All we know is that the Gemara is saying that there are three groups: Shloshah shel shloshah b'nei adam. Three groups of three people. One person from each group came up. We called them A, B, and C: Abraham A, Abraham B, and Abraham C got together and made D. Einam resha'im lechalek (they are not permitted to split). Then they are allowed to separate. That's all we know. “Falpishu lo achrub.” I don't know whether they did it or something like that. “Nun amudalef in the bar.” Einam resha'im lechalek.
We've been trying to figure out what is happening. How could they break their previous commitment, their previous connection? How do you break that? Rashi says, “afilu lo achru ela flusha.” So they didn't eat. What could the case be? First, you're not allowed to separate from the first group, because it was already said. We know that from the Mishnah; we saw it before. I skipped a little bit, and then the Gemara says it must be the case of Rav Nachman. Rav Nachman? I don't know. Rav Chisda says there are three people, so he specifies that there are three people. But before that, we're trying to explain the Mishnah. He doesn't say that; he just says three tables, so we don't know what the Mishnah means. That's the Gemara's question: What is the case of the Mishnah? We reach this case because we don't find another case. So what's the case? It must be that the Mishnah is talking about this again—“Maisha Losh Arba.” No, that's the Rosh. Is it a continuation? No, because the first—but right now we're not there. The Rosh explained yesterday that we'll reach Rav Chisda, with three left, because otherwise you can't leave. If you said, “Pshita,” how are you bypassing this case? It doesn't work like that.
Tosafot said it was bayit echad (one house), so you remake the groups. You take one from each group, so now there is a new formation of groups. I don't know if you would say it like that. Now six are left. They'll do zimun (invitation) together. It's not two-two-two, because they're in one house. So what's the chidush (novelty) here? If you tell me that the nine people ate together at three different tables and they can rearrange the table configuration, what's the big chidush? That was Tosafot, but now we're in the “milag drosh.” What's the huge chidush? They ate together? We didn't say they ate together. We said that because they're in a—again, we discussed that yesterday. I don't think it's only physical. Otherwise, he's not saying anything. If it is only physical, he needs to teach you this, because otherwise what is he telling me? You were seven, so again, according to that shita (approach), it would seem that this applies in any restaurant, as long as you are in a—
That makes no sense. But that is the huge chidush. Otherwise, you're repeating the Mishnah. Look at the Mishnah. What's the meaning of she'achlu ke'echad (who ate together)? Under one roof? You have three tables, with one guy by himself at each one. It's all in the same place. It would seem to be enough, just as we said before, that this is ke'echad. As we said before, if one sees the other, even though they're “peen out to the other peen out.” But they came together. I understand that. The chidush seems to be—so what he wants to tell you is that otherwise, what is he telling me?
It's surprising. We sure don't do that. Why should I do Birkat Hamazon with this guy? Don't forget, one guy said Birkat Hamazon with the other guy. I'm not eating with him; I'm not interested in eating with him. Just the location would make them together. It is mechudash (novel) to say that. But maybe it's not a huge chidush if you learn it the other way. We're coming for the same event, and even at a bar mitzvah, there are often people you don't wait for. That's even clearer, because they're really from another family. You don't know who they are. They came for the same occasion. To me, that's enough. I'm saying—but I don't know who these people are. They came for the same thing. It depends, really, whether it's the same thing: the same event and the same meal. Even then, at a restaurant, there are different meals happening. Just because I'm at a different meal—no, not a food event meal. At a wedding, there are different meals. You're joined together to celebrate an event. Here, we're joined together to eat. But you're not joining with the other table from—
That's what it seems. If you're under one roof, you can consider that you're together, because that's what the Gemara says. You don't know how to read? That's our problem. You go to Cuba or wherever you want, and you don't know how to read. Cancun, no; Cabo. You go to Cabo, you forget to read. It's like the Gemara says. You went to the “Bet HaMalchat” and came out: “Aheresh hazeh, kumera? Aheresh haya li bam.” Where is this coming from?
