Sukkah, Daf Lamed Gimmel, Part 4
Introduction
The mishnah stated that if he reduced the numbers of the berries, the hadas is valid. The question is when did he reduce them? Before or on the festival? This sugya, as well as the following one, again discusses the issue of "set aside."
אם מיעטן כשר. דמעטינהו אימת? אילימא מקמיה דלאגדיה – פשיטא! אלא לבתר דלאגדיה – דחוי מעיקרא הוא! תפשוט מינה דחוי מעיקרא לא הוי דחוי!
לעולם בתר דאגדיה, וקסבר: אגד הזמנה בעלמא הוא, והזמנה בעלמא לאו כלום הוא.
If he reduced their number, it is valid.
When did he reduce them? If you say, before he bound them, this is obvious? Rather after he bound them? This then is a case of "set aside" from the very outset! Deduce from here that if something is "set aside" from the outset it is not [permanently] "set aside"?
Indeed it refers to a case where [he reduced them] after he bound them, but he holds that the binding is merely a designation, and a mere designation is of no consequence.
The question is when did he reduce the number of berries on the hadas? If he did so before he bound the hadas together with the lulav and the aravah then it is obviously not disqualified. Why should it be?
Therefore, it must be a case where he first bound the disqualified hadas with the other two species and then reduced the number of berries. Such a lulav (the three species together) was "set aside" at the outset but then became valid. So why not use this mishnah as proof for the general principle that just because something is "set aside" at the outset it doesn’t mean it is permanently "set aside"?
The answer is that binding the three species together is not of significance. It’s just a designation. The lulav doesn’t really come into fruition at that point such that it could even be considered "set aside." Therefore, we can’t derive any general principles with regard to "set aside" from this mishnah.