SECTION 196 Whether One who Partook of a Prohibited Food May be Included in a Zimun. (1–7)

קצו מִי שֶׁאָכַל דְּבַר אִסּוּר אִם מִצְטָרֵף לְזִמּוּן, וּבוֹ ז' סְעִיפִים:

1 When a person partook of a prohibited substance — even something that is only prohibited by Rabbinic decree1 — he may not be included in a zimun.2

There are authorities who maintain that similarly, one should not recite Grace after partaking of such food, even if he partook of it unknowingly, for a transgression cannot become [a medium for] a mitzvah. If the person knows that the food is forbidden and [nevertheless] seeks to partake of it, he may not recite a blessing at the outset, for he is not blessing but blaspheming, as it is written,3 “A robber blesses, and [thereby] blasphemes G‑d.”

There are authorities who maintain that our Sages made these statements only with regard to a mitzvah that results [directly] from a sin.4 For it is not fitting to mention G‑d’s name in connection with such [a deed. Furthermore,] the blessing for the mitzvos should not be recited for it, for a transgression cannot be transformed into a mitzvah. With regard to the blessings recited in appreciation for satisfaction, by contrast, one must recite a blessing. This applies even when one willfully partakes of food that is forbidden by Scriptural Law. [To speak in analogies:] “Should one who ate garlic that produced a perceptible odor, eat more garlic, producing an even more perceptible odor,”5 [i.e., should he transgress further] by deriving satisfaction from this world without reciting a blessing?6 [Our Sages] only forbade including such a person in a zimun, because his companions are not permitted to join together with him in a group.7

[Moreover, even] when all the members of a group ate forbidden substances, [they should not join together in a zimun, because] they are not considered as having established a [halachically significant] sitting, for a [halachically significant] sitting and union of individuals is not applicable with regard to forbidden matters. [Their sitting] is equivalent to [sitting down to] partake of fruits, which is not considered a [halachically significant] sitting to require a zimun.8Why, however, should such an individual not recite a blessing before and after eating, since he is, [after all,] deriving satisfaction?

With regard to actual practice, the ruling is that if one ate a forbidden substance unknowingly, he should recite a blessing afterwards.9 If, however, he willfully [partakes of] a forbidden substance, he should not recite a blessing neither beforehand nor afterwards, for he cannot be considered as blessing [G‑d], but rather blaspheming [Him].

א מִי שֶׁאָכַל דְּבַר אִסּוּר,א אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִיםב,1 – אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו.2

וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִיםג שֶׁהוּא הַדִּין שֶׁאֵין מְבָרֵךְ אַחֲרָיו בִּרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן, אֲפִלּוּ אָכַל בְּשׁוֹגֵג, שֶׁאֵין עֲבֵרָה מִצְוָה.ד וְאִם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר וּבָא לְאָכְלוֹ – אֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ עָלָיו בַּתְּחִלָּה, שֶׁאֵין זֶה מְבָרֵךְ אֶלָּא מְנָאֵץ,ה כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּבו,3 "וּבֹצֵעַ בֵּרֵךְ – נִאֵץ ה'".

וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִיםז שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ כֵּן אֶלָּא בְּמִצְוָה הַבָּאָה בַּעֲבֵרָה,4 שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לְהַזְכִּיר עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, וְאֵין מְבָרְכִין עָלֶיהָ בִּרְכַּת הַמִּצְוֹת, שֶׁאֵין עֲבֵרָה מִצְוָה,ח אֲבָל בִּרְכַּת הַנֶּהֱנִין צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵךְ,ט אֲפִלּוּ הָאוֹכֵל אִסּוּרֵי תּוֹרָה בְּמֵזִיד,י כִּי מִי שֶׁאוֹכֵל שׁוּם וְרֵיחוֹ נוֹדֵף – יַחֲזֹר וְיֹאכַל שׁוּם אַחֵר שֶׁיְּהֵא רֵיחוֹ נוֹדֵף בְּיוֹתֵר,יא,5 וְיֵהָנֶה גַּם כֵּן מֵהָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה בְּלֹא בְּרָכָהיב?6 וְלֹא מָנְעוּ אֶלָּא לְזַמֵּן עָלָיו, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין חֲבֵרָיו רַשָּׁאִים לְהִתְחַבֵּר עִמּוֹ בַּחֲבוּרָה.7 וּבְנֵי חֲבוּרָה שֶׁכֻּלָּן אָכְלוּ מִדְּבָרִים הָאֲסוּרִים, גַּם הֵם אֵין לָהֶם קֶבַע,יג שֶׁאֵין קֶבַע וְחִבּוּר לִדְבָרִים הָאֲסוּרִים, וַהֲרֵי זֶה כְּעֵין אֲכִילַת פֵּרוֹת שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם קֶבַע לְזִמּוּן.8 אֲבָל בְּרָכָה תְּחִלָּה וָסוֹף, לָמָּה לֹא יְבָרֵךְ? הוֹאִיל וְנֶהֱנָה.יד

וּלְעִנְיַן הֲלָכָה, יֵשׁ לְהַכְרִיעַטו שֶׁאִם אָכַל אִסּוּר בְּשׁוֹגֵג – יְבָרֵךְ אַחֲרֶיהָ,9 אֲבָל הַמֵּזִיד לֹא יְבָרֵךְ לֹא בַּתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַּסּוֹף, שֶׁאֵין זֶה מְבָרֵךְ אֶלָּא מְנָאֵץ:

Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch (Sichos In English)

The new layout – with the original text and the facing translation – provides a unique user-friendly approach to studying the Alter Rebbe’s work. An inclusive commentary provides insightful explanations and guidelines for actual practice.

2 If a person robbed or stole10 bread that had already been baked,11 he should not recite a blessing before [partaking of] it even though its owner already despaired of its return. [The rationale:] If the owner would come and demand its return, [the thief] would be obligated to return [the bread]; he could not absolve himself by [merely] paying its worth.12 Thus partaking of it involves a transgression, and reciting a blessing would be blasphemous.13

Such a person should, nevertheless, recite Grace after eating, since once he has eaten the bread, it is his. His obligation [to the owner of the bread] is [only] to repay its value. Although eating [the bread] was a transgression, having eaten it, he is able to absolve himself by paying the value of the bread and what he ate would be considered as his own. As such, his recitation of Grace is not blasphemous.

ב אִם גָּזַל אוֹ גָּנַב10 לֶחֶם אָפוּי,11 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,טז,12 נִמְצָא שֶׁאֲכִילָתוֹ הִיא בַּעֲבֵרָה, וּבִרְכָתוֹ נִאוּץ.13 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: יז

3 If one stole wheat or flour and baked [it into] bread, he should also recite a blessing before [partaking of it], because by causing it to undergo a change, he acquired it and it became his property.14 Were the owner to come [and demand its return], he could absolve himself by paying for it. Thus his partaking of it is not considered a transgression. True, were one to perform a mitzvah [with an article obtained] in a similar manner, he should not recite a blessing over it, because he obtained it through a transgression as stated in sec. 11[:12].15 Nevertheless, blessings for satisfaction are not comparable to the blessings for mitzvos, as explained according to the second opinion in subsection 1. [Moreover,] even according to the first opinion, they are not [entirely] comparable. [For there is a difference] between deriving sinful satisfaction16 and satisfaction that [itself is not sinful, but] was made possible because of sin. There are authorities who differ, [maintaining that a blessing should not be recited]. (When there is an unresolved question with regard to blessings [as in the above instance], we rule leniently.)17

