A stolen Sukkah:[1]
Ideally, one cannot fulfill his obligation with a stolen Sukkah.[2] However, this only refers to a specific type of stealing in which the items stolen Halachically enter the possession of the thief and is hence invalid for Sukkah being that he has taken full possession of the stolen Sukkah, and the Torah requires the Sukkah to not be one’s personal stolen property. However, there are forms of stealing in which the item stolen does not Halachically enter the possession of the thief, and hence it does not invalidate the Sukkah Bedieved, [even though he transgresses the stealing prohibition and is initially invalid due to it not being really his[3]].[4] The following are the details of this matter.
One who seized another’s property which contains a Sukkah:[5] If a Jew built his Sukkah [in his property], and then his friend came along and forcibly removed him from his Sukkah and stole it and dwelled in it, he nevertheless Bedieved[6] fulfills his obligation.[7] However, although he fulfills his obligation, nevertheless he may not say a blessing [i.e. lesheiv basukkah] over it.[8]
Stole wood or other parts and built a Sukkah from it:[9] If one stole wood and used it as Sechach [or as one of the obligatory walls[10]] for his Sukkah, the Sukkah is invalid unless he pays the owner for the cost of the wood, in which case he may even initially dwell in this Sukkah. The Sages established that he is not required to destroy his Sukkah and give the actual wood back to the original owner even if the owner demands it back and does not desire the money in return. This applies even if the Sechach is simply resting on the Sukkah and has not been attached or changed in its form in any way, and thus technically remains in the possession of the original owner, nevertheless the Sages established that giving him money suffices. However, if the robber refuses to even pay for the cost of the wood[11], then he does not fulfill his obligation with this Sukkah [even if he plans to return the wood after the holiday[12]], being that it is a stolen Sukkah. [The same applies that he may use any stolen parts for the Sukkah, including nails and beams to hold up the Sechach, and thus one may not make use of these items without asking explicit permission from the owner.[13]]
Stole a mobile Sukkah:[14] If one stole a mobile Sukkah which is not attached to the ground, such as a Sukkah which is built on a wagon [car] or ship, he does not fulfill his obligation with it even if he desires to pay its worth to the original owner.
[1] See Admur 637:4-12; Piskeiy Teshuvos 637:4-5
[2] The reason: As the Torah states [Devarim 16:13] “Chag Hasukkos you shall make for yourselves” which means that one must own the Sukkah hence excluding a stolen Sukkah. [Admur ibid] See Minchas Chinuch 325; Piskeiy Teshuvos 637:5
[3] See Admur 637:11 that a stolen Sukkah property is initially invalid being that it does not belong to him.
[4] Admur 637:4
[5] Admur 637:4; Michaber 637:3; Rav Nachman Sukkah 31a
If a Jew built a Sukkah in someone else’s property without permission, and the owner of the land then kicked him out of the Sukkah and dwelled in it: The owner of the land does not fulfill his obligation as it is considered stolen in his hands, and is considered like his property being that it is truly resting within his property. [Admur 637:7; Rama 637:3; Tosafos Sukkah 31a]
If a Jew built a Sukkah in someone else’s property with permission, and the owner of the land then kicked him out of the Sukkah and dwelled in it: The owner of the land fulfills his obligation as it is considered stolen land, and is not considered like his property, being that it is not resting in his property but rather in the property that was lent to his friend. [Admur 637:8; M”A 637:7]
Cutting Sechach from gentile owned land: When cutting Sechach from a gentile owned land with permission of the owner, he should have the gentile owner cut it for him, or have another Jew cut it for him. [Admur 637:12; Rama 637:3; See Admur 649:8]
[6] However, initially he may not do so [as aside for the stealing prohibition] as the Sukkah is not considered actually his, and the Torah stated “Taaseh Lecha,” that it should be yours. It is not similar to a borrowed Sukkah which was lent to him with his permission and is considered like it is actually his. [Admur 637:11]
[7] The reason: As ground is not able to be stolen. This means that the Halachic definition of possessing a stolen object does not apply to land as it does to moveable objects. As stolen moveable objects are considered within the status and property of the robber for all purposes. Thus, if the moveable object increased in price, this increase is considered to belong to the robber. However, by land, an increase in price of the land belongs to the original owner and not to the robber, being that the land remains in the original owner’s property and is merely considered borrowed in the hands of the robber. The same applies for all matters attached to the ground, that they have the same status as ground of which the robber does not acquire them, and it is rather considered borrowed in his hands. Accordingly, the Sukkah which is attached to the land is not acquired to the robber and is rather considered like borrowed in his hands, and he therefore fulfills his obligation with it just as he fulfills his obligation with a borrowed Sukkah. [Admur ibid; See Admur 649:8; Hilchos Gezeila 11; Michaber C.M. 371:1; Chachamim in Bava Kama 117b]
[8] Admur 637:11
The reason: The reason for this is because since the Sukkah is stolen it is not considered like one is saying a blessing but like one is blaspheming Hashem. [Admur ibid]
[9] Admur 637:5; Michaber 637:3; Sukkah 31a; M”B 637:16
[10] Biur Halacha 637 “Veim”; See Sukkas Shaleim end of 15 and Piskeiy Teshuvos 637 footnote 12
[11] See Shaar Hatziyon 637:22 that if he plans to pay but simply pushes him off from day to day, then he is Yotzei
[12] Biur Halacha 637 “Veim”
[13] See Igros Moshe 1:85; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid
[14] Admur 637:6; Michaber 637:3; Rashi Sukkah 31a