(R. Eliezer): A stolen Sukah and one made in Reshus ha'Rabim are Pesulim.

(Chachamim): They are Kesheirim.

(R. Nachman): Their dispute (in a case where Reuven forced Shimon out of his Sukah) is over whether a person may be Yotzei with another person's Sukah (Chachamim) or not (R. Eliezer).

The position of R. Eliezer.

If land can be stolen, then this is a stolen Sukah (which R. Eliezer on 27b has taught is not Kesheirah).

If land cannot be stolen then this is as borrowed, and, again, is Pesulah.

The position of Chachamim.

Land cannot be stolen, so this Sukah is still the property of its original owner.

One may be Yotzei with a borrowed Sukah.

If wood was stolen and used for Sechach, the thief must pay for the wood (we do not obligate the thief to return the wood itself and the Sukah is Kesheirah).

Question: What is the source for permitting the Sukah with stolen Sechach?

Answer: Because the Mishnah listed the stolen Sukah together with one built in Reshus ha'Rabim, to prohibit a Sukah which is not on his property (but stolen wood, where the property is his, does not impede his being Yotzei).

In the reported incident, R. Nachman insisted (over her intense cries) that the woman was entitled only to the cost of the stolen Sechach, and not to the Sechach itself (and the Sukah is Kesheirah).

(Ravina) The protection given to a thief in order to encourage him to repent is extended to the beam of a Sukah.

Question: Surely allowing him to leave the beam in place is not more newsworthy than the Sechach which R. Nachman just permitted!?

Answer: We might not have made the extension from Sechach (which is readily available) to a beam (which is hard to find, and we might have obligated the thief to dismantle his Sukah to return it).

After Sukos, the thief must return the beam, since this temporary structure does not engender great expense in being dismantled.

If, however, he cemented the beam into the ground then, again, he is obligated in its value, not in the beam.

(Tana Kama): A dried out Lulav is Pasul.

(R. Yehudah): It is Kosher.

(Rava): While they argue whether a Lulav needs Hadar as does an Esrog, they agree that an Esrog must be Hadar.

Question: But we see in the Mishnah, where R. Yehudah requires that he tie the loose ends of the Lulav leaves together that he does demand Hadar for an Esrog!?

Answer: The reason for that requirement is to create a singular leaf, as alluded to in the Pasuk.

Question: But we find that R. Yehudah requires that the Minim be bound together with its own species, surely for the sake of Hadar!?

Answer: Its own species is not required (as taught by Rava) but R. Yehudah's requirement stems from the obligation to bind the Lulav, thus making the binding a potential fifth species.

Question: We see that R. Yehudah does not require the Esrog to be Hadar!?

While he does not allow fewer nor more species other than the four specified, and no other substitute fruits in the event that no Esrog is available;

Somewhat dried (Kemushin) Minim are Kosher, but dried out ones are not.

R. Yehudah allows one which is dried out (not Hadar) in that case, and cites an incident to support his ruling (where fathers passed their Lulavim on to their sons).

His proof is rejected since we cannot bring a proof from times of need.

Question: But he said that a dried Esrog is Kosher!?

Answer: He was referring to a dried Lulav (as indicated by the cited incident which spoke of a Lulav).

Question: Surely it is obvious that one may not add to the Minim (Bal Tosif)!?

Answer: We might have permitted another Min which was not bound together with the other three, given that the binding is obligatory, this other Min might be viewed as entirely separate.

Question: Is it not obvious that he may not substitute other fruits for the Esrog!?

Answer: We might have permitted its inclusion so that the concept of Esrog would not be forgotten (but we forbid this due to our concern that the proper law might then become forgotten).

Question (on Rava who asserts that R. Yehudah requires an Esrog to be Hadar): But we see in the Beraisa that R. Yehudah permits an old Esrog!?

Answer: This indeed refutes Rava.

Question: But we see that R. Yehudah forbids an intensely green Esrog, surely because it is not Hadar!?

Answer: It is unfinished in its unripe state, and hence not fit for use (not due to Hadar).

Question: But we see that R. Yehudah requires that it be KeBEtzah in size, surely for Hadar!?

Answer: It is, again, invalid owing to its unfinished state.

Question: But we see that R. Yehudah restricts the size of a large Esrog (to half the size of a person's capacity to hold), surely because the smaller one is more Hadar!?

Answer: The large one is invalid because of the logistics involved in handling the Lulav and Esrog (and safely switching hands with them) not due to Hadar.

Question: Then why, according to R. Yehudah, does the Pasuk use the word Hadar when speaking of the Esrog!?

Answer: It refers to a fruit which resides (haDar) on the tree from year to year (an ability of an Esrog).

Question: But Rava allows (b'Di'eved) a Lulav from Avodah Zara!?

Answer: The Mishnah is speaking of a tree which must be burned, which reduces its size, Halachically, to zero (as indicated by the juxtaposition of Asheirah in the Mishnah to the case of the Ir ha'Nidachas, which we know must be destroyed).