## Sukkah Daf 30a

###### Sukkah 30a:1
[Sukkah 30a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/30a:1)

מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מִצְוָה הַבָּאָה בַּעֲבֵירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַהֲבֵאתֶם גָּזוּל וְאֶת הַפִּסֵּחַ וְאֶת הַחוֹלֶה״. גָּזוּל דּוּמְיָא דְּפִסֵּחַ, מָה פִּסֵּחַ לֵית לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא — אַף גָּזוּל לֵית לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא, לָא שְׁנָא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ וְלָא שְׁנָא לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Sukkah 30a:2
[Sukkah 30a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/30a:2)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ — ״אָדָם כִּי יַקְרִיב מִכֶּם״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלָאו דִּידֵיהּ הוּא. אֶלָּא לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ — הָא קַנְיֵיהּ בְּיֵאוּשׁ! אֶלָּא לָאו, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מִצְוָה הַבָּאָה בַּעֲבֵירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Granted, before** the **despair** of the owner, the robber may not sacrifice the animal because the animal does not belong to him. **The Merciful One says: “When a person sacrifices from yours** an offering” (Leviticus 1:2). The term “from yours” indicates that the animal must belong to the one sacrificing it, **and this** stolen animal **is not his. However, after** the **despair** of the owner, **didn’t** the robber **acquire** the animal **with** the **despair?** Once the owner despairs, the animal belongs to the robber, despite the fact that he incurs a debt that he must repay the owner. Since the animal is legally his, why is it prohibited for the robber to sacrifice it as an offering? **Rather, is it not because** the offering **is a mitzva that comes by means of a transgression?** Since the animal came into his possession by means of a transgression, it is unfit for use in fulfilling a mitzva.


###### Sukkah 30a:3
[Sukkah 30a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/30a:3)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי אֲנִי ה׳ אוֹהֵב מִשְׁפָּט שׂוֹנֵא גָזֵל בְּעוֹלָה״ — מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם שֶׁהָיָה עוֹבֵר עַל בֵּית הַמֶּכֶס, אָמַר לַעֲבָדָיו: תְּנוּ מֶכֶס לַמּוֹכְסִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא כׇּל הַמֶּכֶס כּוּלּוֹ שֶׁלְּךָ הוּא? אָמַר לָהֶם: מִמֶּנִּי יִלְמְדוּ כׇּל עוֹבְרֵי דְּרָכִים וְלֹא יַבְרִיחוּ עַצְמָן מִן הַמֶּכֶס. אַף הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אָמַר: ״אֲנִי ה׳ שׂוֹנֵא גָזֵל בְּעוֹלָה״, מִמֶּנִּי יִלְמְדוּ בָּנַי וְיַבְרִיחוּ עַצְמָן מִן הַגָּזֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: What is** the meaning of **that which is written: “For I the Lord love justice, I hate robbery in a burnt-offering”** (Isaiah 61:8)? The Gemara cites **a parable of a flesh-and-blood king who was passing by a customs house. He said to his servants: Pay the levy to the taxmen. They said to him: Doesn’t all the tax in its entirety belong to you?** If the taxes will ultimately reach the royal treasury, what is the point of paying the levy? **He said to them: From my** conduct, **all travelers will learn and will not evade** payment of **the tax. So too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: “I the Lord... hate robbery in a burnt-offering.”** Although the whole world is His and the acquisitions of man have no impact upon Him, God says: **From My** conduct, **My children will learn and distance themselves from robbery,** even from robbery unrelated to the needs of offerings.


