asher’s reading, like that of Rashi, does not rule out the possibility that women could count toward zimmun be-Shem.

Indeed, Rosh is cited as an authority who allowed for a woman to count toward the ten needed to recite zimmun be-Shem.

In Practice

Perhaps because the status of zimmun be-Shem as a davar she-bikdusha is unclear and because the Talmudic passage is subject to conflicting interpretations, practical Halacha regarding women forming or combining with men to create a zimmun be-Shem errs on the side of caution.

I. An All Women’s Group Rambam rules that an all-women’s group may not recite a zimmun be-Shem:

Rav Yosef Karo explains that Rambam’s rationale is to treat zimmun be-Shem as a davar she-bikdusha:

Sefer Ha-me’orot offers an alternative reading. He lists some of the factors raised in discussion of mixed zimmun— level of obligation and kevi’ut— as reasons for women not to recite zimmun be-Shem.

He adds that one should not protest if a group of ten or more women go ahead and recite zimmun be-Shem. This view has not been accepted as halacha, which instead follows a straightforward understanding of Rambam.

II. A Mixed Group A few early halachic authorities cite a position that women can help make up the quorum of ten for reciting God’s name in zimmun. We saw above that Rosh takes this position. Similarly, Mordechai reports that Rabbeinu Simcha of Speyer permitted a woman to count as the tenth for zimmun.⁹

As we discuss here, Rabbeinu Simcha’s view is not followed in practice, neither here nor with respect to tefilla be-tzibbur. ¹⁰ Additionally, the issues raised regarding combining to create a zimmun of three could also apply to zimmun be-Shem.

We can more readily recognize the significance of adding God’s name by returning to the essential ritual text of zimmun. Though called a beracha, and though berachot typically do mention God’s name, zimmun takes a different form, as a short call and response:

This is the core text of zimmun. The mezammen invites others to bless God, and they do, continuing to birkat ha-mazon.

The first few lines of zimmun – the responsive permissions with which we are familiar – are merely introductions to zimmun and not obligatory. We can trace them back to the Talmud, which tells us that Rav’s students would call for a glass of wine and express intent to begin, as a prelude to reciting birkat ha-mazon:

The Zohar expands on this formula, calling it a special, mystical preparation geared for reciting birkat ha-mazon over wine:

This pre-zimmun call to recite a beracha has been widely adopted and adapted, even when chavurot recite birkat ha-mazon without wine.

The Ashkenazi version of zimmun even includes mention of God’s proper name, detracting from the impact of adding God’s name for a zimmun with ten. Still, this mention may be different because it comes within a quotation of a full verse from Tehillim:¹¹

Ashkenazi permissions included “rabotai,” esteemed companions, as a gesture of respect to all in attendance.

Sefardim generally preserve the language from the Talmud, simply adding a mention of God as Highest King. In effect this requests permission from Heaven to recite birkat ha-mazon and only secondarily from attendees:

Women reciting a Sefardi zimmun need not change any of the language. The formula is briefer and gender neutral, with the possible exception of feminizing “bi-rshut’chem” with your permission to “bi-rshut’chen” (the feminine plural form) when no men are present.

Feminizing Ashkenazi zimmun is slightly more complicated. In a responsum, Rav Yehuda Henkin lays out some options:

Gevirotai maintains the formal, polite tone of rabotai. Chavrotai has the advantage of referencing the idea that the women combine as a “chavura.” Therefore, it can apply even when the women are not specifically “chaveirot,” or friends, in a colloquial sense. Rav Henkin allows for employing the male plural form or referring to the men present where relevant, though his preference is not to say “rabotai,” so as to make it clear that the men are not joining with the women to create the zimmun.

Rav Henkin also notes that, in his opinion, the asking of permission is informal, and can include the mistress of the house, “ba’alat ha-bayit.” This addition has been contentious in religious Zionist circles. Specifically, Rav Ya’akov Ariel has been opposed to it, even in the case of a son recognizing his mother. In an online responsum, he describes the current language as fixed, and the mother’s desire for recognition as an outgrowth of militant feminism, since she is not obligated in zimmun (an interesting claim, since she is obligated if there is a zimmun of men present):¹²

Others suggest using the language of “u-bi-chvod” (“and with respect to”) to refer to those being referred to with respect in the invitation, but who would otherwise not be able to lead the zimmun. Still others, however, including Rav Shlomo Aviner, have ruled that men reciting zimmun may freely ask permission from their mothers or from the female heads of the household alongside the males:¹³

As Rav Aviner notes, if the logic to ask permission were specifically to recognize someone who would otherwise recite zimmun or choose the mezammen, it is hard to see how Shabbat would be included.

Rav Aviner’s logic is reminiscent of Magen Avraham. Both see the language of the introduction to zimmun prior to “nevarech she-achalnu,” the beginning of zimmun itself, as inherently flexible. This is why, even though women typically begin a woman’s zimmun with “gevirotai” or “chavrotai,” even rabotai “my esteemed companions,” may be acceptable.