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.
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.
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.
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.