(37) When a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the sheep.— (1) If the thief is seized while tunneling, and he is beaten to death, there is no bloodguilt in his case. (2) If the sun has risen on him, there is bloodguilt in that case.—He must make restitution; if he lacks the means, he shall be sold for his theft. (3) But if what he stole—whether ox or ass or sheep—is found alive in his possession, he shall pay double. (4) When a man lets his livestock loose to graze in another’s land, and so allows a field or a vineyard to be grazed bare, he must make restitution for the impairment of that field or vineyard. (5) When a fire is started and spreads to thorns, so that stacked, standing, or growing grain is consumed, he who started the fire must make restitution. (6) When a man gives money or goods to another for safekeeping, and they are stolen from the man’s house—if the thief is caught, he shall pay double; (7) if the thief is not caught, the owner of the house shall depose before God that he has not laid hands on the other’s property. (8) In all charges of misappropriation—pertaining to an ox, an ass, a sheep, a garment, or any other loss, whereof one party alleges, “This is it”—the case of both parties shall come before God: he whom God declares guilty shall pay double to the other. (9) When a man gives to another an ass, an ox, a sheep or any other animal to guard, and it dies or is injured or is carried off, with no witness about, (10) an oath before the LORD shall decide between the two of them that the one has not laid hands on the property of the other; the owner must acquiesce, and no restitution shall be made. (11) But if [the animal] was stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner. (12) If it was torn by beasts, he shall bring it as evidence; he need not replace what has been torn by beasts.

(1) A lulav that was stolen or that is completely dry is unfit for use in fulfilling the mitzva of the four species. The lulav of a tree worshipped as idolatry [asheira] and a lulav from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry, which must be burned along with all the city’s property, are unfit. If the top of the lulav was severed or if the palm leaves were severed from the spine of the lulav, it is unfit. If its leaves, although still attached, were spread and are no longer completely joined to the spine, it is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: In that case, one should bind the lulav from the top, to join the leaves that spread to the spine. A lulav from the palms of the Iron Mountain are fit for use, although it differs from one taken from a standard palm tree, in that its leaves are shorter and do not cover the entire spine. A lulav that has three handbreadths in length, sufficient to enable one to wave with it, is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva.

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. 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.

Things That Invalidate The Four Species, 6 Seifim: 1. All of the four species are rendered invalid if they are obtained by theft or robbery, whether the owners have not yet given up hope of recovering or whether they have. However if one stole it and then established ownership of it by means other than doing the mitzvah, like one who stole a lulav and then improved it, it is valid, as he acquired it with this changing action. However, he should not bless on it. There is one who says that the object obtained by theft or robbery is only invalid for the thief or robber themselves, but is valid for others on days besides the first day.

If one of the four species were stolen or robbed, and also if there were pretty and praise-worthy: they are invalid for all seven days of the Holiday of Sukkot, because this is a mitzvah ha'bah b'aveira. And if the owner of the lulav had grieved for their lulav, and in addition to this the thief that gave or sold the stolen lulav to another person, since the lulav was not the thief's property, it is permitted for [the buyer/recipient] to use it for their mitzvah, but it is prohibited for them to recite the blessing upon it. And also if one were to transfer it on to their friend, and their friend to their friend, even to a thousand people, each time that a person knows that it was stolen, it is prohibited for it to be blessed upon, and the one who does bless upon [the lulav] is cursed.