Level 4 — Daat HaRav (Alter Rebbe) — Siman קצ״ה · חֲבוּרוֹת שֶׁאוֹכְלִים בְּהַרְבֵּה מְקוֹמוֹת

חֲבוּרוֹת שֶׁאוֹכְלִים בְּהַרְבֵּה מְקוֹמוֹת מַה דִּינָם, וּבוֹ ד׳ סְעִיפִים:
ב׳ חֲבוּרוֹת שֶׁאוֹכְלוֹת בְּבַיִת אֶחָד אוֹ בְּב׳ בָּתִּים שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הָרַבִּים מַפְסֶקֶת בֵּינֵיהֶם, אִם מִקְצָתָן רוֹאִים אֵלּוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ — מִצְטָרְפוֹת לְזִמּוּן, וְאִם לָאו — אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפוֹת, אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ מְזַמְּנִין לְעַצְמָן וְאֵלּוּ מְזַמְּנִין לְעַצְמָן. וְאִם יֵשׁ שַׁמָּשׁ אֶחָד לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן — הוּא מְצָרְפָן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אָכַל עִמָּהֶם:

Groups eating in several places: their law, and it comprises four seifim. Two companies eating in one house, or in two houses with no public thoroughfare separating them: if some of them see one another — they join for zimun; and if not — they do not join, but these make zimun for themselves and those for themselves. And if there is a single attendant serving both — he joins them, even though he has not eaten with them.
Explanation. The Rav sets out at once that physical separation — two tables, two rooms — is not decisive in itself: what joins or divides is the perceptible bond among the diners. Mutual sight, even partial, suffices to make two companies into one zimun; failing that, a shared attendant who moves between them supplies that bond, and it is his service — not his eating — that effects the joining.

וְכָל זֶה כְּשֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ מִתְּחִלָּה לְשָׁם עַל דַּעַת לְהִצְטָרֵף, אֲבָל בִּסְתָם אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפוֹת, אֲפִלּוּ רוֹאִים אֵלּוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ וְהֵם בְּבַיִת אֶחָד וְשַׁמָּשׁ אֶחָד לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפוֹת לְזִמּוּן אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן קָבְעוּ בְּשֻׁלְחָן אֶחָד לֶאֱכֹל יַחַד, שֶׁאָז נֶחְשָׁבִים כְּגוּף אֶחָד, וּבְרָכָה אַחַת לְכֻלָּם, וְכָאן כָּל חֲבוּרָה הִיא לְעַצְמָהּ, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן כְּשֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ וְנֶחְלְקוּ לְב׳ חֲבוּרוֹת עַל דַּעַת לְהִצְטָרֵף לִבְרָכָה אַחַת — הֲרֵי זֶה כְּאִלּוּ נִכְנְסוּ וְנִתְחַבְּרוּ בַּחֲבוּרָה אַחַת, שֶׁעִקַּר הַחִבּוּר וְהַצֵּרוּף הוּא הַכַּוָּנָה לְהִתְחַבֵּר.
אֲבָל אִם נִכְנְסוּ וְנֶחְלְקוּ סְתָם שֶׁלֹּא עַל דַּעַת לְהִצְטָרֵף, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבִּשְׁעַת בִּרְכַּת "הַמּוֹצִיא" הָיָה בְּדַעְתָּם לְהִצְטָרֵף — שׁוּב אֵין כַּוָּנָתָם מוֹעֶלֶת לְחַבְּרָם וּלְצָרְפָם אֲפִלּוּ לְבִרְכַּת "הַמּוֹצִיא" עַצְמָהּ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן קס״ז, כָּל שֶׁכֵּן לְבִרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן.
וְאִם נִכְנְסוּ זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַשְּׁנִיָּה נִכְנְסָה עַל דַּעַת לְהִצְטָרֵף עִם הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, אִם הָרִאשׁוֹנָה לֹא הָיָה בְּדַעְתָּהּ כְּלָל בִּשְׁעַת כְּנִיסָתָהּ עַל הַשְּׁנִיָּה לְהִצְטָרֵף עִמָּהּ, אֶלָּא נִכְנְסָה סְתָם — אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ, בִּסְעוּדוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת בִּמְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁנִּכְנָסִים בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה — יְזַמְּנוּ כָּל חֲבוּרָה לְעַצְמָהּ:

