Daf Yomi - Sukkah 40 - Reverse Situation

The Gemora explains that wood which is projected to be used for kindling a fire does not have the sanctity of shemitah. This is derived from a possuk which states that only something which its pleasure and destruction from the world are simultaneous have shemitah sanctity; however firewood where the pleasure comes only after the wood transforms into coals does not have kedushas shemitah. A lulav is not projected to be used for kindling, rather as a broom for sweeping a house and therefore will have limitations due to shemitah.

The Chachamim were not concerned about purchasing the lulav since the lulav blossomed in the sixth year, it is not bound by the shemitah limitations. The esrog, even though it grew in the sixth year, is regarded as a shemitah fruit because it was plucked off the tree in the seventh year.

The Commentators ask as to what the halacha would be in a reverse situation from the Gemora. In the eighth year of the shemitah cycle, it should be forbidden to purchase the lulav because it grew in the seventh year and the esrog should be permitted to purchase since it was cut from the tree in the eighth year? (According to some, this case is a more frequent one than the Gemora’s.) The Kapos Temorim states that the halacha would be the same in reverse and it is inferred from the Mishna’s case.

Dayan Weiss in Minchas Yitzchok states (I believe) that the solution of the Gemora would not apply in this case. One can purchase a lulav and have the cost of the esrog absorbed in the lulav since in those days the lulav was more expensive than the esrog; however the reverse does not work. One cannot absorb the cost of the more expensive item i.e. the lulav into the cost of the inexpensive esrog.

There are those that state in the Rambam that a lulav does not have the sanctity of shemitah at all. This would seemingly be inconsistent with our Gemora, however it would explain why the situation is not addressed.