Sukkah 30b (ל:) — the Talmud in English

And

behold,

land cannot be acquired through robbery.

That is, it is never acquired by the robber, and even after the owners’ despair of recovering it, it remains under the presumptive ownership of its original owners. [This halakha is derived from the principle of “particular, general, and particular,” as explained in tractate Bava Kamma 117b].

Therefore, since everything attached to the land is considered land, the myrtles are not considered stolen until they are detached. It follows that the one who detaches them is the robber. It is therefore preferable that gentiles detach the myrtles from the ground, so that they will be the robbers, and at the very moment they are detached, the owners will despair of recovering them. [For as long as they have not been detached, the owners’ despair is ineffective, since the myrtles were in their possession, and a person cannot despair of recovering an object that is in his possession].

Rav Huna reasoned that although the robber does not acquire the object through despair alone, if after the despair there is also a change of possession—for example, if the robber sells the object to another person—the purchaser acquires the object. [

Rashi adds that even if despair alone effects acquisition, if they themselves cut the myrtles, since they are thereby found to be the robbers, it would be a mitzva performed through a transgression. Therefore, there must also be a change of possession after the robbery ].

Therefore, let them cut them,

the gentiles, and consequently they will be the robbers,

so that the owners’ despair will be in their possession, and

when you take them from them, there will be

a change of possession in your possession.

The Gemara asks: Why did Rav Huna need this strategy in order for there to be a change of possession after the despair? After all,

ultimately,

even

if the

the

Avunkarei

themselves cut them, since they sell them to other people,

the owners’ despair would be in their possession

at the moment the myrtles are detached from the ground,

and

afterward, when we purchase them from them, there would be

a change of possession in their hands

in our hands. It would follow that one who purchases myrtles from those merchants fulfills his obligation with them, since he did not rob them, and their owners had already despaired of recovering them before they came into his possession; thus this would not be a mitzva performed through a transgression?!

The Gemara answers: Indeed,

it is not necessary

for Rav Huna’s matter, but rather

with regard to the hoshanot of the Avunkarei

themselves.

That is, with regard to those myrtles that they purchase for their own use, in order to fulfill the mitzva of taking the lulav: If they themselves detach the myrtles, they would be found to have them in their possession as stolen property. Therefore, those myrtles must be cut from the ground by gentiles, so that the owners’ despair will be in the gentiles’ possession and the change of possession will be in their possession.

The Gemara asks: Why did the Gemara need to explain that even though the land itself was stolen, the myrtles are acquired through despair and a change of possession?

Let them acquire them

those myrtles

through a change effected in the object,

by binding the three species together, for a change effected in the object effects acquisition even without despair?!

The Gemara answers:

He holds

Rav Huna

that a lulav does not require binding.

That is, as a matter of fundamental law, it is not necessary to bind the lulav; rather, this is done merely for beautification, because of “This is my God and I will glorify Him.” Therefore, even if it was bound, this is not considered a change effected in the object.

And

even

if you should say

that according to Rav Huna as well,

a lulav requires binding,

the binding is not considered a “change effected in the object,” because

it is a change that can revert to its original state,

for if he unties the binding, they will be as they were at first,

and a change that can revert to its original state is not called a change.

The Gemara asks:

And

still, why was despair and a change of possession necessary?

Let them acquire it through a change of name!

For

behold,

originally,

before the myrtle was bound with the other species,

it was

called

“asa”

the myrtle,

and now,

once it has been bound with the other species it

is called “hoshana”?!