Level 4 — Daat HaRav (Alter Rebbe) — Siman קצ״ו · מִי שֶׁאָכַל דְּבַר אִסּוּר אִם מִצְטָרֵף לְזִמּוּן

מִי שֶׁאָכַל דְּבַר אִסּוּר אִם מִצְטָרֵף לְזִמּוּן, וּבוֹ ז׳ סְעִיפִים:
מִי שֶׁאָכַל דְּבַר אִסּוּר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים — אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו.
וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁהוּא הַדִּין שֶׁאֵין מְבָרֵךְ אַחֲרָיו בִּרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן, אֲפִלּוּ אָכַל בְּשׁוֹגֵג, שֶׁאֵין עֲבֵרָה מִצְוָה. וְאִם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר וּבָא לְאָכְלוֹ — אֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ עָלָיו בַּתְּחִלָּה, שֶׁאֵין זֶה מְבָרֵךְ אֶלָּא מְנָאֵץ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב "וּבֹצֵעַ בֵּרֵךְ — נִאֵץ ה׳".
וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ כֵּן אֶלָּא בְּמִצְוָה הַבָּאָה בַּעֲבֵרָה, שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לְהַזְכִּיר עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, וְאֵין מְבָרְכִין עָלֶיהָ בִּרְכַּת הַמִּצְוֹת, שֶׁאֵין עֲבֵרָה מִצְוָה, אֲבָל בִּרְכַּת הַנֶּהֱנִין צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵךְ, אֲפִלּוּ הָאוֹכֵל אִסּוּרֵי תּוֹרָה בְּמֵזִיד, כִּי מִי שֶׁאוֹכֵל שׁוּם וְרֵיחוֹ נוֹדֵף — יַחֲזֹר וְיֹאכַל שׁוּם אַחֵר שֶׁיְּהֵא רֵיחוֹ נוֹדֵף בְּיוֹתֵר, וְיֵהָנֶה גַּם כֵּן מֵהָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה בְּלֹא בְּרָכָה? וְלֹא מָנְעוּ אֶלָּא לְזַמֵּן עָלָיו, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין חֲבֵרָיו רַשָּׁאִים לְהִתְחַבֵּר עִמּוֹ בַּחֲבוּרָה. וּבְנֵי חֲבוּרָה שֶׁכֻּלָּן אָכְלוּ מִדְּבָרִים הָאֲסוּרִים, גַּם הֵם אֵין לָהֶם קֶבַע, שֶׁאֵין קֶבַע וְחִבּוּר לִדְבָרִים הָאֲסוּרִים, וַהֲרֵי זֶה כְּעֵין אֲכִילַת פֵּרוֹת שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם קֶבַע לְזִמּוּן. אֲבָל בְּרָכָה תְּחִלָּה וָסוֹף, לָמָּה לֹא יְבָרֵךְ? הוֹאִיל וְנֶהֱנָה.
וּלְעִנְיַן הֲלָכָה, יֵשׁ לְהַכְרִיעַ שֶׁאִם אָכַל אִסּוּר בְּשׁוֹגֵג — יְבָרֵךְ אַחֲרֶיהָ, אֲבָל הַמֵּזִיד לֹא יְבָרֵךְ לֹא בַּתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַּסּוֹף, שֶׁאֵין זֶה מְבָרֵךְ אֶלָּא מְנָאֵץ:

One who ate a forbidden food — whether he joins the zimun; and it comprises seven seifim. One who ate a forbidden thing — even if it is forbidden only by the words of the Soferim (a rabbinic prohibition) — we do not make zimun over him.
And some say that likewise he does not recite birkat hamazon after it, even if he ate inadvertently (be-shogeg), for a transgression is no mitzvah. And if he knows that it is forbidden and comes to eat it nonetheless — he does not bless over it at the outset, for such a man does not bless: he reviles, as it is written: “uvotzea berekh — ni’etz Hashem” (he who takes his gain and blesses reviles Hashem).
And some say that this was said only of a mitzvah that comes through a transgression, over which it is unfitting to mention the Name of Heaven and over which one does not recite birkat hamitzvot, for a transgression is no mitzvah; but a blessing over enjoyment (birkat hanehenin) he must recite — even one who eats Torah prohibitions deliberately (be-mezid). For one who eats garlic and whose breath reeks — shall he go back and eat another garlic so that his breath reek the more? And shall he likewise take enjoyment of this world without a blessing? They withheld nothing but the making of zimun over him, because his companions are not permitted to associate with him in a company. And a company all of whom ate forbidden things likewise have no fixity (keva), for there is neither fixity nor association for forbidden things; and this resembles the eating of fruit, which has no fixity for zimun. But the blessing at the outset and at the end — why should he not recite it? Since he has taken enjoyment.
And as to the halakha, one should decide that if he ate a prohibition inadvertently — he blesses afterward; but the mezid blesses neither at the outset nor at the end, for such a man does not bless: he reviles.
Explanation. Three positions follow one another, and the Rav orders them. The first denies the offender even the blessing itself: a transgression cannot yield a mitzvah. The second separates the registers — birkat hamitzvot honors an act, birkat hanehenin discharges a pleasure already taken — and the image of the garlic says everything: adding a fault to a fault erases nothing, and one does not leave this world unblessed. The Rav decides by the division of shogeg and mezid: inadvertence leaves the final blessing standing, deliberation turns it into revilement. The refusal of zimun rests on none of these grounds: it holds because the company itself is illicit.

אִם גָּזַל אוֹ גָּנַב לֶחֶם אָפוּי, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים — אֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ עָלָיו בַּתְּחִלָּה, לְפִי שֶׁאִם הָיוּ הַבְּעָלִים בָּאִים לְתָבְעוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ — הָיָה חַיָּב לְהַחֲזִירוֹ לָהֶם, וְלֹא הָיָה יָכוֹל לִפְטֹר אֶת עַצְמוֹ בְּדָמִים, נִמְצָא שֶׁאֲכִילָתוֹ הִיא בַּעֲבֵרָה, וּבִרְכָתוֹ נִאוּץ. אֲבָל מְבָרֵךְ אַחֲרָיו בִּרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן, שֶׁכְּשֶׁכְּבָר אֲכָלוֹ הוּא שֶׁלּוֹ, וְדָמִים הוּא חַיָּב לוֹ. וְאַף שֶׁאָכַל בְּאִסּוּר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאַחַר הָאֲכִילָה יָכוֹל לִפְטֹר אֶת עַצְמוֹ בְּדָמִים שֶׁיְּהֵא מַה שֶּׁאָכַל שֶׁלּוֹ — אֵין בִּרְכָתוֹ אָז נִאוּץ:

If he robbed or stole already-baked bread, even though the owners have already despaired of it (ye’ush) — he does not bless over it at the outset, because if the owners came to claim it from him he would be bound to return it to them and could not discharge himself with money; it turns out, then, that his eating is a transgression and his blessing revilement. But he does recite birkat hamazon after it, for once he has eaten it, it is his, and it is money that he owes. And although he ate in prohibition, since after the eating he can discharge himself with money so that what he ate be his — his blessing is then no revilement.
Explanation. The Rav’s criterion is not sentiment but title: so long as the object can be returned in kind, it remains another’s, and eating it is a transgression in act — hence no blessing beforehand. The act of eating consumes the object itself: what remains is a debt of money only, and a debt of money does not taint the final blessing.

