Deberrying the Hadas - Revisited

On Sunday evening, we reviewed the sugyahs we covered to date, and began with the first new sugyah on לג:The Gemara is dealing with the din in the mishna that says if one removed the extra berries from the Hadas, it is kosher.  It asks the question, אימת - when were the berries removed?


Possibility #1: Prior to binding the hadas into the lulav packet. 
Rejection: This cannot be the meaning of the mishna, since there would be no "chidush" in such a din.  Why? Neither psul that we have raised so far is applicable: there is no problem of תעשה ולא מן העשוי since, in such a situation, the hadas would have been bound after the berries were removed; moreover, there is no problem of דיחוי - even if one were to theoretically entertain the possibility of יש דיחוי למצוות - since it was not yet given the halachic label of (part of the) lulav while overberried.  Therefore, we would not be able to say that it was נדחה as a mitzvah hadas at any point in time.



Possibility #2: It must be after the hadas was bound into the lulav packet


What "chidush" is being conveyed by the mishna if this is true?
Rashi:

אלא בתר דאגדיה - ואשמעינן האי תנא דלולב מסוכה לא ילפינן למיפסליה משום מן העשוי בפסול

Rather, the Tanna is teaching us that we do not learn lulav from Succah – to invalidate it based on the problem of  ta'aseh v'loh min ha'asui...

We noted at the end of the shiur that in order for the Tanna to be teaching us this, the Gemara is working with the premise that lulav DOES need an eged.  Why? We explained in our previous sugyah that an analysis of ta'aseh v'loh min ha'asui re: hadas, lulav, etc, first has to propose a concept of "eged" - of a component that could be potentially labeled as a "ma'aseh" - to be subject to the psul of ta'aseh; if there was no physical action involved in preparing the mitzvah, the invalidation of the mitzvah item based on ta'seh does not even start!

At the end of the shiur, I encouraged you to analyze the rest of that Rashi.  What other principle does the Tanna seem to be teaching us?


Continue with that Rashi, (Sunday's post) - and return to the Gemara to see the conclusion spelled out explicitly by the Gemara.

Q: Does these two conclusions make us Talmudically "happy" or "sad"? Why?