TOSFOS SAYS THat there is no question on the RI FROM THE CASE OF HOSHANA BECAUSE THERE IS A MITZVA AND THEREFORE ITS MUTAR. BUT IF HE HAS OTHER HOSHANAS THEN WHY IS IT CONSIDERED A MITZVAH?
YOSEF LIEBERMAN, NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
I would like to show how strong your question is by explaining this a bit more. TOSFOS 6a DH HIY cites ARUCH who maintains that a Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei (i.e. one does not desire the result) is permitted entirely. Aruch cites a proof from Sukah 33b that if one possesses another set of Hadasim it is permitted to remove the berries from the Hadas on Yom Tov because one wants to eat them (even though this automatically makes the Hadas kosher and would seemingly represent a problem of "Mesaken Kli" - preparing the Hadas) because one does not care whether or not the extra Hadas is kosher. RI rejects this proof and maintains that removing the berries is only permitted because one can do a Mitzvah with this extra Hadas, whilst a Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei where one does not gain a Mitzvah is forbidden.
Even according to RI (whom the Halachah follows - see SHULCHAN ARUCH 320:18), the prohibition of a Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei is only mid'Rabanan (see MISHNEH BERURAH 320:53). It must be that RI maintains that since this is only mid'Rabanan, where one gains a Mitzvah - e.g. receives a kosher Hadas - the Rabanan did not apply their prohibition and permitted this Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei even l'Chatchilah.
However there is now a paradox. If one had no other Hadas one would not be allowed to remove the berries for eating, because this would automatically make the Hadas kosher and would be a Psik Reisha de'Nicha Lei - that one is happy about - and therefore would be prohibited mid'Oraisa. A d'Oraisa prohibition would not be waived aside even to enable one to fulfil a Mitzvah d'Oraisa. On the other hand if one does possess another Hadas it does not seem logical that Chazal would push aside the d'Rabanan prohibition of Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei accordin to RI's Shitah. Even though one could do a Mitzvah with the extra Hadas (in fact according to RAMBAM HILCHOS LULAV 7:7 it is a Mitzvah to add more Hadasim onto the minimum of 3, even though this is not obligatory)it nevertheless is improbable that Chazal would permit a d'Rabanan in order to perform this extra Mitzvah which the person is not even interested in doing. Therefore your question is powerful - why should Chazal permit a d'Rabanan in order to acquire an extra Hadas which is not necessary and which might never be used at all if one's first Hadas remains intact?!
To attempt to answer this question one can distinguish between HUTRAH and DECHUYAH. Sometimes Chazal permit something for a special purpose but the question is whether it is totally permitted (Hutrah) or rather the prohibition is merely postponed (Dechuyah). This dipute is found in Yoma 6b when the majority of the People became impure and one is therefore allowed to bring Korbanos despite the Tum'ah. Is the Tum'ah totally permitted or possibly it is only Dechuyah? RASHI there DH DECHUYAH explains that Dechuyah means that the prohibition was only permitted with difficulty and whenever one can avoid resorting to this Heter one is obliged to do so. There is a similar dispute in Rishonim (see MISHNEH BERURAH 328:39) about when breaking Shabbos to save life is Hutrah or Dechuyah.
See KEHILAS YA'AKOV BEITZAH #13 DH VE'EFSHAR who writes that even according to the opinions that Shabbos is merely Dechuyah for saving life, this however only applies when one is doing Melachah d'Oraisa. In contrast if the work one does is only forbidden mid'Rabanan everyone will agree that it is Hutrah.
We can now understand why Ri permitted a Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei even if one possesses another Hadas. Since the prohibition involved is only d'Rabanan, this means that Chazal totally permitted (Hutrah) anything involved with the Mitzvas Hadas. Even though one already possesses a kosher Hadas, nevertheless it will be possible to do a Mitzvah with the second Hadas - for instance it is possible that the first Hadas might become invalid, or even if this did not happen one may simply wish to switch the first Hadas with the second. Since it is possible that one may do a Mitzvah with the second Hadas, Chazal totally allowed (Hutrah) all Melachah d'Rabanan necessary for preparing it.