###### Sukkah 30a:4
[Sukkah 30a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/30a:4)

אִתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: יָבֵשׁ פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין הָדָר, גָּזוּל פָּסוּל מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מִצְוָה הַבָּאָה בַּעֲבֵירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was also stated: Rabbi Ami said: A dry *lulav* is unfit because it** does **not** meet the criterion of **beauty, and a stolen** *lulav* **is unfit because it is a mitzva that comes by means of a transgression.**


###### Sukkah 30a:5
[Sukkah 30a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/30a:5)

וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ, אֶלָּא בְּיוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן, אֲבָל בְּיוֹם טוֹב שֵׁנִי, מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיּוֹצֵא בְּשָׁאוּל — יוֹצֵא נָמֵי בְּגָזוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** Rabbi Ami **disagrees with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzhak bar Naḥmani said** that **Shmuel said:** The Sages **taught** that the *halakha* that a stolen *lulav* is unfit applies **only with regard to the first day of the festival** of *Sukkot*. **However,** beginning **on the second day of the Festival,** there is no longer a Torah requirement to use a *lulav* from one’s own property. **Since one fulfills his obligation with a borrowed** *lulav*, **one fulfills** his obligation **with a stolen one as well.**


###### Sukkah 30a:6
[Sukkah 30a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/30a:6)

מֵתִיב רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לוּלָב הַגָּזוּל וְהַיָּבֵשׁ — פָּסוּל, הָא שָׁאוּל — כָּשֵׁר. אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא בְּיוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן, הָא כְּתִיב: ״לָכֶם״ — מִשֶּׁלָּכֶם, וְהַאי לָאו דִּידֵיהּ הוּא. אֶלָּא לָאו, בְּיוֹם טוֹב שֵׁנִי, וְקָתָנֵי גָּזוּל — פָּסוּל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Naḥman bar Yitzḥak raises an objection** from the mishna: **A *lulav* that was stolen or that is** completely **dry** is **unfit.** By inference, one concludes **that a borrowed** *lulav* **is fit** for use. The Gemara asks: **When** does this *halakha* apply? **If you say** that it applies only on **the first day of the Festival, isn’t it written:** “And you shall take **for yourselves** on the first day,” indicating that the four species must be taken **from your own** property, **and this** borrowed *lulav* **is not his?** Clearly, the mishna is not referring to the first day. **Rather, is it not** that the mishna is referring to **the second day of the Festival, and** the mishna **teaches that a stolen** *lulav* **is unfit** on this day too, contrary to Shmuel’s opinion?


###### Sukkah 30a:7
[Sukkah 30a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/30a:7)

(רָבָא אָמַר:) לְעוֹלָם בְּיוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן, וְלָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא שָׁאוּל דְּלָאו דִּידֵיהּ הוּא, אֲבָל גָּזוּל, אֵימָא: סְתַם גְּזֵילָה יֵאוּשׁ בְּעָלִים הוּא, וּכְדִידֵיהּ דָּמֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Actually,** the mishna can be explained as referring to **the first day of the Festival,** and the *tanna* **is stating** the *halakha* employing the didactic style: **It was not necessary. It was not necessary** to state that one does not fulfill his obligation with **a borrowed *lulav*, as it is not his. However,** with regard to **a stolen** *lulav*, **say:** Barring extraordinary circumstances, **standard robbery** is a case that leads to **despair of the owners, and** despite the fact that a stolen *lulav* was acquired by means of a transgression, its legal status **is like** the robber’s own property. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that this is not so. One does not fulfill his obligation with a stolen *lulav*. The mishna is not a refutation of Shmuel’s opinion.


###### Sukkah 30a:8
[Sukkah 30a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/30a:8)

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב הוּנָא לְהָנְהוּ אֲוַונְכָּרֵי: כִּי זָבְנִיתוּ אָסָא מִגּוֹיִם — לָא תִּגְזְזוּ אַתּוּן, אֶלָּא לִגְזְזוּהּ אִינְהוּ וְיָהֲבוּ לְכוּ. מַאי טַעְמָא — סְתָם גּוֹיִם גַּזְלָנֵי אַרְעָתָא נִינְהוּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos the unfitness of four species acquired through robbery, the Gemara relates: **Rav Huna said to the merchants [*avankarei*]** selling the four species: **When you purchase myrtle** branches **from gentiles, don’t you cut** them off the tree? **Rather, let the gentiles cut them and give them to you. What is the reason** for this advice? It is because **typical gentiles are land robbers,**