Level 4 — Daat HaRav (Alter Rebbe) — Siman קצ״ט · עַל מִי מְזַמְּנִים וְעַל מִי אֵין מְזַמְּנִים

עַל מִי מְזַמְּנִין וְעַל מִי אֵינָן מְזַמְּנִין, וּבוֹ י״א סְעִיפִים:
הַשַּׁמָּשׁ שֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת מְזַמְּנִים עָלָיו, שֶׁאַף שֶׁלֹּא קָבַע עַצְמוֹ בַּשֻּׁלְחָן עִמָּהֶם אֶלָּא עוֹמֵד וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ עֲלֵיהֶם וְאָכַל מְעֻמָּד, וְגַם הוֹלֵךְ וּבָא בְּאֶמְצַע אֲכִילָתוֹ וְאֵין לוֹ קְבִיעוּת כְּלָל עִמָּהֶם — מִצְטָרֵף עִמָּהֶם לְזִמּוּן, שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ אֲכִילָתוֹ בְּכָךְ — זוֹ הִיא קְבִיעוּתוֹ, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּאִישׁ אַחֵר, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן קצ״ג:

With whom one makes a zimun and with whom one does not; and it comprises eleven seifim. The attendant (shamash) who ate a kezayit — a zimun is made over him: for although he did not settle himself at the table with them but stands and serves them and ate standing, and comes and goes in the midst of his eating and has no fixity (kevi’ut) with them at all, he joins them for the zimun — since this is his manner of eating, this is his fixity; which is not so for another man, as was explained in siman קצ״ג.
Explanation. Kevi’ut is not measured by the posture of the body but by the way this particular man habitually eats. Standing, interrupted, coming and going: in an ordinary guest that would be the very absence of fixity; in the attendant it is his fixity, because that is always how he eats. The Rav does not exempt the shamash from a criterion — he applies the same criterion, measured by the man’s own way.

כּוּתִי בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה אֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף לְזִמּוּן אֲפִלּוּ הוּא חָבֵר, שֶׁכְּבָר נִמְנוּ עֲלֵיהֶם וַעֲשָׂאוּם כְּנָכְרִים גְּמוּרִים לְכָל דִּבְרֵיהֶם (אֲבָל צְדוֹקִי מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו אִם חָבֵר הוּא):

A Kuti nowadays does not join the zimun, even if he is a ḥaver, for they have already been voted upon and made like full gentiles in all their matters. (But a Tzeduki — a zimun is made over him if he is a ḥaver.)
Explanation. The reason is not the personal conduct of any given Kuti — even a ḥaver, that is, a scrupulous one — but a decree of the Sages that fixed their status once and for all. The Tzeduki was never the subject of such a decree: he is still judged by his conduct, and if he is a ḥaver a zimun is made over him. The Rav thus distinguishes a decreed status from an observed one.

עַם הָאָרֶץ אֵין מְזַמְּנִים עָלָיו. וַאֲפִלּוּ קָרָא וְשָׁנָה, וְלֹא שִׁמֵּשׁ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים לְהַקְשׁוֹת וְלִפְרֹק לְהָבִין מִתּוֹכָם טַעֲמֵי הַמִּשְׁנָיוֹת עַל בֻּרְיָם — הֲרֵי זֶה עַם הָאָרֶץ לְעִנְיָן זֶה. וְעַכְשָׁו מְזַמְּנִים אֲפִלּוּ עַל עַם הָאָרֶץ גָּמוּר, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא כָּל אֶחָד הוֹלֵךְ וּבוֹנֶה בָּמָה לְעַצְמוֹ, שֶׁאִם הָיוּ פּוֹרְשִׁים מֵהֶם — גַּם הֵם הָיוּ פּוֹרְשִׁים מִן הַצִּבּוּר לְגַמְרֵי.
וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם, מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע שַׁחֲרִית וְעַרְבִית — אֵין מְזַמְּנִים עָלָיו, שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁרֹב עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ קוֹרְאִים — לֹא שַׁיָּךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁיְּהֵא כָּל אֶחָד הוֹלֵךְ וּבוֹנֶה בָּמָה לְעַצְמוֹ אִם יִפְרְשׁוּ מִיחִידִים שֶׁאֵינָם קוֹרְאִים. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר מִי שֶׁהוּא רָשָׁע וְעוֹבֵר עֲבֵרָה בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעֻלֶּה מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ בִּזְמַן הַתַּלְמוּד (וְאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה לַכּוּתִים קֹדֶם שֶׁגָּזְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁהֵם הָיוּ מְדַקְדְּקִים בְּמִצְוֹת שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ בָּהֶם, וּבְמִצְוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הֶחֱזִיקוּ אֵינָן מוֹרְדִים וּפוֹשְׁעִים, אֶלָּא מַעֲשֵׂה אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם בִּידֵיהֶם):

