Why a Level 4 devoted to the Alter Rebbe ? The Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch is not a commentary on the Mehaber (מחבר) — it is a complete, self-standing Shulchan Aruch, written by the Alter Rebbe (Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, founder of Habad, disciple of the Maggid (מגיד) of Mezeritch). Its singularity : it combines halakha (הלכה) + טעמי המצוות + inner dimension in one work, and rules with a unique Talmudic rigor.
For Habad, the Alter Rebbe is הפוסק האחרון — his psak is the deciding authority. This page gathers the Rav’s way on siman קצ״ב — בִּרְכַּת זִמּוּן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה (the zimun blessing with three or with ten), which unfolds in the Rav over ז׳ סְעִיפִים (seven seifim) : from the very foundation of zimun — a blessing over enjoyment, which is not discharged through another save by a shared kevi’ut, and the joining of three participants which alone permits blessing in the plural — to the exact wording of the mezamen and of those who answer, to the addition of barukh Hu uvarukh Shemo and the question of amen after barukh she’akhalnu, to the obligation of mentioning the Name when they are ten and the rejection of the lamed, to the faulty formulas that make their speaker a boor, to the mezamen’s error in omitting the Name, up to the Zohar’s warning about the hazmanah be-peh before birkat hamazon.
שולחן ערוך הרב — סימן קצ״ב — בִּרְכַּת זִמּוּן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה
The full text of the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch
שולחן ערוך הרב, סימן קצ״ב — בִּרְכַּת זִמּוּן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה — וּבוֹ ז׳ סְעִיפִים
The Alter Rebbe’s own text (Sefaria source Shulchan_Arukh_HaRav,_Orach_Chayim.192), followed by our English translation. The siman comprises seven seifim (ז׳ סְעִיפִים ; seif k → .192.k).
סעיף א זִמּוּן מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וּלְמַעְלָה — "נְבָרֵךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ".
בִּרְכַּת זִמּוּן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה, וּבוֹ ז׳ סְעִיפִים:
כְּבָר נִתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן קס״ז שֶׁבִּרְכַּת הַנֶּהֱנִין אֵינָהּ דּוֹמָה לְבִרְכַּת הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁאֶחָד מוֹצִיא חֲבֵרוֹ בְּבִרְכָתוֹ, אֲבָל בְּבִרְכַּת הַנֶּהֱנִין מִי שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה הוּא מְבָרֵךְ בְּעַצְמוֹ עַל הֲנָאָתוֹ, וְאֵין חֲבֵרוֹ פּוֹטְרוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִקְבְּעוּ יַחַד בְּדָבָר שֶׁקְּבִיעוּת מוֹעֶלֶת בּוֹ, שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ בְּכָךְ, שֶׁקְּבִיעוּתָם מְצָרַפְתַּם לִהְיוֹת נֶחְשָׁבִים כְּגוּף אֶחָד, וּבְרָכָה אַחַת לְכֻלָּם.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בִּבְרָכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, שֶׁדַּעְתָּם לְהִתְחַבֵּר וְלִקְבֹּעַ עַצְמָן לֶאֱכֹל יַחַד, אֲבָל בִּבְרָכָה אַחֲרוֹנָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁכְּבָר אָכְלוּ וְהֵם מִתְפָּרְדִים זֶה מִזֶּה — אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לְהֵחָשֵׁב כְּגוּף אֶחָד שֶׁיִּפָּטְרוּ בִּבְרָכָה אַחַת מֵהֶם, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הֵם מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וּלְמַעְלָה, שֶׁיֵּשׁ שֶׁבַח וְקִלּוּס יוֹתֵר כְּשֶׁמִּצְטָרְפִין לִבְרָכָה אַחַת, לְפִי שֶׁהֵם רְאוּיִם לְזַמֵּן, כְּלוֹמַר לְהִזְדַּמֵּן יַחַד לְצֵרוּף בְּרָכָה בִּלְשׁוֹן רַבִּים.
וְאוֹמֵר אֶחָד מֵהֶם: "נְבָרֵךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ", וְהַשְּׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים: "בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וּבְטוּבוֹ חָיִינוּ".
