As the experience of Yom Kippur gives way to the preparations for Sukkos, we must turn our attention to the impending “move” into our new, temporary residence. One of the more interesting Halachic issues with regards to this move is what a person can and cannot eat and drink outside of the sukkah. Below is a brief review and some insights into these topics.

The Mishna in Sukkah (25a) states that one may eat or drink “casually” - arai  - outside of the sukkah. The Talmud proceeds to define the amount of achilas arai as that which is tasted by a student in the morning before entering the Bais Midrash. Rashi comments that the student is worried about missing the morning activities, so he is “טועם מלא פיו ושותה” - literally, he “tastes the full amount of his mouth and drinks".  Looking at how this was codified, Rambam (Hilchos Sukkah 6:6) discusses the basic guidelines to eating and drinking in and out of the sukkah. He writes that it is forbidden to eat a סעודה outside the sukkah throughout the chag unless it is אכילת עראי. He qualifies this measurement as being around the size of a ביצה, give or take, and then concludes that it is permitted to eat fruits and drink water outside the sukkah; however, one who is מחמיר and never eats or drinks anything outside the sukkah is משבח - deserving of praise.

The formulation of אכילת עראי  in both the Talmud and Rambam is intriguing. Rather than present a fixed amount, such as כזית, the Talmud describes the measurement as a certain type of situation, before the student enters the Beis Midrash. What type of shiur is this? Why didn’t the Talmud simply say that one cannot eat a specific amount outside of the sukkah? Rambam, when describing the amount of אכילת עראי, is also vague, stating it is כביצה, give or take. What type of shiur has a variation to it?

Normally, a Halachic action of eating, or מעשה אכילה, would be a fixed shiur like כביצה or כזית. For example, in order to fulfill one’s obligation of eating מצה on פסח, one must eat a כזית. On the other hand, the nature of the obligation of sukkah is quite different than other mitzvot. The Mishna (Sukkah 29a) states that one must, during the 7 days of Sukkos, make his sukkah קבע and his house עראי. The Talmud (Sukkah 29a) understands this to mean bringing our dishes into the sukkah, as well as eating, drinking and sleeping in the sukkah. In other words, we are obligated to perform all of our actions of residing - מעשי דירה - in the sukkah. The barometer for these actions being done inside the sukkah is whether it is קבע or עראי. The Talmud attempts to unite the need for a fixed amount with the phenomenon of מעשי דירה  , using the case of the student and the Beis Midrash. How so? Rashi, as mentioned above, describes the tasting by the student as “טועם מלא פיו”, further elucidating the Talmud’s initial statement. Tasting is never really defined as an act of eating - one need not make a bracha (in general) for simply tasting something. When someone tastes something, he is deducing whether the food is palatable or not. Thus, it is not considered eating, a מעשה אכילה. At the same time, tasting generally refers to a minute amount, not a full mouth, which the vast majority of poskim deduce the general shiur of כביצה from. In this specific scenario, the student is ingesting an entire mouthful. The student who is rushing to the Beis Midrash in a worried state does not relate to eating in a normal way. For him, eating at that moment is not for the pleasure of satiation, the enjoyment of the quality of food, or the overall instinctual gratification. Rather, his eating is simply to satisfy his appetite, to ingest the necessary amount to be sustained. This is the definition of עראי, where eating is more directed towards sustenance over pleasure. The student scenario is the paradigm of אכילת עראי. It is an act of eating where the experience would not be defined as for the sake of pleasure. Yet since there is more than simply a taste - כמלא פיו - it has the structure (צורה) of a מעשה אכילה. This concept was incorporated into Sukkos.

Eating during Sukkos is not viewed in a simple mechanistic way of fixed amounts - it is viewed through the lens of the experiential, and the nature of the experience is what serves to create the shiur. This would help explain why Rambam uses a varied amount in his codification of the Halacha. It is impossible to ascertain the exact fixed amount of an experience of eating for pleasure, as it is subjective. While a shiur is required, since it has the elements of a מעשה אכילה , it functions more as a guide rather than the ultimate determinant of fulfillment. Furthermore, it would also help explain why Rambam mentions that eating a סעודה outside the sukkah presents a problem, rather than writing about the specific foods one cannot eat. Partaking of a סעודה is more than just ingesting food - it is a pleasurable experience, with good food and enjoyable company. This experience should not take place outside of the sukkah.

This approach would seem to be the basis for many debates that took place over different foods and drinks during Sukkos. For example, most poskim are of the opinion that the measurement of כביצה only applies to bread, and not to fruits. There are, however, a few poskim who differ in this assessment. Tashbatz Katan (R Samson B Tzadok, 144) writes about his rebbe, the Maharam of Rothenburg (R Meir ben Baruch), who took upon himself the stringency not to eat any fruits outside the sukkah, regardless of the amount. He bases this on the reading of the Talmud in Yoma (79b), where the possibility of fruits needing to be eaten in the sukkah is raised. Rosh (Sukkah 2:13) qualifies this position, explaining that the opinion of necessarily eating fruits in the sukkah is only if it is done as אכילת קבע, and not in a casual way. On the other hand, Rosh quotes R Peretz, who vehemently disagrees and maintains that fruits can always be eaten outside of the sukkah, regardless of the nature of the eating. The issue of the experience of pleasurable eating is the foundation of this debate. The Maharam would seem to maintain that creating a true אכילת קבע is not based on the foods eaten, but on how the גברא relates to the eating. If this is the case, then it is possible to create the experience of סעודה even with fruits. R Peretz argues with this notion, emphasizing that one must take into account the types of foods eaten before assessing the experience. By definition, fruits do not lend themselves to this type of experience, thereby negating the need to eat them in the sukkah.

There is even an issue regarding whether wine needs to be drunk inside the sukkah. Tur (OC 539) defines drinking wine as עראי. The Taz (R David Halevi, OC 539:7) quotes the Levush (R Mordechai Yoffe), where he differentiates between the reason for the wine. If it is done for quenching thirst, then it would be by definition עראי. However, if one is planning on drinking several cups of wine, it becomes characterized as קבע. The Bach (R Yoel Sirkis, OC 539) writes that the necessity of drinking wine in the sukkah is based on the amount of people. If one drinks alone, it is defined as עראי. However, once a group becomes involved, it becomes קבע. Most poskim today agree that drinking wine, no matter the circumstances, is considered עראי. However, what troubled the Levush and the Bach? Wine is considered the drink of happiness, and therefore might be an issue regarding its place in the sukkah. Its function as a vehicle of שמחה could either be manifest in the effect it produces (Levush) or in its unique role in a larger social setting (Bach). The very discussion though is predicated on the experience of eating, as discussed above.

Clearly, and unlike any other chag, the halachos regarding eating on Sukkos do not only hinge on how much or even what but rather the experience of eating—how we relate to our celebration of the chag.  In this way, the halachos require that while our “move” may seem temporary, even casual, for the duration of Sukkos, our experience of the chag and the significance of our celebration occurs in the Sukkah.