אִם גָּזַל חִטִּים אוֹ קֶמַח וְאָפָה פַּת — מְבָרֵךְ גַּם בַּתְּחִלָּה, שֶׁכְּבָר קְנָאוֹ בְּשִׁנּוּי וְנַעֲשָׂה שֶׁלּוֹ, שֶׁאִם בָּאוּ הַבְּעָלִים יָכוֹל לִפְטֹר אֶת עַצְמוֹ בְּדָמִים, וְאֵין אֲכִילָתוֹ עֲבֵרָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה בְּמִצְוָה אֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ, הוֹאִיל וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם עַל יְדֵי עֲבֵרָה בָּאָה לְיָדוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן י״א - אֵין לְדַמּוֹת בִּרְכַּת הַנֶּהֱנִין לְבִרְכַּת הַמִּצְוֹת, מִטַּעַם שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בַּסְּבָרָא הָאַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁבִּסְעִיף א׳. וְאַף לַסְּבָרָא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֵינָן דּוֹמוֹת אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁנֶּהֱנָה בַּעֲבֵרָה, וְלֹא כְּשֶׁבָּאוּ עַל יְדֵי עֲבֵרָה. וְיֵשׁ חוֹלְקִין בָּזֶה (וּסְפֵק בְּרָכוֹת לְהָקֵל):

If he stole wheat or flour and baked bread from it — he blesses at the outset as well, for he has already acquired it through change (shinui) and it became his, so that were the owners to come he could discharge himself with money, and his eating is no transgression. And although in a comparable case concerning a mitzvah he does not bless over it — since nonetheless it came into his hand through a transgression, as was explained in siman י״א — one does not compare birkat hanehenin to birkat hamitzvot, for the reason set out in the last view in seif א. And even according to the first view they are comparable only where he takes enjoyment through the transgression, and not where they came into his hand through a transgression. And some dispute this (and in doubt concerning blessings one is lenient).
Explanation. The shinui — wheat become bread — effects a transfer of title: what the thief eats is now his own, and the obstacle of the preceding seif falls of itself. There remains the objection drawn from a mitzvah that comes through a transgression (siman י״א); the Rav defuses it on two levels: first by refusing the analogy between the two registers of blessing, then, should the analogy be maintained, by distinguishing enjoying through the fault from receiving through the fault. One view keeps disputing: the closing parenthesis settles it by safek berakhot lehakel.

וְכָל זֶה בְּגַנָּב וְגַזְלָן עַצְמוֹ, אֲבָל אֲחֵרִים מְבָרְכִין בַּתְּחִלָּה וּבַסּוֹף לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא עַל יְדֵי עֲבֵרָה בָּאָה לְיָדָם, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן גָּנַב לֶחֶם אָפוּי וְלֹא נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים, כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תרמ״ט:

And all this concerns the thief and the robber themselves; but others bless at the outset and at the end according to all views, for it did not come into their hand through a transgression — unless he stole already-baked bread and the owners have not despaired of it, as will be explained in siman תרמ״ט.
Explanation. The disqualification is personal and does not attach to the food: the guest who has done nothing blesses without reserve. The one exception is where the object remains another’s property — baked bread, without ye’ush — for then no one can derive title from it, and the matter is referred to siman תרמ״ט.

אִם אָכַל אִסּוּר בִּמְקוֹם סַכָּנָה, לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְבָרֵךְ עָלָיו תְּחִלָּה וָסוֹף, שֶׁהֶתֵּר הוּא אוֹכֵל, וּמִצְוָה הוּא עוֹשֶׂה לְהַצִּיל נַפְשׁוֹ:

If he ate a prohibition in a place of danger, according to all views he blesses over it at the outset and at the end, for it is permitted food that he eats, and it is a mitzvah that he performs in saving his life.
Explanation. Peril does not merely excuse the prohibition: it changes its very qualification. The food is not a tolerated prohibition, it is permitted — and the act is not a mitigated fault, it is a mitzvah. Nothing therefore stands in the way of the blessing, and the two views of seif א agree here.

שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁאָכְלוּ כְּאַחַת וְאֶחָד מֵהֶם אָכַל פַּת נָכְרִי וְהַשְּׁנַיִם נִזְהָרִים מִמֶּנּוּ, אוֹ שֶׁאֶחָד מֵהֶן כֹּהֵן וְאָכַל חַלָּה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לְהַשְּׁנַיִם — מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו, הוֹאִיל וְהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ.
וְאִם הָיוּ כֹּהֲנִים עִם זָר אוֹכְלִין כְּאֶחָד וְהַזָּר אוֹכֵל פַּת נָכְרִי וְהַכֹּהֲנִים נִזְהָרִים מִמֶּנָּה וְאוֹכְלִים חַלּוֹת — אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין לְזִמּוּן, שֶׁכָּל צֵרוּף לְזִמּוּן אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהֵם יְכוֹלִים לְהִתְחַבֵּר יַחַד בַּאֲכִילָתָם לֶאֱכֹל לֶחֶם אֶחָד, וְכָאן כָּל אֶחָד נִזְהָר מִלֶּחֶם חֲבֵרוֹ.
(מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן כְּשֶׁהַזָּר אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פַּת שֶׁנִּזְהָר מִמֶּנָּה הַכֹּהֵן שֶׁאוֹכֵל חַלָּה, אַף שֶׁהַזָּר אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לֶאֱכֹל מִלַּחְמוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהַכֹּהֵן יָכוֹל לֶאֱכֹל מִלַּחְמוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אוֹ הַשְּׁלִישִׁי שֶׁאוֹכֵל פַּת נָכְרִי יָכוֹל לֶאֱכֹל עִם הַשְּׁנַיִם — מִצְטָרְפִים):

Three who ate together, and one of them ate the bread of a non-Jew (pat nokhri) while the two are careful of it; or one of them is a kohen and ate challah, although it is forbidden to the two — we make zimun over him, since it is permitted to him.
And if kohanim were eating together with a zar (a non-kohen), the zar eating pat nokhri and the kohanim being careful of it and eating challot — they do not join for zimun, for all joining for zimun exists only where they can associate together in their eating so as to eat one bread, and here each is careful of his fellow’s bread.
(Not so where the zar does not eat bread of which the kohen who eats challah is careful: even though the zar cannot eat of the kohen’s bread, since the kohen can eat of the Israelite’s bread; or where the third, the one who eats pat nokhri, can eat with the two — they join.)
Explanation. Zimun is measured not by what each in fact ate but by what they could have eaten together. A guest whose food is forbidden to the others remains joinable so long as a shared bread stays possible in at least one direction. The impediment is complete only when each is careful of the other’s bread: the table is then shared without being common, and the tzeruf falls away.