וְאִם הֵם שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּלֹא הַמְבָרֵךְ, יָכוֹל לוֹמַר: "בָּרְכוּ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ", כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֵם רְאוּיִם לְבָרֵךְ בִּלְשׁוֹן רַבִּים בִּלְעָדוֹ. וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם, יוֹתֵר טוֹב לוֹמַר: "נְבָרֵךְ", שֶׁלֹּא לְהוֹצִיא עַצְמוֹ מִכְּלַל הַמְבָרְכִים. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר "נְבָרֵךְ", צָרִיךְ הוּא לַחֲזֹר וּלְהַכְנִיס עַצְמוֹ לִכְלַל הַמְבָרְכִים, לִגְמֹר וְלַחֲזֹר וְלוֹמַר אַחֲרֵיהֶם: "בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וּבְטוּבוֹ חָיִינוּ", וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַתְחִיל: "בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳ אֱלֹקֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם וְכוּ׳".
וּמִי שֶׁאוֹמֵר גַּם בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה "וּבְטוּבוֹ חָיִינוּ" — אֵין מוֹחִין אוֹתוֹ:
The zimun blessing with three or with ten, and it comprises seven seifim. It has already been explained in siman 167 that a blessing over enjoyment (birkat hanehenin) is not like the blessing over mitzvot, where one discharges his fellow by his blessing; rather, for a blessing over enjoyment, the one who enjoys blesses himself over his own enjoyment, and his fellow does not exempt him — unless they were fixed together over something in which fixity (kevi’ut) is effective, as is the way of it, their fixity joining them so as to be reckoned one body, with one blessing for all of them.
In what case does this apply? To the first blessing, where their intent is to join together and fix themselves to eat as one; but as to the final blessing, since they have already eaten and are parting from one another, they no longer join with one another to be reckoned one body such that they would be exempted by one blessing of one of them — unless they are three or more, for there is greater praise and exaltation when they join for a single blessing, since they are fit for zimun, that is, to summon one another together so as to join the blessing in the plural.
And one of them says: “nevarekh she’akhalnu mishelo,” and the two answer: “barukh she’akhalnu mishelo uvtuvo ḥayinu.”
And if they are three apart from the one blessing, he may say: “barekhu she’akhalnu mishelo,” since they are fit to bless in the plural without him. Nevertheless, it is better to say “nevarekh,” so as not to exclude himself from the company of those who bless. And even though he said “nevarekh,” he must return and include himself among those who bless: to conclude, and to return and say after them “barukh she’akhalnu mishelo uvtuvo ḥayinu,” and afterwards he begins “barukh Ata Hashem Elokenu melekh ha’olam, etc.”
And one who says “uvtuvo ḥayinu” the first time as well — he is not restrained from doing so.
Explanation. The Rav grounds the whole of zimun in a single distinction: a blessing over enjoyment is personal, and only a shared fixity can make of several eaters one body. Since that fixity dissolves at the moment of parting, the final blessing would not be shared — were it not that the number three introduces another ground of joining: collective praise.
סעיף ב תּוֹסֶפֶת "בָּרוּךְ הוּא וּבָרוּךְ שְׁמוֹ" וַעֲנִיַּת אָמֵן.
יֵשׁ נוֹהֲגִין לְהוֹסִיף "בָּרוּךְ הוּא וּבָרוּךְ שְׁמוֹ" קֹדֶם שֶׁמַּתְחִילִין "בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳ אֱלֹקֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם הַזָּן וְכוּ׳", וְהוּא תּוֹסֶפֶת עַל בִּרְכַּת הַזִּמּוּן. אֲבָל כְּשֶׁמְּבָרֵךְ בְּיָחִיד אֵין מָקוֹם לְאָמְרוֹ (וְגַם בְּזִמּוּן אוֹמְרוֹ הַמְזַמֵּן לְבַדּוֹ וְלֹא הַמְסֻבִּין).