KOL TUV
D. Bloom
TOSFOS SAYS THat there is no question on the RI FROM THE CASE OF HOSHANA BECAUSE THERE IS A MITZVA AND THEREFORE ITS MUTAR. BUT IF HE HAS OTHER HOSHANAS THEN WHY IS IT CONSIDERED A MITZVAH?
YOSEF LIEBERMAN, NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
I would like to show how strong your question is by explaining this a bit more. TOSFOS 6a DH HIY cites ARUCH who maintains that a Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei (i.e. one does not desire the result) is permitted entirely. Aruch cites a proof from Sukah 33b that if one possesses another set of Hadasim it is permitted to remove the berries from the Hadas on Yom Tov because one wants to eat them (even though this automatically makes the Hadas kosher and would seemingly represent a problem of "Mesaken Kli" - preparing the Hadas) because one does not care whether or not the extra Hadas is kosher. RI rejects this proof and maintains that removing the berries is only permitted because one can do a Mitzvah with this extra Hadas, whilst a Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei where one does not gain a Mitzvah is forbidden.
Even according to RI (whom the Halachah follows - see SHULCHAN ARUCH 320:18), the prohibition of a Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei is only mid'Rabanan (see MISHNEH BERURAH 320:53). It must be that RI maintains that since this is only mid'Rabanan, where one gains a Mitzvah - e.g. receives a kosher Hadas - the Rabanan did not apply their prohibition and permitted this Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei even l'Chatchilah.
However there is now a paradox. If one had no other Hadas one would not be allowed to remove the berries for eating, because this would automatically make the Hadas kosher and would be a Psik Reisha de'Nicha Lei - that one is happy about - and therefore would be prohibited mid'Oraisa. A d'Oraisa prohibition would not be waived aside even to enable one to fulfil a Mitzvah d'Oraisa. On the other hand if one does possess another Hadas it does not seem logical that Chazal would push aside the d'Rabanan prohibition of Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei accordin to RI's Shitah. Even though one could do a Mitzvah with the extra Hadas (in fact according to RAMBAM HILCHOS LULAV 7:7 it is a Mitzvah to add more Hadasim onto the minimum of 3, even though this is not obligatory)it nevertheless is improbable that Chazal would permit a d'Rabanan in order to perform this extra Mitzvah which the person is not even interested in doing. Therefore your question is powerful - why should Chazal permit a d'Rabanan in order to acquire an extra Hadas which is not necessary and which might never be used at all if one's first Hadas remains intact?!
To attempt to answer this question one can distinguish between HUTRAH and DECHUYAH. Sometimes Chazal permit something for a special purpose but the question is whether it is totally permitted (Hutrah) or rather the prohibition is merely postponed (Dechuyah). This dipute is found in Yoma 6b when the majority of the People became impure and one is therefore allowed to bring Korbanos despite the Tum'ah. Is the Tum'ah totally permitted or possibly it is only Dechuyah? RASHI there DH DECHUYAH explains that Dechuyah means that the prohibition was only permitted with difficulty and whenever one can avoid resorting to this Heter one is obliged to do so. There is a similar dispute in Rishonim (see MISHNEH BERURAH 328:39) about when breaking Shabbos to save life is Hutrah or Dechuyah.
See KEHILAS YA'AKOV BEITZAH #13 DH VE'EFSHAR who writes that even according to the opinions that Shabbos is merely Dechuyah for saving life, this however only applies when one is doing Melachah d'Oraisa. In contrast if the work one does is only forbidden mid'Rabanan everyone will agree that it is Hutrah.
We can now understand why Ri permitted a Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei even if one possesses another Hadas. Since the prohibition involved is only d'Rabanan, this means that Chazal totally permitted (Hutrah) anything involved with the Mitzvas Hadas. Even though one already possesses a kosher Hadas, nevertheless it will be possible to do a Mitzvah with the second Hadas - for instance it is possible that the first Hadas might become invalid, or even if this did not happen one may simply wish to switch the first Hadas with the second. Since it is possible that one may do a Mitzvah with the second Hadas, Chazal totally allowed (Hutrah) all Melachah d'Rabanan necessary for preparing it.