An am haaretz — a zimun is not made over him. And even if he has read and studied, but did not serve talmidei ḥakhamim so as to raise difficulties and resolve them, to understand from them the reasons of the mishnayot properly — he is an am haaretz for this matter. But nowadays a zimun is made even over a complete am haaretz, so that each one should not go and build a private altar (bamah) for himself: for if we separated from them, they too would separate entirely from the community.
Nevertheless, one who does not recite the Shema morning and evening — a zimun is not made over him: since most amei haaretz do recite it, there is no room to say that each will go and build an altar for himself if we separate from individuals who do not recite it. And it goes without saying that so it is with one who is wicked and transgresses openly, who is no better than the am haaretz of the time of the Talmud. (And this is not like the Kutim before the decree was made about them: those were meticulous in the mitzvot they had adopted, and in those they had not adopted they are neither rebels nor sinners — it is the practice of their fathers that is in their hands.)
Explanation. Three moves. The first defines the am haaretz not by ignorance of texts but by the absence of shimush — he never learned from masters to grasp the reasons. The second reverses the practice on communal grounds: to exclude would make the excluded a separate community, and the private altar is the image of schism. The third sets the limit of that reversal: where separation no longer risks schism — because the offender is an individual and not the majority — the original rule reasserts itself.

נָכְרִי אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו, אֲפִלּוּ נִתְכַּוֵּן לְבָרֵךְ אֱלֹהֵינוּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ גֵּר שֶׁמָּל וְלֹא טָבַל אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו, שֶׁאֵינוֹ גֵּר עַד שֶׁיִּמּוֹל וְיִטְבֹּל כָּרָאוּי.
וְגֵר גָּמוּר יָכוֹל לְבָרֵךְ אֲפִלּוּ בְּזִמּוּן לְהוֹצִיא אֲחֵרִים יְדֵי חוֹבָתָם, וְיָכוֹל לוֹמַר "עַל שֶׁהִנְחַלְתָּ לַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ", לְפִי שֶׁלְּאַבְרָהָם נִתְּנָה הָאָרֶץ לְמוֹרָשָׁה, וְאַבְרָהָם נִקְרָא "אַב הֲמוֹן גּוֹיִם":

A gentile — a zimun is not made over him, even if he intended to bless our God. And even a convert who was circumcised but did not immerse — a zimun is not made over him, for he is not a ger until he is circumcised and immersed properly.
And a complete ger may bless, even in the zimun, so as to discharge others of their obligation; and he may say “al shehinḥalta la’avotenu” (for what You gave our fathers as an inheritance), because it was to Abraham that the land was given as an inheritance, and Abraham is called “av hamon goyim” (father of a multitude of nations).
Explanation. Right intention does not substitute for status: neither the gentile who wishes to bless nor the convert whose conversion is unfinished can enter the tzeruf. But once the status is acquired it is acquired entirely — and the Rav sets aside the sentimental objection that a ger has no “fathers”: the promise of the land runs through Abraham, and Abraham is father to all who come to him.

אוֹנֵן בְּחֹל שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר מִלְּבָרֵךְ — אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו. וַאֲפִלּוּ לְהָאוֹמְרִים שֶׁאִם רָצָה לְהַחֲמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ לַעֲנוֹת וּלְבָרֵךְ הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ, מִכָּל מָקוֹם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר אֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף:

An onen on a weekday, who is exempt from blessing — a zimun is not made over him. And even according to those who say that if he wishes to be stringent with himself, to answer and to bless, he is permitted to do so — nonetheless, since he is exempt, he does not join.
Explanation. Tzeruf rests not on what one does but on what one is bound to do. The onen who chooses to bless performs a permitted act; he does not thereby become a ḥayav, and only the ḥayav counts toward the number. The Rav says so expressly: even the lenient view about the blessing changes nothing regarding tzeruf.

