Leyma K'tanai - continued

Last night:

We discussed the expression מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי - and noted that it always introduces a proposed explanation of a machloket between the Tannaim.  It is phrased in the form of a rhetorical question - and its intent is:

"Surely, this principle is at the root of their disagreement."   The principle in question will be the principle appearing immediately before this unit in the Gemara.  In our sugyah, the principle in question in the Gemara is יש דיחוי למצוות או איו דיחוי למצוות.  The Gemara wants to suggest that the machloket between R. Elazar and Chachamim is over this principle: R. Elazar hold יש דיחוי and therefore invalidates the hadas, whereas Chachamim say אין דיחוי and therefore says that the Hadas is kosher.  Note, as we did last night, that the Gemara is not connecting the transgression of removing the berries on Yom Tov to the eventual status of the Hadas as pasul.  This makes sense, since the removal of the berries is a mere rabbinic prohibition and the issue at stake is the kashrut - mid'oraita (from the Torah) of the hadas.

From my experience, the Gemara will always ultimately reject the explanation proposed in a מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי format.  This is what happens in our Gemara.

We then went back to the unit we colored in - in green - and explained:

סברוה - meant the view of the rabbis of the Beit Midrash.  Which rabbis? Rashi: The ones who wish to propose (soon) that the machloket is based on אין.יש דיחי ...........

What did they propose?

דכו"ע - that everyone - "kulay almah" - ie both views in the baraita - hold that Lulav does not need to be bound...

Of what relevance is that here?

Rashi explains: If a Lulav would need to be bound, then there is an act of עשיה - making - the Lulav bundle.  The mitzvah of Lulav would then be subject to the principle of תעשה- ולא מן העשוי.  This principle states that regarding mitzvot that have a mitzvah of "making" - like Succah, Tzizit etc - you must "make" the mitzvah in a certain order, and not have the mitzvah result from an "after the fact" action. The example we gave was of cutting a fourth corner to a garment after the four sets of tzizit had been affixed. Such tzizit would be pasul and would have to be re-tied on the newly-formed four cornered garment.  Therefore, here, if there was a mitzvah of עשיה, one could propose that R. Elazar's psak of "pasul" stemmed (pardon the pun!) from the removal of the berries AFTER the hadas was bound with the other species.

The Gemara is saying that there is no mitzvah of eged by a lulav, and therefore this cannot be the basis of R. Elazar's din of "pasul".

This makes way for an explanation of יש דיחוי למצות to explain R. Elazar....