Sukkah 30a — the Talmud in English

Indeed, the reason for the invalidity of a stolen lulav on the remaining days is not because of “for yourselves,” but

because

fulfilling the mitzva of lulav with a stolen lulav

is a mitzva that comes through a transgression.

As it is stated

concerning an invalid sacrifice [Malachi 1:13]: “

And you bring what is stolen and the lame

[the limping one]

and the sick,

and you bring the offering; shall I accept it from your hand”?!

The verse equated the

stolen sacrifice, analogous to a

sacrifice of

Passover

[one that limps because of a defect in its leg].

And it implies:

Just as a sacrifice that is

a Passover sacrifice has no remedy

ever, for this is a permanent defect,

so

a

sacrifice that is

stolen has no remedy

ever,

whether before despair

of the robbed person [that is, before its owners despaired],

or whether after despair

of its owners; for example, when they heard him say, “Woe over the loss of property,” it is never fit for sacrifice.

And although with regard to acquisition the robber acquires the object through despair, and thereafter he is no longer obligated to return the object itself, but only its value [according to the one who says that despair effects acquisition], as explained in tractate Bava Kamma, 68a, nevertheless, with regard to a sacrifice it is invalid.

And we raise an objection:

It is understandable that before despair

it is invalid, because

“When a person brings an offering from you”

the Merciful One said

[Leviticus 1:2], and “from you” implies that the sacrifice must be your own;

and

this sacrifice

is not his.

But after despair, he has acquired it

the robber

through despair,

and if so, why is it invalid for sacrifice?

Rather, is it not

necessarily learned that it is invalid

because it is a mitzva that comes through a transgression,

for this sacrifice is stolen in his possession?

And Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: What is the meaning of what is written

[Isaiah 61:8]:

“For I, the Lord, love justice; I hate robbery in a burnt offering”?

It is analogous to a flesh-and-blood king who was passing by a customs house.

He said to his servants: Give the customs duty to the customs collectors!

His servants said to him

:

“But is not all the customs duty entirely yours,

and why should you give customs duty? After all, that money will return to you”?!

He said to them: Let all travelers learn from me and not evade the customs duty.

So too the Holy One, blessed is He, said: I am the Lord; I hate robbery in a burnt offering.

That is, I am the Lord; I hate the robbery in the burnt offerings that you bring to Me, even though everything is Mine, as it is stated, “The earth is the Lord’s and all that fills it”;

Let My children learn from Me and evade robbery.

It was also stated,

that the reason for the invalidity of a stolen lulav on the remaining days of the festival is because it is a mitzva that comes through a transgression:

Rabbi Ami said: A

lulav that is

dry is invalid, because there is no “splendid.”

“Stolen” is unfit, because it is a mitzva haba'a ba-aveira.

And the Gemara adds: what Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai—that a stolen lulav is unfit also on the other days of the festival because it is a mitzva haba'a ba-aveira—is not the opinion of everyone. Rather,

ve-pliga

a

with Rabbi Yitzchak.

For Rabbi Yitzchak bar Nachmani said in the name of Shmuel: They taught

that a stolen lulav is unfit,

only on the first Festival day. But on the second Festival day,

that is, on the other days of the festival,

since he fulfills

his obligation

with a

borrowed lulav

,

since the mitzva of lulav on the other days of the festival is only rabbinic, and the Sages did not require that the lulav be specifically his own, as explained above, the same law is that he

also fulfills [his obligation] with a

stolen lulav

.

And it is clear that he did not take into consideration that it is a mitzva haba'a ba-aveira.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak raised an objection

to Rabbi Yitzchak bar Nachmani from our Mishna, in which we learned:

A stolen lulav and a dry one are unfit.

And it implies:

This [means that] a borrowed [lulav] is fit.

And it is necessary to examine:

When

is the Mishna speaking?

If you say [it is speaking] on the first Festival day

of the festival,

behold, “for yourselves” is written,

and we expound:

It shall be from your own,

it shall be,

and this

borrowed lulav

is not his own

[it is not his], and if so, why did the Mishna not mention that a borrowed lulav is also unfit for taking?

Rather, is it not

that the subject of the Mishna is

on the second Festival day,

whose obligation is rabbinic, and a person fulfills his obligation with a borrowed lulav,

and

even so

it teaches

in it that a

stolen lulav is unfit?!

Rava said: Actually,

our Mishna is speaking

on the Festival

first day

of the festival, and one should not infer from the fact that our Mishna did not mention a borrowed lulav that it is fit even on the first Festival day; rather, on the contrary, if a stolen lulav is unfit, all the more so a borrowed one [is unfit],

and

our Mishna is in the manner of

“It is not necessary; it states [the more obvious case]”:

That is,

it is not necessary

[this is obvious] that a

borrowed

lulav is unfit, because

it is not his own,

and we expound: “for yourselves,” it shall be from your own.

But concerning a stolen [lulav], one might say

[I would have thought to say]:

an ordinary case of theft,

since the person robbed knows of his theft, for the robber took it from him by force, certainly

the owners’ despair has occurred, and

therefore

it is considered as his

of the robber

,

and he fulfills his obligation with it even on the first day, concerning which “for yourselves” was stated,

it teaches us

that an ordinary person who has been robbed does not despair of his stolen property, but still hopes to take it out of the robber’s possession in court, and the robber does not acquire it.

Rav Huna said to those peddlers

[who travel around the towns] who sold myrtles:

When you purchase myrtles from a non-Jew,

when you acquire myrtles from non-Jews in order to sell them for the purpose of the mitzva of lulav,

do not cut them yourselves

from the fields of the non-Jews,

but let them cut them

—that the non-Jews should cut them from the ground—

and give

[and hand them]

to you

[to you] when they are already detached.

What is the reason?

Because

ordinary non-Jews are land-robbers

from Jews,

they are,

and there is concern that perhaps this land in which the myrtles grow is held by them through robbery,