Berakhot 136

1:
This mishnah is really very simple and does not require a great deal of explanation. Since the first mishnah in this chapter has already established that when three people have dined together they must recite the Invitation (zimmun), it follows that a party of three may not split up because this would obviate the requirement to recite Zimmun. Similarly, four or five people may not split up, because they could not constitute a separate group. Six, of course, may split up into two groups of three.

2:
A group of ten, according to the previous mishnah, also has a special status. That is why between six and nine people may split up into two or three groups – because they have not yet reached the stage of constituting a group of ten. Between ten and twenty once again may not split up, because one or more of the splinter groups would be less than ten.

In Berakhot 133 I wrote concerning the exclusion of women from the zimmun – according to the mishnah. In brief, I wrote that the exclusion of women must be understood in the light of their social status generally in the Graeco-Roman world at that time. In a Roman household the womenfolk would preside over the meal of the rest of the household, which would include the servants and children. The discussion in the Gemara shows that similar arrangements obtained in the households of Eretz-Israel. I also wrote that the modern adult Jewish woman is essentially different from her Talmudic counterpart in that her society does not recognize any difference in the nature of the control over her will, activities and behaviour than obtains in the case of her father or husband. Thus the logic for excusing women from religious duties on these grounds does not apply and that therefore her exclusion from zimmun with the menfolk is unjustified.

Ed Frankel wrote to me disagreeing. His claim was that the reason why women were to be included in zimmun was because they had eaten and therefore had to recite grace just like a man. He asked: Is there not a machloket [disagreement among the decisors] as to whether women ought to be counted for zimmun, with a growing view that as women eat and are satisfied, and are obligated to thank God for the food eaten, they should be part of the mezuman (group of invitees), based on the verse in Devarim, "v'achalta, v'savata uverachta"?

I responded to Ed privately as follows:

Because of the verse ve'akhalta, ve'sava'ta uverakhta women are definitely obliged to recite Birkat ha-Mazon by all authorities. On this there is no maĥloket. Zimmun is a completely separate issue which, as the discussion in the Gemara points out first of all, is based on an entirely different concept which is unconnected with the duty to recite Birkat ha-Mazon. You describe the solution as explained in your message as "a growing view": I would be very interested in learning of your source. My own suggestion, as briefly resuméed above is fraught with halakhic difficulties, but it is halakhically logical. It is becoming more and more clear to me that there are two kinds of woman: those who voluntarily submit themselves to the discipline and authority of their husband, and those who see themselves as adult human beings with the same rights and duties as everyone else – and if married see marriage as a partnership between equals and not a submission to a superior. Since the rabbinic literature never knew of such a woman (or at least never recognized one as being such) none of the rules concerning the status of women apply to her. She is a "new creature".

Ed replied to me as follows:

When I wrote of growing views [that count women in the minyan for Zimmun], I referred to the practice in Conservative organizations in the States, especially prior to the growth of what we have begun to label as egalitarianism, that women are available to lead zimmun as they are obligated to thank God when they eat. The feeling they use is that one can be a shaliach [agent] if obligated to a mitzvah, thus women can lead Birkat ha-Mazon, as women are obligated to eat and thank God for the food. It might be simplistic and non-talmudic, but this view has determined practice for more than thirty-five years of which I am directly aware at Schechter schools, Ramah camps, USY and Kadima meals (those are the two prevalent CJ youth groups) and even at synagogue functions. The participation of women in this
function was common long before women were called to the Torah or to the amud. Perhaps, more than a growing view, it is an increasing practice. Joel Roth indicated in an article he wrote that Ramah practice may have been the substance from which the other practices were built. It is very likely that when girls started there to lead benching, it was with the practice being done l'shem chinuch. On the other hand, there seems no disagreement that if a woman finds herself in a group of fellow female eaters that they can bench as a mezuman, as whether separate mitzvot or not, qualification for one mitzvah derives from qualification for the other.

I add:

What is not disputed is that in the world of Conservative Judaism women may be counted in the quorum for zimmun. I still maintain, however, that the reasoning Ed puts forward for justifying this departure from the law of the Talmud is misleading.