PEREK LULAV HA'GAZUL:
The Mishnah states that: "if the Head of the Lulav is Cut Off it is invalid."
Rashi says that this is because of Hadar, the requirement of beauty. However, we also know that the Lulav must be a complete species. Why is the case where the "Head of the Lulav is Cut Off" invalid because of Hadar and not "And you shall take (completely)..."?? We understand this pasuk to mean a wholesome species-- nothing is missing on the Lulav... here the whole "head" is missing.
So, why does Rashi say because of Hadar--say reason is b/c we need complete species?? IF, it is invalid because we require "a complete species," then we would be allowed to take this type of Lulav ("head clipped off") on Choel Hamoed (second days), why does Rashi create this extra stringency by saying the reason why it is invalid is b/c of Hadar--where one can not take the whole Succas--rather, say b/c of complete species, then at least we can use this lulav on the second days??????
Yale , FL., U.S.A.
When I saw your question, my first reaction was two-fold. Firstly, if Niktam Rosho is Pasul because it is not Hadar, as Rashi maintains, why should it be Kosher on the second day because it is also Chaser?
Secondly, you answered the question yourself. Rashi (& Tosfos) may well hold that in fact, a Lulav with the head cut off is Pasul both because of Chaser (incomplete) and because of Hadar. They prefer to present the reason of Hadar because otherwise, it would be Kosher from the second day and onwards (See Tosfos 9a, which mentions the same logic with regards to Gazul and Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah ba'Aveirah.)
Then I saw that the Sefas Emes asks a question on Rashi from a Beraisa and concludes that 'Niktam Rosho' is Pasul because of Chaser and not because of Hadar. He goes on to draw two distinctions between the two Pesulim: 1. Whether the Lulav is also Pasul on the second day or not (as you assumed); 2. Whether one may use it in times of emergency (Hadar) or may not (Chaser).
In the course of his discussion, the Sefas Emes compares the Lulav under discussion to an Esrog which is Chaser, which is Kosher on the second day. This reinforces your question on Rashi, since Rashi on 36b explains that an Esrog from which a bite has been taken is Pasul because it is Chaser and that it is therefore Kosher on the second day (in which case it cannot be Pasul because of Hadar). In that case, why does Rashi present the reason of Hadar for the Pesul of a Lulav with its top cut off?
The Sefas Emes brings further support for his explanation from the fact that, according to Rashi, there is no real reason for dividing Niktam Rosho and Nifretzu Alav from Gazul and Yavesh, whereas, according to him, it is appropriate to separate them. Gazul and Yavesh are Pasul even on the second day, whereas Niktam Rosho and Nifretzu Alav are not.
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv
Eliezer Chrysler