One may neither eat nor derive benefit from fruit that grows during a tree’s first three years. For this reason, one may not light a lamp with oil extracted from orla fruit, nor may one fuel an oven with orla fruit. One may not place orla fruit in the ground as fertilizer, although one may throw it onto the ground if he does not intend to fertilize with it. One may not use orla fruit even for a mitzva; therefore, an orla etrog is invalid for the mitzva of the four species on Sukkot (Sukka 34b; SA YD 294:24; Peninei Halakha: Sukkot 4:12). It is likewise forbidden to benefit from the fragrance of orla fruit (SA YD 108:7).[2]
It is also forbidden to dye a garment with dye produced from orla fruit. A garment dyed with orla fruit may not be used; to prevent people from mistakenly benefiting from it, it must be burned (Yerushalmi, Orla 3:1; Kiddushin 56b). Whenever there is concern that people may derive benefit from orla fruit, there is a mitzva to burn it or destroy it in some other way that makes benefit impossible. When possible, it is good to remove the blossoms or fruit while they are still small, so that people will not mistakenly benefit from them. [3]
One may not derive benefit from anything that develops together with the fruit, including the pits, peel, and juice. By contrast, one may derive benefit from the tree itself, its leaves, and its blossoms. One may also derive benefit from semadar — fruit so small that it is not yet considered fruit. Once the fruit reaches the stage of boser — recognizable but still unripe fruit — it is considered fruit, even though it is still unfit to eat, and the prohibition of orla applies (Mishna, Orla 1:7–9; SA YD 294:1–2). [4]
It is forbidden to plant the pits of orla fruit. Nor may one place orla fruit in the ground in order to grow a tree from it. One may, however, plant a branch from an orla tree, since one may derive benefit from the wood itself (Mishna, Orla 1:9). If one transgressed and planted orla fruit, one may derive benefit from the tree that grows from it. This is based on the rule of zeh ve-zeh gorem mutar: when two factors together produce something, one forbidden and one permitted, the result is permitted. Here, the two causes are the forbidden fruit and the permitted soil. Therefore, one may derive benefit from the resulting tree (SA YD 294:12).
The prohibition of orla also applies to fruit from a tree owned by a gentile, and a Jew may not derive benefit from that fruit. Nevertheless, a gentile may benefit from orla fruit that grew on his own tree or on a tree owned by a Jew, because the prohibition of orla applies to Jews, not gentiles. Still, since a Jew may not derive benefit from the fruit, he may not sell his orla fruit to a gentile, give it as a gift, or even feed it to an animal, because in each of these cases he derives benefit from it (MT, Laws of Forbidden Foods 8:16).
Before any orla fruit has begun to grow, however, one may sell a gentile the rights to the future crop. Since the Jew receives payment before the fruit exists, he is not deriving benefit from the fruit itself, but from the tree, from which benefit is permitted (SA YD 294:15; Nekudot ha-Kesef on MT, Laws of Forbidden Foods 8:16). This leniency applies only when there is no concern that the gentile will later sell the orla fruit to Jews and cause them to transgress, such as when he sells it in a place where no Jews live.
[3]. The Mishna in Temura 7:4 states: “These are to be burned: ḥametz on Pesaḥ, impure teruma, orla, and kil’ei ha-kerem. Whatever is usually burned should be burned, and whatever is usually buried should be buried.” Tosafot imply that one must burn orla and kil’ei ha-kerem, based on the verse “lest it become consecrated,” which they read homiletically as “lest it be consumed by fire” (Kiddushin 56b). Ritva, by contrast, maintains that there is no obligation to burn them; rather, they must simply be destroyed. Binyan Tziyon 101 explains that the purpose is to prevent anyone from benefiting from them. Therefore, items better suited to burial should be buried, since there is no specific obligation to burn them. Arukh ha-Shulḥan YD 294:3 rules similarly. Ḥatam Sofer, OḤ 180, writes that by burning orla one fulfills a mitzva, but burning it is not obligatory.
[4]. Fruit develops in three stages. The first is semadar, when the emerging fruit is not yet halakhically considered fruit. This stage begins when the blossom falls and the tiny fruit first appears and lasts until the fruit’s form is recognizable. The second is boser, recognizable but still unripe fruit. Once its form is recognizable, it has the status of fruit even though it is still unfit to eat. The third is hevi shelish, when the fruit has matured enough to be edible in pressing circumstances. From that point on, tithes must be separated from it. R. Yosi holds that the prohibition of orla begins already at semadar, while the Sages hold that it begins only at boser (Mishna, Orla 1:7; Tiferet Yisrael on Mishna, Orla 1:7). Berakhot 36b explains this based on Mishna, Shevi’it 4:10. There, Beit Hillel says that during the Shemita year, one may no longer cut branches from grapevines, olive trees, and carob trees once they reach the boser stage: for grapes, when the berries form; for olives, when they blossom; and for carobs, when they begin to form chains. Radvaz explains Rambam’s ruling this way (Responsa 1:44; MT, Laws of Second Tithe and Fourth-Year Fruit 9:13), and the Vilna Gaon, YD 294:37, writes similarly. Date clusters are different, however, because people eat them even at the semadar stage (Radvaz).
Berakhot 36b states that, with other fruits, the Sages agree with R. Yosi that semadar is forbidden. Ḥazon Ish, Orla 3:5, takes this statement literally and concludes that only grapes, olives, and carobs remain permitted at the semadar stage, while other fruits are already forbidden. The Vilna Gaon, however, understands the Gemara’s statement as part of the give-and-take of the discussion, not its final conclusion. He therefore rules that for all fruits, semadar is permitted and boser is forbidden. That is the accepted halakha, since there is no compelling reason to distinguish among different types of fruit.
For further study: SA YD 294:4 writes that at the end of the third year, fruit that reached ḥanata after Tu Bishvat is permitted. R. Kook inclines toward this view in Mishpat Kohen 3. According to Rambam, SA, and most authorities, ḥanata is the stage at which the fruit reaches one-third of its growth, is fit to be eaten in pressing circumstances, and reaches the point at which one must separate tithes from it (Peninei Halakha: Shevi’it 3, note 6). This creates a difficulty for SA’s view, since we learned here that fruit becomes prohibited as orla already at the boser stage. How, then, could such fruit suddenly become permitted once Tu Bishvat arrives? Rambam’s own wording is: “Everything the tree produces during this time is orla” (MT, Laws of Second Tithe and Fourth-Year Fruit 9:10), which implies that the prohibition begins once the fruit reaches boser. According to Tosafot, however, ḥanata begins at the semadar stage. It is therefore possible that when Rashi writes (Rosh Hashana 14a) that the years of orla are determined by ḥanata, he understands ḥanata as the semadar stage, as Tosafot do. This is how Mishpetei Eretz 2:2 rules. Alternatively, one can explain SA’s view as follows: from the first of Tishrei until Tu Bishvat of the final year, orla applies only to fruit that developed from the previous year’s rainfall. It therefore stands to reason that only fruit that reached ḥanata before Tu Bishvat developed from those rains. Fruit that had reached only the boser stage developed from the rains of the new year and is therefore not prohibited. Rambam, who does not state his position explicitly, may agree with this explanation.