(וְגַם כְּשֶׁהַמְזַמֵּן אוֹמֵר: "בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳ אֱלֹקֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם כוּ׳", אֵין לָהֶם לוֹמַר "בָּרוּךְ הוּא וּבָרוּךְ שְׁמוֹ", אֶלָּא יִשְׁתְּקוּ וְיִשְׁמְעוּ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן קכ״ד, אוֹ יֹאמְרוּ עִמּוֹ מִלָּה בְּמִלָּה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן קפ״ג).
וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים, שֶׁאַחַר שֶׁחָזַר הַמְבָרֵךְ "בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ" יַעֲנוּ הַמְסֻבִּין "אָמֵן" אַחֲרָיו, כִּי בְּכָאן נִשְׁלְמָה בִּרְכַּת הַזִּמּוּן.
וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים, שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ לַעֲנוֹת אַחַר "בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ" אֶלָּא בְּאֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק שֶׁנִּכְנַס אֵצֶל חֲבוּרָה כְּשֶׁעוֹנִין "בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ" וְהוּא שׁוֹמֵעַ מִן הַמְסֻבִּין, וְלֹא אַחַר "בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ" שֶׁל הַמְבָרֵךְ. וְכֵן כְּשֶׁבָּא אֶצְלָם בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאוֹמֵר הַמְבָרֵךְ "נְבָרֵךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ" — אֵין צָרִיךְ לַעֲנוֹת אַחַר "בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ" שֶׁל הַמְסֻבִּין, אֶלָּא דַּי בְּמַה שֶּׁעוֹנֶה "בָּרוּךְ וּמְבֹרָךְ" אַחַר "נְבָרֵךְ" שֶׁל הַמְבָרֵךְ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן קצ״ח. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַשּׁוֹמֵעַ בְּרָכָה אַחַת ב׳ פְּעָמִים חַיָּב לַעֲנוֹת ב׳ פְּעָמִים, מִכָּל מָקוֹם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁ"בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ" הִיא עֲנִיָּה עַל "נְבָרֵךְ", וְהוּא עָנָה כְּבָר אַחַר "נְבָרֵךְ" מַה שֶּׁרָאוּי לוֹ לַעֲנוֹת — שׁוּב אֵין צָרִיךְ לַעֲנוֹת אַחַר עֲנִיָּתָם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָנָה כַּעֲנִיָּתָם, וְגַם אֵינָהּ עֲנִיָּה גְּמוּרָה עַל אֲמִירַת הַמְבָרֵךְ, שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר "נְבָרֵךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ", וְזֶה אֵינוֹ עוֹנֶה "בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ", כָּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶהַמְסֻבִּין שֶׁעָנוּ "בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ", שֶׁאֵינָם צְרִיכִים לַחֲזֹר וְלַעֲנוֹת אַחַר הַמְבָרֵךְ, שֶׁחוֹזֵר וְעוֹנֶה כַּעֲנִיָּתָם. וְכֵן הַמִּנְהָג.
וּלְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל, הַמְבָרֵךְ אֵינוֹ עוֹנֶה "אָמֵן" אַחַר "בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ" שֶׁל הַמְסֻבִּין, כֵּיוָן שֶׁחוֹזֵר לוֹמַר בְּפִיו אַחֲרֵיהֶם מִיָּד מַה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ הֵם.
(וְכֵן הַדִּין בְּכָל זֶה בַּעֲנִיַּת "בָּרְכוּ" בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת):
Some have the practice of adding “barukh Hu uvarukh Shemo” before beginning “barukh Ata Hashem Elokenu melekh ha’olam hazan, etc.”; it is an addition to the zimun blessing. But when one blesses alone there is no place to say it (and in zimun as well, the mezamen alone says it, and not those seated).
(And likewise, when the mezamen says “barukh Ata Hashem Elokenu melekh ha’olam, etc.,” they should not say “barukh Hu uvarukh Shemo,” but should be silent and listen, as explained in siman 124, or say it with him word for word, as explained in siman 183.)
And some say that after the one blessing has repeated “barukh she’akhalnu,” those seated answer “amen” after him, for the zimun blessing is completed there.
