Sukkah 30b — the Talmud in English

And

behold,

land cannot be robbed.

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

Therefore, since everything attached to land is considered land, the myrtles are not considered robbed until they are detached. It follows that the one who detaches them is the robber. Therefore, it is preferable that the gentiles detach the myrtles from the land, so that they will be the robbers, and immediately at the moment they are detached the owners’ despair will take effect. [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 an object that is in his possession

And Rav Huna reasoned that although through despair alone the robber does not acquire the object, 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.

And Rashi adds that even if despair alone acquires the object, if they themselves cut the myrtles, since they are found to be the robbers, this is a mitzva that comes through a transgression. Therefore, there must also be a change of possession after the robbery.

Accordingly, 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 advice in order that there should be a change of possession after the despair? After all,

in the end,

even

if the avunkarei cut

the

myrtles

themselves, since they sell them to other people,

the owners’ despair will be in their possession

at the time the myrtles are detached from the land,

and

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

a change of possession in their hands

in our hands, and it follows 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 them before they came into his possession, and this is not a mitzva that comes through a transgression?!

The Gemara answers: Indeed,

it is not necessary

for Rav Huna’s matter; rather, it is

with the hoshana of the avunkarei

themselves.

That is, with those myrtles that they purchase for their own use, to fulfill with them the mitzva of taking the lulav. For if they themselves detach the myrtles, they are found to be robbed in their possession. Therefore, those myrtles must be cut from the land by the gentiles, so that the owners’ despair will be in the gentile’s 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 is robbed, the myrtles are acquired through despair and a change of possession?

Let them acquire them

those myrtles

through a change in the object,

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

The Gemara answers:

He holds

Rav Huna

that the lulav does not require binding.

That is, according to the essential law, it is not necessary to bind the lulav; rather, this is done merely for adornment, on account of “This is my God and I will glorify Him.” Therefore, even if one binds it, this is not considered a change in the object.

And

also

if you should say,

that even according to Rav Huna

the lulav requires binding,

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

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

for if he unties its binding, they are as they were at first,

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

The Gemara asks:

And

still, why were despair and a change of possession required?

Let them acquire it through a change of name!

For

behold,

at first,

before the myrtle was bound with the other species,

it was

called

“it”

the myrtle

“asa,” and now

after it was bound with the other species it is called

“hoshana”?!