View cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 108 -[TRANSLATION]Q. You said earlier — if I remember correctly — that you’ve already spentSuccot with friends at their homes?A. Yes.. . .A. But if you’re travelling or visiting someone, or a cousin or son invitesyou to spend the holiday in his home, well, if he has a succah, that’sgreat. But it isn’t an obligation. You make accommodations to betogether. It’s the mitzvah, the commandment is fulfilled, but it’s bychance. Normally, you want to spend Succot at your own home.[Underlining added.]2004 SCC 47 (CanLII)This language (you want) shows the “precept” is permissive not mandatory, a fact whichhe subsequently confirms:[TRANSLATION]A. No, I’ll go to my children’s home, to the synagogue, or I have friends,or I’ll go to Miami, to the home of my brother, who’s a rabbi.Q. You could go to the homes of friends or family?A. My family, my children.Q. Or to the synagogue?A. Or to the synagogue. . . .204 The appellants called as their expert Rabbi Moïse Ohana, who testified ontheir behalf that the faithful are exempted from celebrating Succot if such celebrationcauses [TRANSLATION] “serious discomfort”:[TRANSLATION] In practice, though, if eating meals in a succah leads togenuine drudgery, day after day after day, we then start to come under aprovision of the law according to which if the succah is a source of seriousdiscomfort, you are ipso facto released from the obligation to stay there.