ג אִם גָּזַל חִטִּים אוֹ קֶמַח וְאָפָה פַּת – מְבָרֵךְ גַּם בַּתְּחִלָּה, שֶׁכְּבָר קְנָאוֹ בְּשִׁנּוּי וְנַעֲשָׂה שֶׁלּוֹ,14 שֶׁאִם בָּאוּ הַבְּעָלִים יָכוֹל לִפְטֹר אֶת עַצְמוֹ בְּדָמִים,יח וְאֵין אֲכִילָתוֹ עֲבֵרָה.יט וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה בְּמִצְוָה אֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ, הוֹאִיל וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם עַל יְדֵי עֲבֵרָה בָּאָה לְיָדוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן י"אכ,15 – אֵין לְדַמּוֹת בִּרְכַּת הַנֶּהֱנִין לְבִרְכַּת הַמִּצְוֹת,כא מִטַּעַם שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בַּסְּבָרָא הָאַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁבְּסָעִיף א'. וְאַף לַסְּבָרָא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֵינָן דּוֹמוֹת אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁנֶּהֱנָה בַּעֲבֵרָה,16 וְלֹא כְּשֶׁבָּאוּ עַל יְדֵי עֲבֵרָה. וְיֵשׁ חוֹלְקִין בָּזֶהכב (וּסְפֵק בְּרָכוֹת לְהָקֵל) כג:17

4 All the above applies with regard to the thief or the robber himself. Others, by contrast, must recite blessings both before partaking [of the bread] and afterwards, according to all authorities, for they did not obtain the bread through a transgression. [The only exception is] when one stole bread that had already been baked18 and the owner did not despair of its return, as explained in sec. 649[:6].19

ד וְכָל זֶה בְּגַנָּב וְגַזְלָן עַצְמוֹ, אֲבָל אֲחֵרִים מְבָרְכִין בַּתְּחִלָּה וּבַסּוֹף לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא עַל יְדֵי עֲבֵרָה בָּאָה לְיָדָם, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן גָּנַב לֶחֶם אָפוּי18 וְלֹא נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים, כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תרמ"ט: כד,19

5 If one partakes of forbidden food because of a [life-threatening] danger, all authorities agree that he must recite blessings both before partaking [of the food] and afterwards, for he is eating something that is permitted [for him].20 He is performing a mitzvah [by endeavoring] to save his life [by eating this otherwise forbidden food].

ה אִם אָכַל אִסּוּר בִּמְקוֹם סַכָּנָה, לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְבָרֵךְ עָלָיו תְּחִלָּה וָסוֹף, שֶׁהֶתֵּר הוּא אוֹכֵל,כה,20 וּמִצְוָה הוּא עוֹשֶׂה לְהַצִּיל נַפְשׁוֹ: כו

6 When three people ate together and one ate bread baked by a non-Jew21 and two are meticulous [not to partake] of it, or one is a kohen and ate challah,22even though [the bread the third person is eating] is forbidden23 to the other two, he can be included in a zimun,24since it is permitted to him.25

[A different rule applies if] kohanim were eating together with one who was not a kohen and the latter was eating bread baked by a non-Jewish baker, while the kohanim were meticulous [not to partake] of such [bread. If] thekohanim were eating loaves of challah, they may not join together in a zimun. [The rationale:] Individuals are joined together in a zimun only when they can join together while eating, [sharing] the same bread. In this instance, each one is meticulous [not to partake] of the bread that the other is eating.26 (When, by contrast, the non-kohen is not partaking of bread that the kohen is meticulous [not to eat, even though the kohen] is eating loaves that are challah, [they can join together in a zimun. The rationale:] Although the non-kohen may not partake of the bread of the kohen, the kohen may partake of the bread of the Israelite or [in the first instance,] the third person who ate bread baked by a non-Jew may partake of the bread of the other two who join him.)

ו שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁאָכְלוּ כְּאַחַת וְאֶחָד מֵהֶם אָכַל פַּת נָכְרִי21 וְהַשְּׁנַיִם נִזְהָרִים מִמֶּנּוּ,כז אוֹ שֶׁאֶחָד מֵהֶן כֹּהֵן וְאָכַל חַלָּה,22 אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לְהַשְּׁנַיִםכח,23 – מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו,24 הוֹאִיל וְהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ.25

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.כט,26 (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):

