You are right – in the Sukkah and the Lulav

In the book of Sukkah 27:2, it is explained that the Rabbi learns from the commandment, "You shall make the Feast of Sukkot for yourself," that a person may not go out to the tent of his friend, as if he were to plant a lulav tree, which would be his own, from the commandment, "And you shall take it for yourselves," and "You shall take it from yourselves."
And it is explained in the G.M. that the Sages admit that they require "do it for you" except that a person does not go out in a stolen sukkah, but they believe that it is permissible to go out in a borrowed sukkah, since it states, "All the citizens of Israel shall sit in a sukkah," meaning that all of Israel goes out in one sukkah.
And I had a hard time with my answer. 1- In the opinion of the Reverend Father – and is it permissible that the son does not go out on a Sunday in his father's tent? And he insists on saying that because of jealousy for each person, they cannot perform Kiddush and eat a kazeit together, at the same time.
2- In the opinion of the Sages, it is difficult to pronounce the words of the Lord Almighty in the reading: All citizens of Israel sit in Sukkots that are issued in a borrowed Sukkah, and this is not a disadvantage in that it is written "to you." So why is it not written in the second verse of the verse in the Lull of his friend, and there is no disadvantage here because of "to you." Is it a Sukkah that is used by the owner of the Sukkah, and does it mean "to you"/"to you"?
I add another difficulty that I encountered in the law of a borrowed sukkah that may be explained together with the same matter, and it is what is explained later in the tractate on page 31 that according to the method of the Sages, if a person lives in a borrowed sukkah, then the one who took the sukkah also becomes a slave because the land is not stolen (the sukkah is judged as land according to Rashi's commentary "such as one who attacks his friend with force and removes him from his sukkah built on the land of the stolen one, and everything attached to the land is considered land") "and it is a borrowed sukkah." And I did not understand at all that it is certain that since it is not stolen, it is forbidden for a person to take control of his friend's land even if it is said that the land is not stolen because his uses contradict his friend's ownership of the land. And so it is clear that land is not stolen, that is, with regard to the body of land, since it is said that a thief does not have the right to steal land (and a thief who does not buy in desperation and change), but it is certain that the uses he makes of the land against the owner are uses that are not his right and are "stolen uses," and so why do the Sages say 18:23?