וְכֵן אֶחָד אוֹכֵל גְּבִינָה וּשְׁנַיִם בָּשָׂר — מִצְטָרְפִים, שֶׁהָאוֹכֵל גְּבִינָה יָכוֹל לֶאֱכֹל מִלַּחְמָם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מְלֻכְלָךְ בְּבָשָׂר, אִם יְקַנַּח פִּיו וִידִיחֶנּוּ. אֲבָל אִם אוֹכֵל גְּבִינָה קָשָׁה — אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין, שֶׁהַמִּנְהָג עַכְשָׁו שֶׁלֹּא לֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר אַחַר גְּבִינָה קָשָׁה עַל יְדֵי קִנּוּחַ וַהֲדָחָה.
וְכֵן בִּסְעוּדַת מִצְוָה מֵרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ אָב עַד תִּשְׁעָה בְּאָב, שֶׁמִּקְצָת הַקְּרוּאִים אוֹכְלִים גְּבִינָה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תקנ״א, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּזְהָרִים מִבָּשָׂר מֵחֲמַת הַמִּנְהָג — אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין עִם אוֹכְלֵי בָּשָׂר, וּצְרִיכִים לְזַמֵּן לְעַצְמָן, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן אָכְלוּ כְּזַיִת פַּת קֹדֶם שֶׁאוֹכְלֵי בָּשָׂר הִתְחִילוּ לֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר בְּלַחְמָם, שֶׁכְּזַיִת זֶה הָיוּ יְכוֹלִים לֶאֱכֹל מִלַּחְמוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הַסְּעוּדָה אָכַל כְּזַיִת לֶחֶם אַחֵר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְלֻכְלָךְ לֹא בְּבָשָׂר וְלֹא בְּחָלָב, שֶׁזֶּה מְצָרֵף אֶת כֻּלָּם, שֶׁהֲרֵי כֻּלָּם יְכוֹלִים לֶאֱכֹל מִלַּחְמוֹ.
וְכֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁמֻּדָּרִים הֲנָאָה זֶה מִזֶּה, אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד שֶׁמֻּדָּר מִשְּׁנַיִם וְהַשְּׁנַיִם מִמֶּנּוּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיְּכוֹלִים לִשְׁאֹל עַל נִדְרָם, כָּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁאֲלוּ — אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין אִם כָּל אֶחָד אוֹכֵל מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. אֲבָל אִם אוֹכְלִים מִשֶּׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת — מִצְטָרְפִין (שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לְהַאֲכִיל אוֹרְחִים לֶחֶם כָּל צָרְכָּם, וְאִם כֵּן אַף אִם יֹאכַל זֶה מִפְּרוּסָה שֶׁחָתַךְ זֶה לְצֹרֶךְ עַצְמוֹ — אֵינוֹ נֶהֱנָה אֶלָּא מִשֶּׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא יֶחְסַר לַחְמוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּאוֹכְלֵי בָּשָׂר וּגְבִינָה שֶׁאֵין יְכוֹלִים לֶאֱכֹל זֶה מֵהַפְּרוּסָה שֶׁחָתַךְ זֶה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיְּכוֹלִים לַחְתֹּךְ כָּל אֶחָד פְּרוּסָה לְעַצְמוֹ מִכִּכָּר אֶחָד, בִּפְרָט קֹדֶם נְגִיעָתָם בְּבָשָׂר וּבְחָלָב — אֵין זֶה מוֹעִיל לְחַבְּרָם וּלְצָרְפָם, כִּי מַה לִּי כִּכָּרוֹת נִפְרָדִים וּמַה לִּי כִּכָּר אֶחָד):

Likewise, one eats cheese and two eat meat — they join, for the one who eats cheese can eat of their bread even though it is soiled with meat, if he wipes his mouth and rinses it (kinuaḥ and hadaḥah). But if he eats hard cheese — they do not join, for the custom nowadays is not to eat meat after hard cheese by means of wiping and rinsing.
Likewise, at a seudat mitzvah from Rosh Ḥodesh Av until Tisha be’Av, where some of the invited eat cheese, as will be explained in siman תקנ״א: since they refrain from meat by reason of the custom — they do not join with those who eat meat, and must make zimun by themselves; unless they ate a kezayit of bread before those who eat meat began to eat meat with their bread — for that kezayit they could have eaten of his bread; or unless one of the company ate a kezayit of other bread soiled neither with meat nor with milk, for such a one joins them all, since all can eat of his bread.
Likewise, three who are bound by vow from benefiting one from another (mudar hana’ah), or even one bound with respect to the two and the two with respect to him: although they can have their vow annulled, so long as they have not had it annulled — they do not join, if each eats of his own. But if they eat of the householder’s — they join (for it is the way of a householder to feed his guests bread as much as they need; and if so, even if this one eats of a slice that that one cut for himself, he takes enjoyment only of what belongs to the householder, since that one’s bread will not thereby be diminished. Not so those who eat meat and cheese, who cannot eat one from the slice the other cut: even though each could cut himself a slice from one loaf, particularly before they touched meat and milk — this does not suffice to associate and join them, for what difference is there to me between separate loaves and one loaf?)
Explanation. A single criterion runs through all three cases: joinable is he who could eat of the table’s bread. Soft cheese leaves that possibility open through kinuaḥ and hadaḥah; hard cheese closes it, custom here having the force of rule. The kezayit eaten before meat touched the bread, or the kezayit of neutral bread eaten by a third party, restores the bond because it restores the common bread. And the vow of hana’ah is undone not by the possibility of annulment but by the provenance of the bread: what comes from the householder is no one’s property at that table, and no one there takes anything from another.