KOL TUV
D. Bloom
Follow-up reply:
Here is an another answer that I heard to the question why is it considered a Mitzvah even if other Hadasim are available. The reason is because the first set of Hadasim might become Pasul. However we asked on this, last time, that since Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei is forbidden mid'Rabanan according to RI, why should Chazal have permitted this merely because of the possibility that the Hadasim might later become Pasul?
We can now answer as follows. There is a "Mimah Nafshach" ("Whichever way you look at it"). Either:
(1) he will not need the Hadasim later or
(2) he will need the Hadasim later.
If (1) then it transpires that the fact that he removed the berries and made the Hadas kosher was actually unnecessary and is therefore not considered" Tikun Kli" (preparing a vessel), so no Melachah was done at all - a similar Sevarah is stated by TOSFOS in the next line.
If (2) then a Mitzvah was done by removing the berries and one may permit an Isur d'Rabanan in order to perform the Mitzvah of 4 Minim.
Therefore it is permitted Mimah Nafshach.
However one can ask on the above reasoning that if indeed he needed the Hadas eventually, this should mean that it makes it a Psik Reisha de'Nicha Lei - he wants the kosher Hadas and it should now become a Melachah d'Oraisa which one cannot allow in order to perform the Mitzvah of Lulav?
The answer is that one has to consider what he did at the time he removed the berries - at that time he did not know whether or not he would need the Hadas, so at the time the Melachah was done it was Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei which is only forbidden mid'Rabanan.
KOL TUV
D.Bloom
TOSFOS SAYS THat there is no question on the RI FROM THE CASE OF HOSHANA BECAUSE THERE IS A MITZVA AND THEREFORE ITS MUTAR. BUT IF HE HAS OTHER HOSHANAS THEN WHY IS IT CONSIDERED A MITZVAH?
YOSEF LIEBERMAN, NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
I would like to show how strong your question is by explaining this a bit more. TOSFOS 6a DH HIY cites ARUCH who maintains that a Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei (i.e. one does not desire the result) is permitted entirely. Aruch cites a proof from Sukah 33b that if one possesses another set of Hadasim it is permitted to remove the berries from the Hadas on Yom Tov because one wants to eat them (even though this automatically makes the Hadas kosher and would seemingly represent a problem of "Mesaken Kli" - preparing the Hadas) because one does not care whether or not the extra Hadas is kosher. RI rejects this proof and maintains that removing the berries is only permitted because one can do a Mitzvah with this extra Hadas, whilst a Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei where one does not gain a Mitzvah is forbidden.
Even according to RI (whom the Halachah follows - see SHULCHAN ARUCH 320:18), the prohibition of a Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei is only mid'Rabanan (see MISHNEH BERURAH 320:53). It must be that RI maintains that since this is only mid'Rabanan, where one gains a Mitzvah - e.g. receives a kosher Hadas - the Rabanan did not apply their prohibition and permitted this Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei even l'Chatchilah.
However there is now a paradox. If one had no other Hadas one would not be allowed to remove the berries for eating, because this would automatically make the Hadas kosher and would be a Psik Reisha de'Nicha Lei - that one is happy about - and therefore would be prohibited mid'Oraisa. A d'Oraisa prohibition would not be waived aside even to enable one to fulfil a Mitzvah d'Oraisa. On the other hand if one does possess another Hadas it does not seem logical that Chazal would push aside the d'Rabanan prohibition of Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei accordin to RI's Shitah. Even though one could do a Mitzvah with the extra Hadas (in fact according to RAMBAM HILCHOS LULAV 7:7 it is a Mitzvah to add more Hadasim onto the minimum of 3, even though this is not obligatory)it nevertheless is improbable that Chazal would permit a d'Rabanan in order to perform this extra Mitzvah which the person is not even interested in doing. Therefore your question is powerful - why should Chazal permit a d'Rabanan in order to acquire an extra Hadas which is not necessary and which might never be used at all if one's first Hadas remains intact?!
To attempt to answer this question one can distinguish between HUTRAH and DECHUYAH. Sometimes Chazal permit something for a special purpose but the question is whether it is totally permitted (Hutrah) or rather the prohibition is merely postponed (Dechuyah). This dipute is found in Yoma 6b when the majority of the People became impure and one is therefore allowed to bring Korbanos despite the Tum'ah. Is the Tum'ah totally permitted or possibly it is only Dechuyah? RASHI there DH DECHUYAH explains that Dechuyah means that the prohibition was only permitted with difficulty and whenever one can avoid resorting to this Heter one is obliged to do so. There is a similar dispute in Rishonim (see MISHNEH BERURAH 328:39) about when breaking Shabbos to save life is Hutrah or Dechuyah.