Rav Chisda says it's from the gimel chavurot of gimel b'nei adam. What is that? This is the answer to your question. That's what I'm saying: why does it have to be gimel chavurot? That's the problem we're encountering. Rav Chisda says that out of nowhere. What's the problem with Rav Chisda saying that this is the case? Why didn't he say—why did he say only shlosha? No, it sounds like a bigger chidush to say shlosha than shlosha. The Rosh says it's not three, it's four. No, he's going to have a lot of pressure. I don't understand what you're asking. You're asking about Rav Chisda because—let's go with Tosafot. Even in this case, the next group—that would be the chidush. Maybe the chidush isn't that the other six can be together. The chidush is that they're not allowed to go back to the old table. And that also shows you that the roof isn't enough, because if the roof were enough, why couldn't they go back to the old table? We're all together. You see that within the bayit there are also tables. So I go back: why did you break up the first table? Tell me it wasn't because of the bayit. No, but it shows you that afterward they get together and make a new partnership within the bayit. You tell me they're not allowed to be mechalek (separate). How did they mechalek the first one? Are you going to say they did it wrong? So there are steps within the bayit too. You can't say “the bayit” without—All right, we didn't build up the question, so let's continue. We need to know that ourselves. Obviously there's a machloket (dispute); you shouldn't have to understand this case. I would go back to the Rosh: “vekatav haRosh, vehiksha Rabbeinu Yehuda.”
“Vekatav haRosh.” The Rosh brings the question from Rabbeinu Yehuda: “vehiksha Rabbeinu Yehuda al zeh. Deha milta di peshita shelo yezamenu od, sheharei kol echad ve'echad yatza yedei zimun im chavurato” (for it is obvious they should not invite again, since each fulfilled the invitation with his group). If they did do—remember what we said? It was two and one. In each group, two want to leave and one wants to stay. They already did the zimun with him; he was forced to join. It's not that “parakh zimun minayhu” (the invitation departed from them). We discussed this yesterday. We don't mean that the invitation departed from them. They did zimun, so what departed? “Parakh” is an expression meaning they lost it. They didn't lose anything. They did it. When they get back together now in this new group, they already did the zimun. They didn't do Birkat Hamazon, but they already did the zimun. How are they going to—They already said it. We said they're going to say, “Let's do—You already did that.”
Therefore, the Rosh says arba'ah: each group had four. In that case, it's still asur (prohibited) for a person to leave. It's asur. It applies to four and five, six and seven, and whatever you want. You're part of the group; you have to do zimun with the group. It's a little less severe: this is one offense, not two. If you have three and you leave, you have two problems. Number one, your personal chiyuv (obligation). Number two, you cause the other two to be unable to do zimun. Here, with the second offense, there's no problem; they're still doing the zimun without you. But regarding your personal chiyuv to answer the zimun, if you separate, you left. That's asur. You're not out of it. So I'm saying he still committed one offense, but he's metaken (correcting) his error. They now belong to a new group. These three who separated from the group of four made their own zimun. It says they did it in your place, where you belonged. They said the beracha (blessing) there as if they were present, meaning at the original table of four. They did the zimun; his presence wasn't essential. They did it as if he were there, but he wasn't there, because he left three people who could do the zimun.
Therefore, the zimun was for the Abrahams who left the tables, but not as Tosafot wanted to say: that they answered the zimun but wanted to continue being together. The wording “parakh zimun minayhu” wouldn't work in that case. In the case of four... I don't know; if you're going to be picky about the wording—but the Beit Yosef is going to ask questions now. Maybe he'll ask that question too. I wish he would ask that question too. I said, bedochak (strained), you could say “shelosha anashim” (three people), that they left three behind. There are three people behind. That's a hook. I'm not saying it's a bit. So what's the question? If there are three people behind, there's no question; they have the table. No, but that's what they did. They're not allowed to. I'm saying it's a huge chidush: they each made a mistake separately, and now we give them an opportunity to gather. They didn't eat together, but since they gathered, we give them an opportunity to make their own zimun without eating together. They're three who separated. That's a huge chidush, but it works better with the wording.
Each one had only his own meal. They were sitting together. Exactly. So it's not evident when you say they can make their own zimun. Why can they do their own zimun? Because each one individually was chayav (obligated) to do his own zimun; therefore, they can do zimun. They transported the zimun to the new location, and that's it: a new group. It's a huge chidush. They didn't eat together; they didn't have to eat together. They could do it as one. That's the chidush. Don't say there's no chidush. It's a huge chidush.