And all this applies when they entered there from the outset with the intention of joining; but if they entered without any such intention, they do not join — even if they see one another, are in one house, and one attendant serves both. For they join for zimun only if they settled at one table to eat together, being then reckoned as a single body, with one blessing for all; whereas here each company stands on its own. It is otherwise when they entered and divided into two companies with the intention of joining for a single blessing: it is then as though they had entered and associated as one company, for the essence of association and joining is the intention to associate.
But if they entered and divided without intention, not in order to join — even though at the time of the blessing “hamotzi” they had in mind to join — their intention is no longer effective to associate and join them, not even for the blessing “hamotzi” itself, as was explained in siman 167; all the more so for birkat hamazon.
And if they entered one after the other: even though the second entered with the intention of joining the first, if the first had nothing at all in mind at the time of its entry regarding joining with the second, but entered without intention — they do not join. Therefore, at large meals, in places where people enter one after another, each company shall make zimun for itself.
Explanation. The preceding seif gave the outward signs of tzeruf; this one gives its soul. Mutual sight and the shared attendant are not independent causes: they count only against the background of an initial kavanah to join. Hence the practical consequence, which the Rav states without hedging: at large gatherings where guests arrive in successive waves, each company makes its own zimun.

אָכְלוּ מִקְצָתָן בַּבַּיִת וּמִקְצָתָן חוּץ לַבַּיִת, אִם הַמְבָרֵךְ יוֹשֵׁב עַל הַמִּפְתָּן — הוּא מְצָרְפָן, לְפִי שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לִרְאוֹת אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ בַּהֲפִיכַת פָּנָיו לְכָאן וּלְכָאן, וַהֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִקְצָתָן רוֹאִים אֵלּוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ, שֶׁהוּא נֶחְשָׁב מֵאֵלּוּ וּמֵאֵלּוּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי מוֹצִיא אֶת כֻּלָּם יְדֵי חוֹבָתָם:

If some of them ate in the house and some outside the house: if the one who blesses sits on the threshold — he joins them, since he can see both these and those by turning his face this way and that, and this is like “some of them see one another”; for he is reckoned as belonging both to these and to those, since he discharges the obligation of them all.
Explanation. The mezamen on the threshold is no mere go-between: he genuinely belongs to both groups at once, because it is he who discharges them all. His position — one man who sees both sides by turning his head — by itself fulfils the condition of “some of them see one another” laid down in seif א.

כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁמִּצְטָרְפוֹת ב׳ חֲבוּרוֹת — צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּשְׁמְעוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן כָּל בִּרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן בְּבֵאוּר מִפִּי הַמְבָרֵךְ, וּלְפָחוֹת בִּרְכַּת "הַזָּן", כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן קפ״ג וקצ״ג.
וּמִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַע בִּרְכַּת הַזִּמּוּן שֶׁהוּא "נְבָרֵךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ" בְּבֵאוּר — אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲנוֹת עִמָּהֶם "בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ", אֶלָּא עוֹנֶה אַחֲרֵיהֶם "אָמֵן", לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר כֵּן בְּ"בָרְכוּ" שֶׁבְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן נ״ז. וּכְבָר נִתְבָּאֵר שָׁם שֶׁאֵין דְּבָרָיו עִקָּר:

Wherever two companies join, both must hear the whole birkat hamazon distinctly from the mouth of the one who blesses, and at the least the blessing “hazan,” as was explained in simanim 183 and 193.
And one who did not distinctly hear the blessing of zimun, namely “nevarekh she’akhalnu mishelo” — cannot answer with them “barukh she’akhalnu,” but answers “amen” after them, according to the words of the one who says so regarding the “barekhu” of the synagogue, as was explained in siman 57. And it has already been explained there that his words are not the essential ruling.
Explanation. Tzeruf does not dispense with listening: to be joined is to be discharged by another’s mouth, which presupposes hearing him articulate. The Rav fixes the minimum — the blessing hazan — and then treats the case of one who did not hear the zimun formula; he cites the view that has him answer amen, but at once refers back to siman 57, where he has already shown that this view is not the one adopted.