more on u'lkachtem

The gemara (sukkah 41b) darshens from the world “U’lkachtem” (plural) that each individual must do his own act of netilas lulav. The Kapos Temarim asks why this limud is necessary – just as one cannot appoint a shliach to put on tefillin on one’s behalf (see Ketzos at the beginning of Hil Shlichus citing Tos. Ri”d), so too, the taking of lulav must be done by each individual and is automatically excluded from shlichus. The Aruch laNer writes that without an explicit limud we might have thought lulav is a chovas hatzibur and one netila might suffice on everyone’s behalf without the mechanism of shlichus, similar to a korban tzibur. I thought perhaps one might suggest (b’dochak) an answer based on the Gilyon’s chiddush (see yesterday’s post here) that u’lkachtem obligates purchasing the lulav and esrog. Perhaps (and I have never seen anyone suggest it) based on this Yerushalmi we can explain the derasha of lekicha al yedei ko echad v’echad to mean that each person must not only do his own netila (which would otherwise obviously be excluded from shlichus), but must have purchased the lulav himself as well. One other idea that occurred to me would be that the limud comes to tell us that the ma’aseh of picking up the lulav and not just the chalos of holding it in one’s hands is the mitzvah – this would suggest that if a friend picked up the lulav and tossed it into one’s waiting arms (so that one did not actually do a netila) perhaps the mitzvah has not been fully fulfilled (which I have also not seen anyone say). On a final note on the Gilyon’s understanding of the Yerushalmi that u’lkachtem obligates buying a lulav, it is tempting to relate the issue to the machlokes Maharasha”l and SA whether actually buying the lulav for a katan is part of the mitzvah of chinuch or just providing him with a lulav to use is sufficient without needing to purchase an extra one.