See KEHILAS YA'AKOV BEITZAH #13 DH VE'EFSHAR who writes that even according to the opinions that Shabbos is merely Dechuyah for saving life, this however only applies when one is doing Melachah d'Oraisa. In contrast if the work one does is only forbidden mid'Rabanan everyone will agree that it is Hutrah.
We can now understand why Ri permitted a Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei even if one possesses another Hadas. Since the prohibition involved is only d'Rabanan, this means that Chazal totally permitted (Hutrah) anything involved with the Mitzvas Hadas. Even though one already possesses a kosher Hadas, nevertheless it will be possible to do a Mitzvah with the second Hadas - for instance it is possible that the first Hadas might become invalid, or even if this did not happen one may simply wish to switch the first Hadas with the second. Since it is possible that one may do a Mitzvah with the second Hadas, Chazal totally allowed (Hutrah) all Melachah d'Rabanan necessary for preparing it.
KOL TUV
D. Bloom
Here is an another answer that I heard to the question why is it considered a Mitzvah even if other Hadasim are available. The reason is because the first set of Hadasim might become Pasul. However we asked on this, last time, that since Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei is forbidden mid'Rabanan according to RI, why should Chazal have permitted this merely because of the possibility that the Hadasim might later become Pasul?
We can now answer as follows. There is a "Mimah Nafshach" ("Whichever way you look at it"). Either:
(1) he will not need the Hadasim later or
(2) he will need the Hadasim later.
If (1) then it transpires that the fact that he removed the berries and made the Hadas kosher was actually unnecessary and is therefore not considered" Tikun Kli" (preparing a vessel), so no Melachah was done at all - a similar Sevarah is stated by TOSFOS in the next line.
If (2) then a Mitzvah was done by removing the berries and one may permit an Isur d'Rabanan in order to perform the Mitzvah of 4 Minim.
Therefore it is permitted Mimah Nafshach.
However one can ask on the above reasoning that if indeed he needed the Hadas eventually, this should mean that it makes it a Psik Reisha de'Nicha Lei - he wants the kosher Hadas and it should now become a Melachah d'Oraisa which one cannot allow in order to perform the Mitzvah of Lulav?
The answer is that one has to consider what he did at the time he removed the berries - at that time he did not know whether or not he would need the Hadas, so at the time the Melachah was done it was Psik Reisha de'Lo Nicha Lei which is only forbidden mid'Rabanan.
KOL TUV
D.Bloom
Here is another approach to answer your question. The reason why the Issur Derabonon of Psik Reishah De Lo Neichah Leih is permitted according to RI, even though he possesses another Hoshana, is because "Be-mokom Mitzvah Lo Gozru Rabonon" - where there is a Mitzvah, Chazal said that there is no prohibition at all to remove the berries - even though otherwise, if not for the Mitzvah, this would involve an issur derabonon.
This is similar to Gemara below 60a which states that "where there is discomfort or financial loss Rabonon did not make their prohibition". Similarly, for this kind of issur derabonon of a Psik Reishah De Lo Neichah Leih, RI maintains that Chazal decided that whatever kind of Mitzvah one does, the issur derabonon is waived aside entirely.
It must be stressed however that this is by no means a general rule that derabonon prohibitions are deferred totally in order to perform Mitzvos. On the contrary TOSFOS GITIN 8b DH AA'G writes that it is only for the special Mitzvah of buying a house in Eretz Yisrael that one is allowed to ask a Nochri to do an issur deoraisa. See MISHNEH BERURAH 307:21 that one cannot compare derabonon prohibitions one to another, and one may only allow what Chazal allowed explicitly. However RI maintains that in the case of picking off the berries, the derabonon issur was removed entirely in any case of a Mitzvah, even if he possesses another Lulav, because it is still possible that the first Lulav will become invalid and he will require the second Lulav.
KOL TUV
D. Bloom