נָשִׁים הָאוֹכְלוֹת עִם שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָּבִים לְזַמֵּן — חַיָּבוֹת גַּם הֵם לְזַמֵּן עִמָּהֶם. וְאִם הֵם שָׁלֹשׁ וְרָצוּ לֵחָלֵק לְזַמֵּן לְעַצְמָן — הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדָם (אִם הָאֲנָשִׁים הֵם פָּחוֹת מֵעֲשָׂרָה, שֶׁאֵינָם מְזַמְּנִים בְּשֵׁם. וְאִם צְרִיכוֹת לְהָבִין לְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ, נִתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן קצ״ג).
אֲבָל נָשִׁים הָאוֹכְלוֹת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן פְּטוּרוֹת לְזַמֵּן, וְאִם רָצוּ לְזַמֵּן — הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדָם. וְהוּא הַדִּין לַעֲבָדִים. וְלֹא תְּהֵא חֲבוּרָה שֶׁל נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים מְזַמְּנִים יַחַד, מִשּׁוּם פְּרִיצוּת הָעֲבָדִים, אֶלָּא נָשִׁים לְעַצְמָן וַעֲבָדִים לְעַצְמָן, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְזַמְּנוּ בְּשֵׁם:

Women who eat with three men who are obligated to make a zimun — they too are obligated to make the zimun with them. And if they are three and wish to separate and make a zimun by themselves — they are permitted (if the men are fewer than ten, such that they do not make the zimun with the Name. And whether they must understand the holy tongue was explained in siman קצ״ג).
But women who eat by themselves are exempt from the zimun; and if they wish to make one — they are permitted. The same applies to slaves. And let there not be a company of women and slaves making a zimun together, on account of the licentiousness of slaves: rather, women by themselves and slaves by themselves, provided they do not make the zimun with the Name.
Explanation. Two regimes are distinguished. Seated with three obligated men, the women are drawn into the obligation itself; among themselves, the zimun remains a permission. The right to withdraw and make a zimun apart is granted only so long as nothing higher is lost — hence the condition of “fewer than ten.” Separation from slaves is not a matter of status but of tzeniut, and it holds symmetrically.

וְכֵן אִם תִּשְׁעָה אֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין וְאִשָּׁה אַחַת אוֹ עֶבֶד אָכְלוּ יַחַד — אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין לְהַשְׁלִים לַעֲשָׂרָה לְזַמֵּן בְּשֵׁם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵם חַיָּבִים בְּזִמּוּן, שֶׁכָּל דָּבָר שֶׁבִּקְדֻשָּׁה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בַּעֲשָׂרָה אֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן נ״ה. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין לְהַשְׁלִים לְזִמּוּן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין עֲלֵיהֶם חוֹבַת זִמּוּן כְּלָל, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן אָכְלוּ עִם אֲנָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָּבִים לְזַמֵּן לְעַצְמָן.
וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם רָצוּ לְצָרְפָן אֵינָם רַשָּׁאִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כִּפְרִיצוּת כְּשֶׁנִּכָּר צֵרוּף נָשִׁים עִם אֲנָשִׁים בְּזִמּוּן, שֶׁאוֹמֵר הַמְבָרֵךְ "נְבָרֵךְ" בְּצֵרוּף כֻּלָּנוּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּאִשָּׁה עִם בַּעְלָהּ וּבְנָהּ — אֵין חֶבְרָתָן נָאָה כְּשֶׁמִּצְטָרְפִין יַחַד. וְכֵן בַּעֲבָדִים שֶׁצֵּרוּפָן נִכָּר — יֵשׁ בָּזֶה מִשּׁוּם פְּרִיצוּת, שֶׁהָעֲבָדִים הֵם שְׁטוּפֵי זִמָּה וּפְרוּצִים בְּיוֹתֵר, וְאֵין לִבְנֵי חוֹרִין לְצָרְפָם עִמָּהֶם צֵרוּף הַנִּרְאֶה וְנִכָּר כְּשֶׁמְּזַמְּנִין עֲלֵיהֶם.
מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן כְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ זִמּוּן בְּלֹא נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים, אַף שֶׁהַנָּשִׁים וְהָעֲבָדִים מִצְטָרְפִין לָצֵאת יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן בִּשְׁמִיעָה מֵהַמְבָרֵךְ וְלַעֲנוֹת אַחֲרָיו בְּבִרְכַּת הַזִּמּוּן — אֵין בָּזֶה מִשּׁוּם פְּרִיצוּת, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין צֵרוּפָן נִכָּר כְּלָל בְּבִרְכַּת הַמְבָרֵךְ.
אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים מְזַמְּנִין יַחַד, שֶׁלָּזֶה יֵשׁ לָחֹשׁ לִפְרִיצוּת הָעֲבָדִים בַּנָּשִׁים אַף שֶׁאֵין צֵרוּפָן נִכָּר. וְהוּא הַדִּין עֲבָדִים עִם קְטַנִּים אֵין מְזַמְּנִים יַחַד, מִשּׁוּם פְּרִיצוּת הָעֲבָדִים בְּמִשְׁכַּב זָכוּר עִם הַקְּטַנִּים:

Likewise, if nine free men and one woman or one slave ate together — they do not join to complete the ten and make the zimun with the Name, even though they are obligated in zimun, for every matter of holiness requires ten free men, as was explained in siman נ״ה. And it goes without saying that they do not join to complete a zimun of three, since no obligation of zimun rests upon them at all — unless they ate together with men who are themselves obligated to make a zimun.
And even if they wished to join them, they may not, because it looks like licentiousness when the joining of women with men is recognizable in the zimun, the one who blesses saying “nevarekh” as including us all. And even a woman with her husband and her son — their company is unseemly when they are joined together. So too with slaves, whose joining is recognizable: there is licentiousness in this, for slaves are steeped in lewdness and exceedingly unrestrained, and it is not for free men to join them to themselves in a joining that is seen and recognized when a zimun is made over them.
Not so where there is a zimun without the women and slaves: even though the women and slaves join in discharging their obligation by hearing the one who blesses and answering after him in the blessing of the zimun — there is no licentiousness in this, since their joining is in no way recognizable in the blessing of the one who blesses.
Unless women and slaves make a zimun together: there one must be concerned for the licentiousness of the slaves toward the women, even though their joining is not recognizable. And the same applies to slaves with minors — they do not make a zimun together, on account of the licentiousness of slaves in mishkav zakhur with minors.
Explanation. The Rav separates two planes that are easily conflated. For the ten, the obstacle is formal: a davar shebikdushah requires ten free men, and nothing substitutes for that. For the three, the obstacle is the absence of obligation. Then comes the reason proper to this siman: it is not the presence of women at the table that is the problem, but a joining that is recognizable — the “nevarekh” that publicly counts each one. Hence the exact line: to hear and to answer, yes; to be visibly counted, no.

אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס אֵינוֹ מְזַמֵּן לֹא לַאֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא לְנָשִׁים, לַאֲנָשִׁים שֶׁמָּא הוּא נְקֵבָה וְאֵינוֹ מוֹצִיאָם יְדֵי חוֹבָתָם אִם אָכְלוּ כְּדֵי שְׂבִיעָה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן קפ״ט, וּלְנָשִׁים שֶׁמָּא הוּא זָכָר וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם פְּרִיצוּת. אֲבָל מְזַמֵּן הוּא לְמִינוֹ, שֶׁאִם הוּא נְקֵבָה — כֻּלָּם נְקֵבוֹת, וְכֵן לְהִפּוּךְ.
אֲבָל טֻמְטוּם אֵין מְזַמֵּן אֲפִלּוּ לְמִינוֹ, כִּי שֶׁמָּא כְּשֶׁיִּקָּרַע זֶה יִמָּצֵא נְקֵבָה, וּכְשֶׁיִּקָּרְעוּ אֵלּוּ יִמָּצְאוּ זְכָרִים, וְאֵינוֹ מוֹצִיאָם יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן:

An androgynos makes a zimun neither for men nor for women: not for men, since he may be a female and would not discharge their obligation if they ate to satiety, as was explained in siman קפ״ט; and not for women, since he may be a male and there is licentiousness in this. But he does make a zimun for his own kind: for if he is a female — they are all females, and conversely.
But a tumtum does not make a zimun even for his own kind, since perhaps when this one is opened he will be found female, and when those are opened they will be found male — and he would not discharge their obligation.
Explanation. Everything turns on the difference between a single doubt and independent doubts. The androgynos bears one nature, whatever it may be; joined to his like, the doubt is the same for all and cancels out within the group. The tumtum bears a doubt that may resolve differently in each: nothing guarantees that the one who blesses and those who listen will fall on the same side.

יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁקָּטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לְמִי מְבָרְכִין מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו, וְהוּא שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְעוֹנַת הַפָּעוֹטוֹת, שֶׁהוּא כְּבֶן ט׳ אוֹ בֶּן י׳, כָּל אֶחָד לְפִי חֲרִיפוּתוֹ. וּלְכָל הַפָּחוֹת גָּדוֹל מִבֶּן ו׳, אִם הוּא חָרִיף וְיוֹדֵעַ מֵעַצְמוֹ בְּלִי שֶׁיְּלַמְּדוּהוּ לְמִי מְבָרְכִין. אֲבָל פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן ו׳ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חָרִיף וְיוֹדֵעַ מֵעַצְמוֹ — אֵינוֹ כְּלוּם, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הִגִּיעַ לְעוֹנַת הַפָּעוֹטוֹת, וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בֶּן דַּעַת.
וְקָטָן אַחַר שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְעוֹנַת הַפָּעוֹטוֹת מִצְטָרֵף אֲפִלּוּ לְזַמֵּן בַּעֲשָׂרָה בְּשֵׁם, אַף לְהָאוֹמְרִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף לְקַדִּישׁ וּלְ"בָרְכוּ" וְלִקְדֻשָּׁה, שֶׁבְּבִרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן הֵקֵלּוּ בָּהּ, הוֹאִיל וְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד יָכוֹל לִפְטֹר עַצְמוֹ מֵחִיּוּב בִּרְכַּת הַזִּמּוּן (שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְבָרֵךְ לְעַצְמוֹ), מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּקַדִּישׁ וּ"בָרְכוּ" וּקְדֻשָּׁה, שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד לֹא הָיָה יָכוֹל לִפְטֹר עַצְמוֹ מֵחִיּוּבוֹ בְּשׁוּם עִנְיָן — צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כֻּלָּם בְּנֵי מִצְוָה. אֲבָל ב׳ קְטַנִּים אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין.
אֲבָל יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁבֵּין לִשְׁלֹשָׁה בֵּין לַעֲשָׂרָה אֵין הַקָּטָן מִצְטָרֵף עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בֶּן י״ג שָׁנָה שְׁלֵמוֹת, שֶׁאָז אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא קָטָן פּוֹרֵחַ, דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁפָּרְחוּ בּוֹ ב׳ שְׂעָרוֹת וְלֹא נִגְמְרוּ בְּשִׁעוּרָן, שֶׁהוּא כְּדֵי לָכֹף רֹאשָׁן לְעִקָּרָן — הֵקֵלּוּ בּוֹ לְצָרְפָן לְזִמּוּן בֵּין לִשְׁלֹשָׁה בֵּין לַעֲשָׂרָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלְּכָל הַמִּצְוֹת הוּא קָטָן, וְהוּא שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לְמִי מְבָרְכִים. אֲבָל אִם נִגְמְרוּ סִימָנָיו כְּשִׁעוּרָן — אֵין מְדַקְדְּקִין אַחֲרָיו אִם יוֹדֵעַ לְמִי מְבָרְכִין, וּמְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו בְּכָל עִנְיָן, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לִכְלַל מִצְוֹת.
וְיֵשׁ מַחֲמִירִין וְאוֹמְרִים שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הוּא בֶּן י״ג שְׁלֵמוֹת וְיוֹדֵעַ לְמִי מְבָרְכִין, אִם יָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא ב׳ שְׂעָרוֹת אֲרֻכּוֹת כְּשִׁעוּרָן — אֵין לְצָרְפוֹ לֹא לִשְׁלֹשָׁה וְלֹא לַעֲשָׂרָה. אֲבָל בִּסְתָם מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו, שֶׁזִּמּוּן הוּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, וְסוֹמְכִין עַל הַחֲזָקָה שֶׁמִּן הַסְּתָם הֵבִיא ב׳ שְׂעָרוֹת כְּשִׁעוּרָן בְּתַשְׁלוּם י״ג שָׁנָה כְּדֶרֶךְ רֹב בְּנֵי אָדָם. וְכֵן נוֹהֲגִין בִּמְדִינוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְזַמֵּן עַל קָטָן פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן י״ג וְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵין לְשַׁנּוֹת.
וְכָל זֶה לְעִנְיַן זִמּוּן, אֲבָל לְהוֹצִיא אֲחֵרִים יְדֵי חוֹבָתָם בְּבִרְכָתוֹ — לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בֶּן י״ג שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד וְיָדוּעַ שֶׁהֵבִיא ב׳ שְׂעָרוֹת כְּשִׁעוּרָן עַל יְדֵי בְּדִיקָה, אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְמַלֵּא זְקָנוֹ, שֶׁבִּרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן הוּא מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וּבְשֶׁל תּוֹרָה אֵין סוֹמְכִין עַל חֲזָקָה זוֹ:

Some say that a minor who knows to Whom one blesses — a zimun is made over him, provided he has reached the age of the pe’utot, which is about nine or ten years, each according to his sharpness; and at the very least that he be older than six, if he is sharp and knows of himself, without being taught, to Whom one blesses. But under six, even if he is sharp and knows of himself — it is nothing, for he has not reached the age of the pe’utot and he is like one who has no daat.
And a minor who has reached the age of the pe’utot joins even for a zimun of ten with the Name, even according to those who say that he does not join for kaddish, for “barekhu” and for kedushah; for in birkat hamazon they were lenient, since each and every one can exempt himself from the obligation of the zimun blessing (in that he may bless by himself) — which is not so for kaddish, “barekhu” and kedushah, from which no one could exempt himself in any way: there they must all be benei mitzvah. But two minors do not join.
And some say that, whether for three or for ten, the minor does not join until he is thirteen full years old — for then, even though he is a “katan poreaḥ,” that is, two hairs have sprouted in him but have not reached their measure (long enough for their tips to bend back to their roots), they were lenient to join him to the zimun, whether for three or for ten, even though for all the mitzvot he is a minor — and that is provided he knows to Whom one blesses. But if his signs have reached their full measure, he is no longer examined as to whether he knows to Whom one blesses, and a zimun is made over him in any case, since he has entered the category of the mitzvot.
And some are stringent and say that even if he is thirteen full years old and knows to Whom one blesses, if it is known that he has not produced two hairs long enough according to their measure — he is joined neither to three nor to ten. But in an ordinary case a zimun is made over him, for the zimun is midivrei soferim and one relies on the ḥazakah that ordinarily he produced two hairs of their measure upon the completion of his thirteen years, as is the way of most men. And such is the custom in these lands: not to make a zimun over a minor under thirteen years and one day, and it is not to be changed.
And all this concerns the zimun; but to discharge others of their obligation by his blessing — according to all views he does not discharge them until he is thirteen years and one day old and it is known by examination that he produced two hairs of their measure, or that his beard has filled out; for birkat hamazon is from the Torah, and in a Torah matter one does not rely on this ḥazakah.
Explanation. The whole seif is built on one gap: what suffices to be counted in a number does not suffice to discharge another. For the zimun — rabbinic, and from which each may exempt himself by blessing alone — they were lenient, to the point of admitting the daat of the child who knows to Whom one blesses. For kaddish and kedushah, from which no one can exempt himself, he is not admitted. And to discharge another of birkat hamazon, which is from the Torah, the ḥazakah of the majority no longer suffices: verification is required. Between the two, the Rav records the established custom — thirteen years and one day — and forbids departing from it.