So that's the Rosh's discussion. The bottom is good, but the back is terrible. The Rosh actually continues: “Hezemun alaihu.” That's a hard one. “Azmun alaihu.” Did they do zimun for them? No, they were looking and telling. They did zimun in their original place. “Aleihen” sounds like they're included. You do your own, someone else—I mean, they're part of it somehow. So the wording of the Rosh—that was Rabbeinu Yehuda, whom the Rosh quotes, and then the Rosh is asking a question. “Let's run as moon I like who ain't no more a clan.” I don't know. Some are questions and some are atomic bombs. That's not what it says. “Azmun alaihu” doesn't mean that. You can't squeeze it in.
“U'mai shehiksha haRav Rabbeinu Yehuda al Tosafot.” The “milta di peshita” is that they cannot do zimun again if they already answered the zimun. Remember, Tosafot says, “No, no, there's three, three, three. Two want to go, two want to go, two want to go. The one, one, one have to answer the zimun.” They already did. They want to continue the meal; fine. But they can continue their meal even after the zimun. To say that now they're going to go together and say their own zimun is not right. He says he has no problem with that—not a simple meal.
The rabbi said that even if these three ate together afterward, they can't invite again. Even what they ate after that doesn't count, because they already invited at the beginning of the meal. Everyone goes back to where they started. I don't know how I'm going to do it. He's in hot chairs. “Wonyo told you that you are coming.” I didn't tell you it's balagan; it's the big balagan. What happened here? It's not on the top floor; it's on the top floor. It's not on the top floor, but there are four chairs in each chair.
He said that if there were four in every group, and they sat in each group as a group, then they would have been able to leave the place before they had left the group. No, that's not right. He said they would not have advanced in the group that they had separated from and called upon. We're talking about a case where they did not do zimun. He said, if there were four in every group and they left—but the invitation is up. It is here, because they joined the invitation. But if they did participate in the invitation, then you have two who do it and the other one answers. They call him and invite him, and bless the chavurot and those who weren't there. But to bless and blessed. And they didn't duplicate the food. They don't do zimun. They don't do zimun. They don't do zimun. So what's the case of the Gemara? That they did not do zimun. That's Tosafot. They did not do zimun. They go back, get together, and do their own zimun, and the other six do their own zimun. Or they mess them up.
They didn't say the first beracha, and therefore they weren't yotzei (they hadn't fulfilled their obligation). They helped the remaining groups with the zimun, but they weren't yotzei because they didn't finish the first beracha. Therefore, they continue to have the obligation. They were number three or number four, take your pick. They were number three. You can't do it twice, even just the zimun. But you didn't finish your first beracha, so you didn't do anything either. If you do the zimun again, that means the first zimun didn't work. Did it work for you or for the other two?
Do you want to go back to that sugya (Talmudic discussion)? Do you want to go back to the previous sugya? Focus. That's how it works. Do you want to go back to the other sugya, where he was completing the minyan—a count? He already did Birkat Hamazon and came back to do it for the other guys. I don't dislike that entirely, but I don't think we do that. You want to say that we go back to the other sugya, where he already did Birkat Hamazon and still can't count for the zimun. There would be a distinction between completing the minyan—a count—and being chayav with zimun. I cannot be chayav with zimun because I already said Birkat Hamazon; I'm done. How could I complete the minyan? Because you ate. You want to say that? Let's take it in that direction. I had forgotten that detail, but yes. No, I mean that explanation. So that's not what you wanted to say. No, I wanted to say you're playing both worlds. You still carry your zimun obligation because you weren't yotzei. But you're answering—here it's more complicated, though. You have the other two. It's not finished.
“Rabbeinu Yonah katav shele'inyan ma'aseh nir'in divrei Rabbeinu Yehuda” (regarding the practical matter, Rabbeinu Yehuda's words seem correct). “Vekatav de-lefi zeh hu hadin im hayu shelosha bechol chavura” (accordingly, the same law applies if there were three in each group). Now take Rabbeinu Yehuda's view in the case of three: three, three, three. “Ve'alach echad kodem ha-zimun.” One left. Where is he going to go? No, I mean, based on the above. Yes, also.
