It's Raining in My Sukkah, Someone Stole My Lulav: Sukkot Problem Solving and Jewish Values

(9)All seven days of Sukkot, a person renders his sukka his permanent residence and his house his temporary residence. If rain fell, from when is it permitted to vacate the sukka? It is permitted from the point that it is raining so hard that the congealed dish will spoil. The Sages told a parable: To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a servant who comes to pour wine for his master, and he pours a jug [kiton] of water in his face to show him that his presence is not desired. So too, in the sukka, rain is an indication that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not want the person to fulfill the mitzva of sukka.

§ The mishna continues: He, Rabbi Yehoshua, would say: A foolish man of piety, and a conniving wicked person, and an abstinent woman, and those who injure themselves out of false abstinence; all these are people who erode the world. The Gemara asks: Who is considered a foolish man of piety? For example, it is one who sees that a woman is drowning in a river, and he says: It is not proper conduct to look at her while she is undressed and save her.

The Sages taught: All mitzvot practiced by a mourner are likewise practiced on the Ninth of Av: It is prohibited to engage in eating, and in drinking, and in smearing oil on one’s body, and in wearing shoes, and in conjugal relations. It is prohibited to read from the Torah, from the Prophets, and from the Writings, or to study from the Mishna, from the Gemara, and from midrash, and from collections of halakhot, and from collections of aggadot.However, one may read from a place in the Bible that he is unaccustomed to reading, as it will be difficult for him and he will not derive pleasure from it, and he may likewise study from a place of the Talmud that he is unaccustomed to studying. And one may read from the book of Lamentations; from the book of Job; and from the evil matters in Jeremiah, i.e., his prophecies of doom. And schoolchildren interrupt their studies for the day because it is stated: “The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart” (Psalms 19:9).Rabbi Yehuda says: One may not even read from a place in the Bible that he is unaccustomed to reading, nor may one study from a place of the Talmud that he is unaccustomed to studying. However, one may read from Job, and from Lamentations, and from the evil matters of Jeremiah. And schoolchildren interrupt their studies on that day because it is stated: “The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart” (Psalms 19:9).

§ The Sages taught: With regard to a stolen sukka and with regard to one who roofs a sukkain the public domain, which is tantamount to robbing land from the public, Rabbi Eliezer deems these sukkotunfit for use in fulfillment of the mitzva, and the Rabbis deem them fit.

(3) 3. A stolen sukkah is valid. How? If one overpowered his friend, left his (own) sukkah and stole it and then dwelt in it, he has fulfilled his obligation, since land can never be stolen.

The Gemara asks: Granted, a drylulav is unfit both on the first day and subsequently. It is unfit for use because the term hadar is used with regard to the four species, from which it is derived that we require beauty. And since in a dry lulavthere is not beauty, it is unfit. However, with regard to a stolenlulav, granted, on the first day of the Festival it is unfit, as it is written: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day” (Leviticus 23:40), indicating that the four species must be taken from your own property. However, beginning on the second day of the Festival, why does one not fulfill his obligation with a stolen lulav?Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai:

It is unfit because it is a mitzva that comes to be fulfilled by means of a transgression, which renders the mitzva unfulfilled, as it is stated: “And you have brought that which was stolen and the lame, and the sick; that is how you bring the offering; should I accept this of your hand? says the Lord” (Malachi 1:13). Based on the juxtaposition in the verse, it is derived that the legal status of a stolen animal is equivalent to that of a lame animal. Just as a lame animal, because it is blemished, has no remedy and is unfit for use, so too, a stolen animal has no remedy. There is no difference before the owners reach a state of despair of recovering the stolen animal, and there is no difference after despair. In both cases there is no remedy.