Sukkah 020

1:
The previous mishnah concluded with the statement that

In other words, the requirement to take one's meals in the sukkah applies only to set meals, formal meals; it does not apply to informal snacks etc. It follows that formal meals must be eaten in the sukkah, snacks and informal meals do not have to be eaten in the sukkah.

2:
Our present mishnah amplifies this statement and its implications. Three examples are brought from real life. The way in which our mishnah is worded could give the erroneous impression that the incidents concerning Rabban Yo&#7717anan ben-Zakkai and Rabban Gamli'el occurred simultaneously. A biography of Rabban Yo&#7717anan ben-Zakkai was included when we studied Tracate Avot [Avot 121 onwards], and a biography of Rabban Gamli'el was provided as well [Avot 129 etc]. While Rabban Gamli'el was a younger contemporary of Rabban Yo&#7717anan ben-Zakkai we should understand that our mishnah is dealing here with two separate incidents. (The honorific 'Rabban' would probably not have been accorded to Gamli'el during the lifetime of Yo&#7717anan ben-Zakkai, indicating, as it does, the presidency of the Sanhedrin.)

3:
In both incidents we learn that a snack was presented to each of these sages and rather than eating the snack outside the sukkah they requested that the snack be taken into the sukkah for them. In the first incident someone — probably a servant — brought a dish so that Rabban Yo&#7717anan ben-Zakkai could taste it. It is quite possible that all that the servant wanted was for Rabban Yo&#7717anan ben-Zakkai to check whether it was sufficiently spiced or some similar tasting. While it would be perfectly legitimate for him to taste the dish outside the sukkah he preferred not to avail himself of this 'leniency' and chose to taste it inside the sukkah.

4:
The second incident concerns the successor of Rabban Yo&#7717anan ben-Zakkai as president of the Sanhedrin, Rabban Gamli'el. (Both these incidents would have occurred some time during the second half of the first century CE, and the second incident almost certainly during the last quarter of that century.) Rabban Gamli'el was brought a snack of a couple of dates. (It is not clear whether the jug of water was for drinking or for washing his hands — or both!) Rabban Gamli'el also chose to eat the dates in his sukkah even though he could have eaten them outside of the sukkah. Both these incidents show that these two sages elected to eat everything in the sukkah, even snacks which could be eaten outside. (Someone making the same choice today should be certain in his mind that his reason for eating even snacks in the sukkah is because of his love for the mitzvah; otherwise it would be snobbish arrogance, a kind of oneupmanship — which is forbidden.)

5:
Rabbi Zadok was a kohen [priest]. As such it is quite possible that the morsel of food that was brought to him came from terumah which had been given to him. [See
Pe'ah 044.] Terumah had to be eaten with washed hands. Since he was outside his home (and outside his sukkah) it was not possible for him to wash his hands so he wrapped the snack in a napkin so that his unwashed hands would not make the food ritually impure. Furthermore, since the amount of food that he ate was less than an egg-bulk he did not recite after eating it the full grace after meals [Birkat ha-Mazon]. Food less than the bulk of an egg does not require full grace after it; it does, of course, require a benediction before eating it because "it is forbidden to enjoy any of the good things of the earth without a benediction". Obviously, this third incident serves to illustrate that there were pious sages who did eat snacks outside their sukkah.

In
Sukkah 019 we learned that Rabbi Ovadya of Bertinoro states:

Mark Lehrman writes:

My NYC synagogue erects a "community" sukkah that may be used for meals ("eating and drinking"), but that is not available for overnight use ("sleeping"), since the sukkah is in a building courtyard that is gated and locked after dinner hours. Does Rabbi Ovadya's analysis render my synagogue's sukkah unfit "for all activities", since no one is permitted to sleep inside the sukkah?

I respond:

The reason why no one sleeps in the communal sukkah is because it is not easily accessible at night. I would imagine that if someone desperately needed to use that sukkah for sleeping the leaders of the community would find some way of accommodating him. However, I would also imagine that most of the people who use that sukkah for eating and drinking (probably just a kiddush on YomTov) would not require the use of that sukkah for sleeping. At any rate, if the sukkah is a valid sukkah it is valid also for sleeping, and that is all that matters. The mitzvah devolves on the people not on the sukkah! (Furthermore, for some seven hundred years now even religiously motivated people do not generally sleep in the sukkah.) So, I can see no reason why the communal sukkah should not be used for the purposes of eating and drinking, even though it is not easily available for sleeping. I hope this helps.