“Three prohabura.” And one before the zimun. And another one. Now Moshe comes to Isaac and Yaakov and says, “I'm going to eat with you guys if this guy left.” There are only three places, I guess. He eats with them. Abraham went for something. They do zimun: Isaac, Yaakov, Moshe. So what shall I do? Why would you think...? What would you think differently? Do you want to go backwards? Let's go back in time? No, that's when you try to join somebody else. What do you mean, join somebody else? In the same way Moshe joined them, he should find someone else to join to do zimun too, because he still has a chavurah (group) of zimun. Possibly, but with this chavurah he can't. “Parakh zimun minayhu.”
Well, he's at the bar with the other two Abrahams. So then he could do zimun. That's right. He has to do zimun. He's trying to fit it into Rashi's words, “Parakh zimun minayhu.” How is it “parakh zimun minayhu”? There's no case of “parakh zimun minayhu.” If they already did zimun with him, then there was no “parakh zimun minayhu.” If they did it without him, how did they do it without him? They don't like to talk fat. So there was another guy who came. Okay, that's not what the Gemara says. Now we're “full of Kim Tamod.” The fourth guy replacing Abraham is “full of Kim Tamod.” You see the issue now: there's a fourth guy somewhere. The Rosh, when he said there were four at the beginning, said there were three before you told me there were four. Ah, no, the fourth came later.
So please solve this issue. He's truer to the text in the sense that it was three people who came from three groups of three, but the fourth came later, right? The Rosh said, no, there was a fourth one, and I'll tell you how it fits. The Gemara doesn't seem to be bothered by the people who were left behind. It's as if that is completely solved. The Gemara isn't bothered by how the people who leave are dealt with, whether by joining the six or by one of the other two solutions. But the Gemara should have been bothered by the Abrahams when they leave. If they leave two behind, they don't know Moshe is on the way. Maybe he was, but you're breaking your unit. You can't do that. The Gemara doesn't seem to be bothered by that, and it should be. The Gemara is focused on the individual obligation becoming a joint obligation for these three individuals. It's not bothered by how the rest was solved; it assumes that it's solved. It's concerned with what happens to these three guys and their individual zimun.
You could say, “I'm carrying an individual zimun, but because I broke off from my individual group, my zimun is because I broke from the first.” You have a new opportunity. It's a big—now the Gemara comes and tells you, forget what happened to the other three groups. Now you have to continue. But at this point, all the leshonim (versions) agree. That's not the chidush. That's the chidush. All the leshonim agree on that. The question is what happened in the first half of the story, logically. But the Gemara doesn't seem to be bothered by it. It's self-solved.
Why do you even need that fourth person? You could say the other two joined. You go back to Tosafot, because not everybody agrees that that tie worked. I'm sorry, your table is not my table. No, he ate with them at their table. I get it, but in the same way that Moshe came, the other two saw that the other two left. He says, “Oh, your Abraham left; my Abraham left too, so let's get together.” If you want to come to your table, yes. One of the middle tables goes to Tosafot. It doesn't say; maybe Moshe comes from that table. Maybe Moshe—right, but again, we assume the restaurant case: there are three tables, and I don't know these guys. He's not coming to my table to eat. If he does, then we go back to Moshe. It works. But the chidush was tough. It sounded like they didn't eat together at all. Just the fact that they're there—okay, we could do them all together. Even without a table, you don't need a table. There are many solutions for the people left behind. Not second; we have the Rashba, and we close the book. I'm open. No, we're not finished.
“VehaRashba katav” (and the Rashba wrote). Another one. “Katav sheRabbeinu Hai piresh” (he wrote that Rabbeinu Hai explained). Piresh (explained): three who came from three different groups, and the first group was divided into two groups. That was the plan in the beginning, you and me. That makes the most sense. That was my plan. Rashi for sure didn't learn it—not for sure, but it was hard. That was the first try. So it's against Rashi. Yes, that makes sense.
