Sukkah, Daf Lamed, Part 4
Introduction
Today’s section introduces a dispute over the issue we have been discussing can one use a stolen lulav after the first day of the festival.
אתמר נמי, אמר רבי אמי: יבש פסול מפני שאין הדר, גזול פסול משום דהוה ליה מצוה הבאה בעבירה.
It was also stated: R. Ammi said, a dried up [lulav] is invalid because it is not "goodly," a stolen one is invalid because it is a commandment fulfilled through a transgression.
R. Ammi, an amora, agrees with the opinions we saw in the previous sections. He explains that a dried up lulav is invalid for use because it is not "goodly" הדר. A stolen lulav cannot be used because that constitutes a commandment fulfilled by means of a transgression.
ופליגא דרבי יצחק. דאמר רבי יצחק בר נחמני אמר שמואל: לא שנו אלא ביום טוב ראשון, אבל ביום טוב שני, מתוך שיוצא בשאול – יוצא נמי בגזול.
And this disagrees with R. Yitzchak, since R. Yitzchak b. Nahmani said in the name of Shmuel: this was taught only with regard to the first day of the festival, but on the second day, since one fulfils His obligation with a borrowed [lulvav] he fulfils it also with a stolen one.
For the first time we hear a rabbi who limits the mishnah to the first day. Only on the first day of the festival is a stolen lulav disqualified. On subsequent days, since one can use a borrowed lulav (everyone agrees with this) one can also use a stolen lulav. To R. Yitzchak and Shmuel the problem with a stolen lulav is that it doesn’t belong to the one using it. But once that requirement is waived (pun intended), meaning from the second day and onwards, even a stolen lulav can be used. They do not believe in the concept of a "commandment performed through a transgression."