מִי שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם מַחֲזִיקִין אוֹתוֹ לְשׁוֹטֶה, אִם לֹא הִגִּיעַ לִכְלַל שׁוֹטֶה שֶׁדִּבְּרוּ בּוֹ חֲכָמִים — מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו. אֲבָל חֵרֵשׁ וְשׁוֹטֶה שֶׁדִּבְּרוּ בָּהֶם חֲכָמִים בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינָן בְּנֵי דַּעַת וּפְטוּרִים מִכָּל הַמִּצְוֹת — דִּינָם כְּקָטָן פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן ו׳, שֶׁאֵין מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל, וְאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין לֹא לִשְׁלֹשָׁה וְלֹא לַעֲשָׂרָה.
וְחֵרֵשׁ שֶׁדִּבְּרוּ בּוֹ חֲכָמִים בְּכָל מָקוֹם הוּא שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ וְלֹא מְדַבֵּר, אֲבָל מְדַבֵּר וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ (וְכֵן אִלֵּם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר וְשׁוֹמֵעַ) (אֲפִלּוּ הֵם שְׁנַיִם וְיוֹתֵר), כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֵם כְּפִקְחִים לְכָל דִּבְרֵיהֶם — מִצְטָרְפִים לְזִמּוּן, אִם הֵם מְבִינִים וּמְכַוְּנִין לָזֶה (אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹמֵעַ בִּרְכַּת הַזִּמּוּן וְהָאִלֵּם אֵינוֹ עוֹנֶה).
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? לְזִמּוּן בַּעֲשָׂרָה, שֶׁלְּדָבָר שֶׁבִּקְדֻשָּׁה אֵין עֲנִיַּת הַמִּעוּט מְעַכַּבְתָּם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן נ״ה, אֲבָל לְזִמּוּן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה צָרִיךְ שֶׁהַשְּׁנַיִם יִשְׁמְעוּ מִפִּי הַמְּזַמֵּן עַד סִיּוּם בִּרְכַּת "הַזָּן", וְגַם שֶׁיַּעֲנוּ אַחֲרָיו: "בָּרוּךְ שֶׁאָכַלְנוּ כוּ׳", וְאִם לָאו — אֵין כָּאן זִמּוּן כְּלָל, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן קצ״ג:

One whom people hold to be a shoteh: if he has not reached the degree of shoteh of whom the Sages spoke — a zimun is made over him. But a ḥeresh and a shoteh of whom the Sages spoke everywhere, who are not benei daat and are exempt from all the mitzvot — their law is that of a minor under six: no zimun is made over him according to all views, and they join neither three nor ten.
And the ḥeresh of whom the Sages spoke everywhere is one who neither hears nor speaks; but one who speaks and does not hear (and likewise a mute who does not speak and does hear) (even if they are two and more), since they are like the fully able in all their matters — they join the zimun, if they understand and direct their intention to it (even though the deaf one does not hear the blessing of the zimun and the mute does not answer).
In what case is this said? Regarding a zimun of ten, for in a matter of holiness the answering of the minority does not hold them back, as was explained in siman נ״ה. But for a zimun of three, the two must hear from the mouth of the one making the zimun until the conclusion of the blessing of “hazan,” and must also answer after him: “barukh she’akhalnu ku’ ”; and if not — there is no zimun here at all, as was explained in siman קצ״ג.
Explanation. The Rav separates the word from the thing: “ḥeresh” in the language of the Sages denotes one who neither speaks nor hears, and to him alone does the exclusion apply. The deaf man who speaks and the mute who hears are fully benei daat and do join. A practical difficulty then remains — they can neither hear nor answer — and it is settled by the structural difference between the two zimunim: at ten, the minyan carries the davar shebikdushah and the answering of a minority is not indispensable; at three, the hearing and answering of the two are the zimun, and without them there is nothing.

מִי שֶׁנִּדּוּהוּ עַל דְּבַר עֲבֵרָה אֵין מְצָרְפִין אוֹתוֹ לְזִמּוּן, לֹא לִשְׁלֹשָׁה וְלֹא לַעֲשָׂרָה, שֶׁזֶּהוּ עִנְיַן נִדּוּי, שֶׁמַּרְחִיקִים אוֹתוֹ וּמַבְדִּילִים אוֹתוֹ מֵאֲגֻדָּתָם. וְאִם נִדּוּהוּ עַל עִסְקֵי מָמוֹן, יִתְבָּאֵר בְּיוֹרֶה דֵּעָה סִימָן של״ד:

One who has been placed under nidui for a matter of transgression — he is not joined to the zimun, neither to three nor to ten; for this is the very meaning of nidui: that he be distanced and set apart from their assembly. And if they placed him under nidui for monetary matters, that will be explained in Yoreh De’ah siman של״ד.
Explanation. The exclusion here is not a consequence derived from a lack of daat or of obligation, as in the preceding seifim: it is the very object of the sanction. Nidui is by definition a placing outside the agudah, and the zimun is precisely the act by which an agudah declares itself. The Rav refers elsewhere the nidui pronounced over monetary matters, whose scope is not the same.