The lashon (wording), I thought, should have said, “Lo ayu resha'im lechalek” (they were not permitted to split). That would be good. “Einam resha'im lechalek” means they come back. They already left. Don't split, don't split. That's why they don't split. According to him, if you want to go this way, don't split; don't go to the tables. He's saying they already left. Look at the words in the Gemara, “shlosha sheba'u mishlosha” (three who came from three). You're already at step two. Don't split. So you should say, “Three, three, three.” Before you do it, say, “Don't do it.” That was the difficulty with the lashon. You were in Cuba. We were here. We already went through that and saw something different. But look, it's a Moroccan tradition here. Cabo, same thing. I'm confused. Cuba, Cabo. In Hebrew, it's the same: Kuf, bet, heh. Cabo. Cabo, Cuba. Cube. Cuba in Ashkenazi is cubo. Cabo, same thing.
“VehaRashba katav, Rabbeinu Hai piresh, shlosha sheba'u me-chaburatam harishona, ki heichi de lo livkat torat zimun me-chaburatam.” So that matches what Rav Chisda said. And that matches—what does that match? It's continuing. “Ve'ayinu de'amar Rav Chisda” (as Rav Chisda said). If you stop here, that's when you start saying, “Wait, hold on, that's not what it means,” because if they came from one chavurah too, it would be the same din. So he just told me a case of three-three-three. Maybe they say, “Well, we're going to say it applies somewhere else too.” It's weak. Let's see what he said.
Haven't we said in the past that you have an obligation to stay in your zimun group? We have said that. So what's the chidush here? That's the Mishnah, number one. Number two, we're trying to find a chidush because we're saying it's pashut (obvious). But why do you need three groups? Why do you need three groups? What is this chidush? One group has the same halacha (law). Tell me, in one group of three, you're not allowed to leave. There are three groups. Just because they're going to justify leaving by saying, “Oh, we're going to do the Muslims,” you're breaking each group. How is that justified?
Now you could say he's going to say—we have to see why there are three groups, though. If each group so far has three, if you came from four, then you're allowed to—you didn't break your group, and you're going to do zimun with other people. Okay, great. But that goes back to the Rosh. There were four. Now you do need three groups, because that's the only way you're going to have your zimun of table four. If you don't have another two guys to do zimun with, you're not allowed to leave. If there are ten thousand people—but in that case you're saying you have four-four-four, and they'll join because they all can join because they want to be together. So why not do zimun of ten? How do you stop that? You don't come out of it. I'm just saying, if you can join because there are three tables and they don't eat together—No, but they all—if they can't inform—I was going to say, under one roof. That's a different din. They don't want to join; they don't know these people. He's saying you're allowed to do this. When there's war, one can break out and do a zimun with another table. Then why don't you say that if that's true, since the zimun—Because they don't want to join with the other guy. You have that a zimun of ten is ten times better than a zimun of three. I don't want to eat with the other guys. But who says you have a choice? Maybe you have to. No, you're not going to find that anywhere. We never say to force yourself to do that. It has to come from people having eaten together. But I don't want to eat with these people. You have to stop. “No hay ashrat Shekhinah (Divine Presence) cuando los dientes no son amigos.” That's it. It's not in your head. It's good. You can divide. Maybe there's a small part there. You have to bind together. That's not broad. You're never going to tell people they must do that. You have people together. Isaac goes from table to table in the restaurant: “Did you eat bread?” “Wait, I got bread.” Make sure the roof has no leak, then we're good.
So what's the pshat (meaning) in the Mishnah? What is the Mishnah teaching? You say we've never mentioned this before. It's a tiny point—why would you think it's allowed? You could say, “No, no, because I'm going to have my own over there.” That's not the point. I think that's a much bigger issue: you're not going to eat with these guys. You could still do the zimun. He said, “No, no, that's not the solution. You cannot leave them.” Why would you be able to? You're running two people's—Then we discussed a bunch of situations in which the third person leaves. We're trying to understand the Mishnah. All we discussed was the Mishnah itself. The first time we saw this Mishnah, we looked at situations in which the guy leaves and has to stay connected. There's no chidush here. The Gemara then says, “If they did”—if they did it wrong. Which three? Abraham. Wrongly meaning they had three, not four. They harmed the other two. Yes, but they already said—Is that what it's saying? That's what it's saying. Can you say that since you were married to the other two in your corporation, the zimun you did over there wrongly isn't good? In the new one, at the bar. And you have to come back because your zimun didn't work. It did work. Meaning, through your mitzvah, your wrongdoing mitzvah, you've ruined their zimun. Look, it's the other guys, Yitzhak and Yaakov from each table. You could have thought that the zimun they unlawfully did didn't work, so they should go back and do their proper zimun. No, you messed up. It did work. Your selfish move—you were a rasha (wicked person) and you ruled everyone, but you didn't do zimun. A little bit, but they cannot do zimun. That fits better. It does fit.
