Sukkah, Daf Lamed, Part 6

 

Introduction

Today’s section consists of a story related to the prohibition of using a stolen hadas (myrtle) as part of the four species.

 

אמר להו רב הונא להנהו אוונכרי: כי זבניתו אסא מנכרי לא תגזזו אתון אלא לגזזוה אינהו ויהבו לכו. מאי טעמא – סתם נכרים גזלני ארעתא נינהו, וקרקע אינה נגזלת. הלכך, לגזזוה אינהו, כי היכי דליהוו יאוש בעלים בידייהו דידהו, ושינוי הרשות בידייכו.

 

R. Huna said to some merchants, when you purchase myrtles from non-Jews, do not cut them yourselves, but let them cut them and give them to you.

What is the reason? In general non-Jews are land-robbers and land cannot be acquired through robbery. Therefore let them cut it down, so that abandonment [of hope of recovery] by the owner will occur while it is in their possession, and change of domain in your hands.

 

R. Huna is offering halakhic instructions to Jewish merchants who are buying myrtles from non-Jews to sell to Jews for Sukkot. He wants to avoid the possibility that these myrtles would halakhically be considered stolen. The problem is that we can assume that the non-Jew has stolen the land, perhaps by government repossession which seems to have been a common Jewish fear during the period. Land cannot be acquired when it is stolen. This means that technically it still belongs to the owners. So, R. Huna instructs the merchants to tell the non-Jews to cut the myrtles down themselves. This will effect immediate assumption of abandonment on the part of the owners. But this is not enough to effect a transaction. However, change of domain aids in allowing the technical transfer of ownership. So the change of domain will occur when the merchant acquires it. When the Jew then uses it, it will be his own. It will no longer be a stolen lulav.

 

סוף סוף, כי גזזו אוונכרי – ליהוי יאוש בעלים בידייהו, ושינוי הרשות בידן!

לא צריכא, בהושענא דאוונכרי גופייהו.

 

But in any case, even when the traders cut the myrtles, let abandonment [of right] by the owner take place when they are in their hands, and change of domain when they are in our hands?
It was only necessary [for R. Huna to say this] with regard to the hoshanna of the traders themselves.

 

The Talmud now asks a series of somewhat technical difficulties concerning R. Huna’s instruction. Most of these difficulties deal with the technicality of how ownership is legally transferred when a person acquires a stolen or legal object. There needs to be both abandonment of hope of recovery by the owner and then some other change. Above, the change was the sale itself. Here the Talmud asks why the traders (who are Jewish) shouldn’t just cut down the myrtles themselves? When they cut the myrtles down the owners could be assumed to abandon hope of recovery. Then when they sell the myrtles to other Jews, we would have change of domain and the purchasers would be able to use the myrtle for a mitzvah.

The answer is that this would indeed solve the problem for the purchaser, but it would not solve the problem for the traders. If the Jewish traders wanted to use such a myrtle and they cut it down themselves we would only have abandonment of hope. There would be no subsequent change of domain. Therefore, the non-Jews should cut the myrtles down.

 

וליקניוה בשינוי מעשה!

קא סבר: לולב אין צריך אגד.

 

But why could they not acquire possession of them by the active change they make in it?

[R. Huna] holds that the lulav does not require binding.

 

However, this still doesn’t answer all of the difficulties. The Talmud asks why the trader couldn’t acquire the myrtle when he changes it by binding it together with the other two species, lulav and willow (aravah). The issue of whether one must bind three of the species together is taken up later in the chapter.

The answer is that R. Huna holds that one need not bind them together. Therefore, there would be no subsequent acquisition after the owners were assumed to abandon hope of recovery.

 

ואם תמצי לומר לולב צריך אגד – שינוי החוזר לברייתו הוא, ושינוי החוזר לברייתו לא שמיה שינוי.

 

And [even] if you were to say that the lulav does require binding, [still] the change would be one that can be restored to its original condition, and a change which can be restored to its original condition is not regarded as a valid change.

 

The Talmud now hedges a bit and says that even if R. Huna holds that the lulav must be bound, this is not a sufficient change in the myrtle for it to be considered the property of the trader. Binding the myrtle to the other two species can be undone, and only permanent changes are sufficient to enact a transfer of ownership. So the trader still wouldn’t be able to use it to fulfill his mitzvah.

 

וליקניוה בשינוי השם, דמעיקרא הוה ליה אסא, והשתא הושענא!

מעיקרא נמי לאסא הושענא קרו ליה.

 

But let him acquire it by virtue of the change of name, since previously it was called asa [myrtle] and now hoshanna?

From the beginning an asa is also called a hoshanna.

 

Finally, there is another change that can effect a transfer change of name. Before it was used as part of the lulav, the Aramaic world for myrtle was asa. Now that it is part of the lulav it is called hoshanna another Aramaic/Hebrew word that means, "God save us." So again, if the trader cuts it down and then calls it by a new name, it should belong to him and he should be able to use it on Sukkot.

The answer is that a myrtle is always called a hoshanna, even before it is used in the lulav. Since this is not a totally new name, there is no change of name and no transfer of property.