And some say that they only prescribed answering after “barukh she’akhalnu” for someone from the market who enters upon a company at the moment they are answering “barukh she’akhalnu” and hears it from those seated — and not after the “barukh she’akhalnu” of the one blessing. And likewise, when he comes upon them at the time when the one blessing says “nevarekh she’akhalnu,” he need not answer after the “barukh she’akhalnu” of those seated: it is enough that he answers “barukh umevorakh” after the “nevarekh” of the one blessing, as will be explained in siman 198. And although one who hears a single blessing twice is obliged to answer twice, nevertheless, since “barukh she’akhalnu” is an answer to “nevarekh,” and he has already answered after “nevarekh” what it was fitting for him to answer, he need no longer answer after their answer — even though he did not answer as they did; and neither is it a full answer to the utterance of the one blessing, for he says “nevarekh she’akhalnu” while this one does not answer “barukh she’akhalnu.” All the more so those seated who answered “barukh she’akhalnu” need not answer again after the one blessing, who in turn repeats what they answered. And such is the custom.
And according to all opinions, the one blessing does not answer “amen” after the “barukh she’akhalnu” of those seated, since he immediately repeats with his own mouth, after them, what they said.
(And the same law applies in all of this to the response to “barekhu” in the synagogue.)
Explanation. Two distinct matters are treated here: what is added (barukh Hu uvarukh Shemo, reserved to the mezamen) and what is answered. The principle that settles the second is that one who himself repeats the words he has just heard no longer answers amen to them — hence the mezamen’s conduct, and the same rule for barekhu in the synagogue.
סעיף ג בַּעֲשָׂרָה מַזְכִּירִין אֶת הַשֵּׁם — וּבְלֹא לָמֶ״ד.
אִם הֵם עֲשָׂרָה — חַיָּבִים לְהַזְכִּיר הַשֵּׁם בְּבִרְכַּת הַזִּמּוּן, שֶׁהַמְבָרֵךְ אוֹמֵר: "נְבָרֵךְ אֱלֹהֵינוּ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ", וְהֵם עוֹנִין אַחֲרָיו: "בָּרוּךְ אֱלֹהֵינוּ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וּבְטוּבוֹ חָיִינוּ".
וְאֵין לוֹמַר "נְבָרֵךְ לֵאלֹהֵינוּ", כִּי לֹא מָצִינוּ בַּמִּקְרָא לָמֶ״ד אֶלָּא אֵצֶל שִׁיר וְהוֹדָאָה, כְּמוֹ "שִׁירוּ לַה׳", "הוֹדוּ לַה׳", אֲבָל בִּבְרָכָה נֶאֱמַר: "בְּמַקְהֵלוֹת בָּרְכוּ אֱלֹהִים וְגוֹ׳", "בָּרְכוּ עַמִּים אֱלֹהֵינוּ וְגוֹ׳", וְרַבִּים כְּמוֹתָם, כֻּלָּם בְּלֹא לָמֶ״ד.
וּמֵעֲשָׂרָה וּלְמַעְלָה, אֲפִלּוּ הֵם אֶלֶף אוֹ רִבּוֹא — כָּךְ הֵם מְבָרְכִים:
If they are ten, they are obliged to mention the Name in the zimun blessing: the one blessing says: “nevarekh Elokenu she’akhalnu mishelo,” and they answer after him: “barukh Elokenu she’akhalnu mishelo uvtuvo ḥayinu.”
And one should not say “nevarekh l’Elokenu,” for we do not find the lamed in Scripture except alongside song and thanksgiving, as in “shiru laHashem,” “hodu laHashem”; but with regard to blessing it is said: “bemak’helot barekhu Elokim, etc.,” “barekhu amim Elokenu, etc.,” and many others like them, all without a lamed.
And from ten and upward, even if they are a thousand or ten thousand — thus do they bless.
Explanation. The Rav does not merely state the rule: he gives its scriptural ground. The lamed marks the address of a song; blessing, by contrast, is construed without a preposition, and constant biblical usage bears this out. Nor does the formula of ten multiply further: ten is the last threshold.
סעיף ד כָּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה מִזֶּה הַנֻּסָּח — הֲרֵי זֶה בּוּר.
כָּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה מִזֶּה הַנֻּסָּח, כְּגוֹן שֶׁאוֹמֵר: "נְבָרֵךְ עַל הַמָּזוֹן שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ", אוֹ שֶׁאוֹמֵר: "נְבָרֵךְ לְמִי שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ" — הֲרֵי זֶה בּוּר, שֶׁכְּשֶׁאוֹמֵר "נְבָרֵךְ עַל הַמָּזוֹן", נִרְאֶה כִּמְבָרֵךְ לַמָּזוֹן, וּכְשֶׁאוֹמֵר "לְמִי שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ", מַשְׁמַע שֶׁמְּרֻבִּים הֵם, זֶה זָן אֶת זֶה, וְזֶה אֶת זֶה, וּלְפִי דְּבָרָיו מְבָרֵךְ אֶת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן "שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ" סְתָם, מַשְׁמַע שֶׁהוּא יְחִידִי שֶׁהַכֹּל אוֹכְלִים מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. וּמַה שֶּׁאוֹמְרִים בַּהַגָּדָה "לְמִי שֶׁעָשָׂה לַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ וְלָנוּ אֶת כָּל הַנִּסִּים הָאֵלּוּ", זֶהוּ לְפִי שֶׁבְּנִסִּים אִי אֶפְשָׁר לִטְעוֹת שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה נִסִּים זוּלָתִי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּבְרָכָה אֶפְשָׁר לִטְעוֹת שֶׁמְּבָרֵךְ אֶת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.
וּכְשֶׁהֵם עֲשָׂרָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁמַּזְכִּירִין אֶת הַשֵּׁם אֵין מָקוֹם לִטְעוֹת שֶׁמְּבָרְכִין הַמָּזוֹן, וְיָכוֹל לוֹמַר: "נְבָרֵךְ אֱלֹהֵינוּ עַל הַמָּזוֹן שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ", אֲבָל לֹא "לְמִי שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ", כִּי לֹא יִהְיֶה פֵּרוּשׁ לִדְבָרָיו כְּלָל. וְאַף אִם יֹאמַר: "מִי שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ", הֲרֵי זֶה בּוּרוּת, כִּי מַה סִּימָן צָרִיךְ לָתֵת:
Whoever departs from this formula — for instance by saying “nevarekh al hamazon she’akhalnu mishelo,” or by saying “nevarekh lemi she’akhalnu mishelo” — such a one is a boor. For when he says “nevarekh al hamazon,” he appears to be blessing the food; and when he says “lemi she’akhalnu,” it implies that they are many, this one feeding that one and that one the other, and by his own words he is blessing the master of the house. Not so “she’akhalnu mishelo” said without qualification, which implies that He is the One from whose bounty all eat. And as for what is said in the Haggadah, “lemi she’asa la’avotenu velanu et kol hanissim ha’elu,” that is because with miracles it is impossible to err and think that any but the Holy One, blessed be He, performs miracles; not so with a blessing, where one might err and think that he is blessing the master of the house.
And when they are ten, since they mention the Name there is no room to err and think that they are blessing the food, and he may say: “nevarekh Elokenu al hamazon she’akhalnu” — but not “lemi she’akhalnu,” for his words would then have no meaning at all. And even if he were to say “mi she’akhalnu,” that would be boorishness, for what identifying sign is there to give?
Explanation. The Rav’s criterion is not elegance of speech but the sense a listener may legitimately hear: any wording that makes it possible to think one is blessing the food or the host is set aside. Mentioning the Name, on the other hand, closes the ambiguity of itself — hence the latitude granted where there are ten.
סעיף ה "וּמִטּוּבוֹ" אוֹ "וּבְטוּבוֹ חַיִּים" — הֲרֵי זֶה בּוּר.
וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר בִּמְקוֹם "וּבְטוּבוֹ חָיִינוּ" — "וּמִטּוּבוֹ חָיִינוּ", אוֹ "וּבְטוּבוֹ חַיִּים" — הֲרֵי זֶה בּוּר, שֶׁ"מִּטּוּבוֹ" מַשְׁמַע דָּבָר מוּעָט, וּמְמַעֵט בְּתַגְמוּלָיו שֶׁל מָקוֹם. וּמַה שֶּׁאוֹמְרִים: "שַׂבְּעֵנוּ מִטּוּבֶךָ", זֶהוּ בִּשְׁאֵלָה, שֶׁהַשּׁוֹאֵל שׁוֹאֵל דָּבָר מוּעָט, כְּעָנִי בַּפֶּתַח שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵרִים רֹאשׁ לִשְׁאֹל שְׁאֵלָה גְּדוֹלָה. "וּבְטוּבוֹ חַיִּים", מַשְׁמַע שְׁאָר הָעוֹלָם חַיִּים וְלֹא הוּא, וּמוֹצִיא עַצְמוֹ מִן הַכְּלָל:
And likewise one who says, in place of “uvtuvo ḥayinu,” “umituvo ḥayinu,” or “uvtuvo ḥayim” — such a one is a boor, for “mituvo” implies a small thing, and he diminishes the recompense of the Omnipresent. And as for what is said, “sabe’enu mituvekha,” that belongs to petition, for one who asks asks a small thing, like a poor man at the door who does not raise his head to make a great request. “Uvtuvo ḥayim” implies that the rest of the world lives but not he — and he excludes himself from the company.
Explanation. A single letter shifts the whole sense: the partitive mem narrows the gift, while the beit embraces it. And the very same expression, licit in a petition, becomes faulty in praise — which shows that the Rav judges formulas by the register in which they are spoken.
סעיף ו טָעָה בַּעֲשָׂרָה וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר הַשֵּׁם — אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר.
אִם טָעָה הַמְזַמֵּן בַּעֲשָׂרָה וְהָעוֹנִים וְלֹא הִזְכִּירוּ אֶת הַשֵּׁם בְּבִרְכַּת הַזִּמּוּן — אֵינָם יְכוֹלִים לַחֲזֹר וּלְזַמֵּן בְּשֵׁם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁכְּבָר יָצְאוּ יְדֵי חוֹבַת זִמּוּן, אֶלָּא שֶׁבִּטְּלוּ מִצְוַת הַזְכָּרַת הַשֵּׁם, וּמְעֻוָּת שֶׁלֹּא יוּכַל לִתְקֹן הוּא. אֲבָל אִם עֲדַיִן לֹא עָנוּ אַחֲרָיו, כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַיְּמָה עֲדַיִן מִצְוַת זִמּוּן — יַחֲזֹר הַמְבָרֵךְ וִיזַמֵּן בְּשֵׁם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַעֲנוּ אַחֲרָיו:
If the mezamen erred where there were ten, as did those answering, and they did not mention the Name in the zimun blessing — they cannot go back and make the zimun with the Name, since they have already discharged the obligation of zimun; they have only forfeited the mitzvah of mentioning the Name, and that is a wrong that cannot be set right. But if they have not yet answered him, since the mitzvah of zimun has not yet been fulfilled, the one blessing should go back and make the zimun with the Name, and afterwards they answer after him.
Explanation. The Rav sharply separates the obligation of zimun, which is already discharged the moment the response has been given, from the mitzvah of mentioning the Name, which is superadded to it. So long as the response has not been made, nothing has yet been acquired, and one may begin again.
סעיף ז הַזֹּהַר — הַזְמָנָה בַּפֶּה קֹדֶם בִּרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן.
