“But you could have corrected me on the mistake that matza does not need to be “lachem” (yours) as a lulov. THAT is incorrect (Rosh Kiddushin 54b siman 18) holds you are not yotzeh with stolen matzah because it still belongs to owner, so it isn’t yours – lachem.”
Exactly. It’s not because of mitzvah habaah b’aveirah. You’ve gone through a lot of research over something sparked by a misunderstanding. I was talking about the use of “mitzvah habaah b’aveirah” in this context. Look in siman 649 with regards to stolen lulavim. You’re yotzi b’dieved on chol hamoed with no brachah because there’s no din of “lachem.” If you’re curious, you can take a look at that same siman in the S”A Harav; it reads quite differently in that regard. I’m not insulting his psak, just disputing that we hold universally by mitzvah habaah b’aveirah = pasul.
You saw that M”B explained the matzah’s din has to do with a gezeirah shavah to challah that requires it to be your’s? You saw the Be’er Heiteiv bring down the opinion that you’re yotzi with matzah that was carried out on Shabbos? It’s not because of mitzvah habaah b’aveirah.
P.S. my comment was meant more as banter. But, the fact that I seemed to actually deeply trolled you actually makes me really happy given your performance on the CR lately.