7 Similarly, when one person is eating cheese and the other two meat, they may join together [in a zimun], because the one eating cheese may partake of their bread even though it is soiled with meat, provided that he wipes his mouth and rinses it out.27 If, however, he is eating hard cheese, they may not join together, because the custom at present is not to eat meat after eating hard cheese after [merely] wiping and rinsing [one’s mouth].28 Similarly, if a feast associated with a mitzvah is being held from Rosh Chodesh Av until Tishah BeAv and some of the guests are eating cheese because, as stated in sec. 551,29 they are meticulous not to partake of meat because of the custom [of not eating meat during these days], they may not join together with those who partook of meat. Instead, they should make a zimun by themselves. [There are, however, exceptions to the above. For example,] they [all] partook of an olive-sized portion of bread30 before those partaking of meat began eating meat with their bread. For this olive-sized portion [of bread had no meat adhering to it, and those not eating meat] were permitted to eat from that bread. Alternatively, one of the people attending the feast ate an olive-sized portion of bread that was not soiled with meat or cheese. His participation joins them all together, because they all could partake of his bread.

A similarly [law applies] when three people vowed not to benefit from one another, or even if one vowed not to benefit from the other two and the other two vowed not to benefit from him. Even though they could ask to have their vows released,31 as long as they did not yet do so, they may not join together [in a zimun. The above applies] if each of them partook of his own bread. If, however, they are partaking of a host’s [bread], they may join together [in a zimun]. (For a host commonly provides as much bread as his guests need. Thus, even if one [of those who vowed not to benefit from the other] will eat from a piece of bread sliced by that individual, he is [not considered to have] benefited [from him, but] from the host, for that person will not lack bread.32 This is not true with regard to people who are eating meat and [hard] cheese, for they may not partake of the bread sliced by the others. Although each one could slice a piece for himself from one loaf, particularly before they touch the meat or the cheese, that still does not unite them and join them together, for what difference does it make whether they are eating from separate loaves or from one loaf?)33

ז וְכֵן אֶחָד אוֹכֵל גְּבִינָה וּשְׁנַיִם בָּשָׂר – מִצְטָרְפִים, שֶׁהָאוֹכֵל גְּבִינָה יָכוֹל לֶאֱכֹל מִלַּחְמָםל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מְלֻכְלָךְ בְּבָשָׂר, אִם יְקַנַּח פִּיו וְיַדִּיחֶנּוּ.לא,27 אֲבָל אִם אוֹכֵל גְּבִינָה קָשָׁה – אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין, שֶׁהַמִּנְהָג עַכְשָׁו שֶׁלֹּא לֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר אַחַר גְּבִינָה קָשָׁה עַל יְדֵי קִנּוּחַ וַהֲדָחָה.לב,28 וְכֵן בִּסְעוּדַת מִצְוָה מֵרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ אָב עַד תִּשְׁעָה בְּאָב, שֶׁמִּקְצָת הַקְּרוּאִים אוֹכְלִים גְּבִינָה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תקנ"א,לג,29 כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּזְהָרִים מִבָּשָׂר מֵחֲמַת הַמִּנְהָג – אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין עִם אוֹכְלֵי בָּשָׂר, וּצְרִיכִים לְזַמֵּן לְעַצְמָן,לד אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן אָכְלוּ כַּזַּיִת פַּת30 קֹדֶם שֶׁאוֹכְלֵי בָּשָׂר הִתְחִילוּ לֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר בְּלַחְמָם, שֶׁכַּזַּיִת זֶה הָיוּ יְכוֹלִים לֶאֱכֹל מִלַּחְמוֹ,לה אוֹ שֶׁאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הַסְּעוּדָה אָכַל כַּזַּיִת 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,31 כָּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁאֲלוּ – אֵין מִצְטָרְפִיןלו אִם כָּל אֶחָד אוֹכֵל מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. אֲבָל אִם אוֹכְלִים מִשֶּׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת – מִצְטָרְפִיןלז (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,לח,32 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 וּבְחָלָבלט – אֵין זֶה מוֹעִיל לְחַבְּרָם וּלְצָרְפָם, כִּי מַה לִּי כִּכָּרוֹת נִפְרָדִים וּמַה לִּי כִּכָּר אֶחָד):33