בַּזֹּהַר הִזְהִירוּ לוֹמַר בְּפִיו קֹדֶם בִּרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן: "תֵּן לָנוּ הַכּוֹס וּנְבָרֵךְ", אוֹ "בֹּאוּ וּנְבָרֵךְ", לְפִי שֶׁכָּל דָּבָר שֶׁבִּקְדֻשָּׁה צָרִיךְ הַזְמָנָה בַּפֶּה עוֹבֵר לַעֲשִׂיָּתוֹ, כְּדֵי לְהַמְשִׁיךְ הַקְּדֻשָּׁה וּלְהַעֲבִיר מַה שֶּׁכְּנֶגְדָהּ. וּמִזֶּה נוֹהֲגִים לוֹמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן אַשְׁכְּנַז (רַבּוֹתַי מִי״ר וֶועלִי״ן בֶּענְטְשִׁי״ן), וְהֵם עוֹנִין: "יְהִי שֵׁם ה׳ מְבֹרָךְ מֵעַתָּה וְעַד עוֹלָם":
In the Zohar they warned to say aloud, before birkat hamazon: “ten lanu hakos unevarekh,” or “bo’u unevarekh,” because everything of holiness requires a verbal summons immediately prior to its performance, in order to draw down holiness and to remove that which stands against it. And from this comes the practice of saying it in the Ashkenazic tongue (“Rabbosai, mir vellen bentshen”), and they answer: “yehi shem Hashem mevorakh me’ata ve’ad olam.”
Explanation. The siman closes on the inner dimension proper to the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch: the spoken invitation is not table courtesy but a hazmanah, a preparation of the vessel before holiness descends. The Ashkenazic custom, and the response yehi shem, are its practical enactment.
הלכה למעשה — מנהג חב״ד
The practical Habad conduct
Points of conduct that follow directly from siman קצ״ב in the sensibility of the Alter Rebbe and Habad — presented at the level of principle, referring to the Rav for the detail of cases.
For the Habad Hassid — Siman קצ״ב (בִּרְכַּת זִמּוּן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה)
- ① Seif א. The foundation of zimun: birkat hanehenin is not discharged through another, save by a shared kevi’ut; that fixity dissolves at parting, so that the final blessing is shared only from three participants upward, where collective praise supplies the joining. The mezamen says “nevarekh she’akhalnu mishelo” and the two answer “barukh she’akhalnu mishelo uvtuvo ḥayinu.”
- ② Seif ב. If they are three apart from him, “barekhu” is permitted — but “nevarekh” is better, so as not to exclude himself from those who bless; and in every case he repeats after them “barukh she’akhalnu mishelo uvtuvo ḥayinu” before beginning the blessing hazan. “Barukh Hu uvarukh Shemo”: an addition of the mezamen alone, never of those seated, and out of place for one blessing by himself. The mezamen does not answer amen after those seated, since he immediately repeats their words; the same rule governs the response to “barekhu” in the synagogue (simanim 124 and 183).
- ③ Seif ג. With ten, mentioning the Name is an obligation: “nevarekh Elokenu she’akhalnu mishelo.” Never a lamed — in Scripture the lamed accompanies only song and thanksgiving, not blessing. And ten is the last threshold: a thousand or ten thousand bless in the very same way.
- ④ Seif ד. Do not alter the formula: “al hamazon” suggests that one blesses the food, “lemi she’akhalnu” that one blesses the master of the house — both are boorishness. With ten, mentioning the Name removes the ambiguity and “nevarekh Elokenu al hamazon she’akhalnu” becomes possible again, but “lemi she’akhalnu” remains excluded.
- ⑤ Seif ה. Say “uvtuvo ḥayinu,” not “umituvo” — which narrows the bounty — nor “uvtuvo ḥayim,” which excludes the speaker himself. “Sabe’enu mituvekha” belongs to petition, where the diminutive sense is in place: the same expression changes value with the register.
- ⑥ Seif ו. Where the mezamen erred with ten, the Name omitted and the answer already given: the zimun is not repeated, the obligation having been discharged; only the mitzvah of mentioning the Name is lost, and that is an irreparable wrong. But so long as those seated have not answered, the mezamen begins again, with the Name.
- ⑦ Seif ז. The Zohar requires a hazmanah be-peh before birkat hamazon: “ten lanu hakos unevarekh” or “bo’u unevarekh” — hence the Ashkenazic practice of saying “Rabbosai, mir vellen bentshen,” to which those seated answer “yehi shem Hashem mevorakh me’ata ve’ad olam.”
⚠ This section presents the Habad conduct grounded in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, siman קצ״ב (the real text reproduced in §1). It does not replace a rabbinic decision for a particular case. For any concrete question — the wording of zimun, mentioning the Name with ten, the amen response, the hazmanah before birkat hamazon — consult your Rav, and for Habad, a Habad Rav.