He's saying, “That's how he probably had the girsa (textual reading).” Right, if they did do zimun. Back to the case: one of them did the beracha. You could only do that. So the difference between the previous sugya and this sugya is that there he did Birkat Hamazon; here he didn't do zimun. Once you did zimun, you cannot be part of another zimun, even passively, or whatever the pshat is. “Parakh zimun minayhu.” Even if you always say “minayhu” refers to the Abrahams, “parakh zimun minayhu” means they cannot participate in another zimun, unlike the previous chidush. Although he did Birkat Hamazon, he could still participate in the zimun. No, but here he answered the zimun.
“Aval echad eino yotze yedei zimun, parach zimun minayhu, ad kan. Aval ba-sefarim shelanu garsinan: amar Abaye, lo amran ela delo azmin aleihu beduchtayhu” (but one does not fulfill his obligation through the invitation; the invitation departed from them, up to here. But in our books we read: Abaye said, this was said only when they did not invite them there). Here he's saying “azmin”: they did do the zimun. He says, no, “delo azmin aleihu beduchtayhu.” They didn't do the zimun in the original place. “Aval azmin aleihu beduchtayhu,” if they had already invited him there, “parach zimun minayhu, ad kan.” So he's saying that Rabbeinu Hai Gaon's pshat doesn't match our girsa'ot (textual readings). I mean, this is “delo”—it's like it's a positive tab.
“Rabbeinu Yonah de'echad de'azmun aleihu, afilu achlu achar kach kol echad ve'echad u'pag'u zeh bazeh achar she'achlu, ein mezamnen” (Rabbeinu Yonah: one whom they invited; even if each ate afterward and they met after eating, they do not invite). Hold on: “Echad de'azmun aleihu.” So they did zimun, and then they all continued eating? New case, three-three-three. Yitzhak and Yaakov from each chavurah want to leave. But do the Isaacs want to leave, or do the Abrahams want to stay? Why would I leave if I was having such a good time? It's free food. So they do zimun. We said the halacha was that Abraham wants to continue eating; he can continue eating after the zimun. Fine. Yitzhak and Yaakov leave. They leave, and now Abraham A, Abraham B, and Abraham C see each other. He says, “Come to my table. You're going to stay a little bit?” “Yeah, of course; my name is Abraham.” Fine. So now they have a new table of Abraham A, B, and C, and the eating—No, no, no, that was a machloket.
The case is that they made zimun. They did zimun, not Birkat Hamazon. They left. Abraham didn't do Birkat Hamazon. Ah, I forgot. So they did zimun without Birkat Hamazon. It's not a new case. I said two want to leave and one wants to stay. He didn't say Birkat Hamazon. Now there's another machloket we saw about whether you need to do it again. That's not our topic right now. Abraham continues his sandwich. Abraham B and Abraham C do too. He says, “You know what? Come to the table. We're going to eat by ourselves.” Fine. So they join at the table and eat a sandwich together. Can they do zimun? Up to now, they ate at three different tables, right? They joined at one new table, table D. They could do the zimun. But I'm not going back to the previous case. This is a new case. Yes, we did one shita. Fine.
In this case, Rabbeinu Yonah says they're eating again. That's why they didn't do Birkat Hamazon; they wanted to eat more. Each one eats a kezayit (olive-sized amount), a kabetzah (egg-sized amount), an elephant—I don't care. They're eating together. Can they do zimun on the new achilah (eating)? Or does the zimun they said cover any eating left in that meal? “Echad de'azmun aleihu, afilu achlu achar kach kol echad ve'echad.” “U'pag'u zeh bazeh”—they met after eating. What if they met before they ate? Maybe then they're eating together. I don't know; we'll have to see that in my case. I said—which is not his case—that they did say, “Let's eat together,” part two, some more. Then they would have to do it a second time. So what did he say? No, he says the reason—but if they did—Okay, we're done with the Beit Yosef. I understand now. I'm a lot more confused.