Q. Is the following analysis correct?

Can we really say that any member of a shul actually ’owns’ the Tallit? Membership does not mean ownership, but rather access to the facilities of the shul. For example, one cannot say that they ’own’ a siddur just because they paid membership dues, unless they personally donated it, and even then it becomes property of the shul and not the member.

If the shul was sold, God forbid, the members would not receive payment individually.

The shul gives members more benefits than non-members, but that does not imply ’ownership’. Likewise with the Tallit, the shul permits members and actually non-members equal use (as a borrowed item). The same is true of a Sefer, perhaps a member would be allowed to borrow it, but if they wanted to ’own’ it, they would have to purchase it from the shul.

All that being said, does the shul have a policy of actually ’giving’ the Tallit to the member, or even non-member with the intent of reclaiming ’ownership’ after its use?
Do both parties understand this? I doubt it.

A similar situation exists with the Lulav and Etrog, although there the shul and knowledgeable participants understand the Halacha. A person who does not understand the Halacha would actually be making a ’Bracha l’Vatala’, and not fulfilling the Mitzva if he thought he was just borrowing the Lulav.

I don’t think the intention of either the shul or the person wearing the Tallit belonging to the shul is to acquire ’ownership’. Therefore, I think it would be incorrect to make a Bracha when putting it on, unless it is fully understood and stated that taking the Tallit constitutes an actual transfer of status of the Tallit.
Is the above correct?

A. The Shulcha Aruch, (O.C. 658,9) explains the tradition of an entire community of purchasing Arva Minim together. Mishna Berura (ibid. 38-42), says that the above applies, even if some members are totally ignorant of the proceedings and their meaning. However, he adds, it is preferable to buy you own set when possible.

Horav Shlomo Miller’s opinion is that when someone borrows a Talis, or a Lulav and Esrog that belongs to the Shul, with the intention to comply with the required Mitzva, even if he is totally unfamiliar with it’s Halachik requirements of ownership, or he is likewise uninformed of the ways and means of achieving necessary possession trough a Kinyan, he will still fulfill this Mitzva. The reason is that he has the intention of fulfilling the Mitzva by whatever means are necessary, and since that involves a Kinyan, it will take effect even without his specific intention of doing so, and therefore complies with the Mitzva.

Rabbi A. Bartfeld as advised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a