To create a havrakha, or layering, one bends a branch from an established tree, buries the middle section in the ground, and leaves the tip exposed at the place where he wants a new tree to grow. At first, the layered branch draws its nourishment from the original tree. Over time, the buried section develops roots that also nourish the new tree. For orla purposes, as long as the new tree continues to draw nourishment from the original tree, even if most of its nourishment now comes from the new roots formed through the layering, the new tree is considered an extension of the old tree, and the orla count does not begin anew. Even if one layers a third tree from the second, and a fourth from the third, the orla count does not begin for any of them as long as they remain connected to the first tree, since they are still considered extensions of it. If, however, the connecting branch is cut, or that section withers away, one must begin counting the three orla years anew for the layered tree.
If new shoots emerge from beneath the ground, even though they came from the root system of an old tree, then as long as their connection to the old tree is not apparent — for example, when they emerge some distance from it — they are treated as a new tree, and the orla count begins for them (Bava Metzia 119a; MT, Laws of Second Tithe and Fourth-Year Fruit 10:19). If, however, the shoots grow close to the old tree, and it is apparent that they are part of it and emerged from the underground portion of its trunk, one could argue that they belong to the original tree and that the orla count should not begin anew. Nevertheless, since many authorities are stringent and treat even these shoots as a new tree, it is proper to be stringent.[8]
In principle, however, adjacent shoots should not be prohibited. A tree is defined by its root system and the base of its trunk; so long as additional shoots grow from that system, they should not require a new orla count. This appears from the law of the caper bush, which sometimes withers entirely in winter and regrows from its roots, yet after three years its fruit is not treated as orla (as explained in Shibbolei ha-Leket §160 in the name of Rabbeinu Ḥananel; see below, note 11). It would therefore seem that Rambam and the other authorities prohibit only sprouts that emerge at a distance from the trunk, from lateral roots rather than from the tree’s main growth axis. R. Yisraeli writes along similar lines (Amud ha-Yemini 28), as does Minḥat Shlomo 1:71:8. This also accords with Rashba, who states that the prohibition on such shoots is rabbinic and based on marit ayin. R. Shimshon of Shantz and Keren Orah maintain this as well. With shoots adjacent to the trunk, there is no concern for marit ayin, as it is evident that they belong to the main tree. Otherwise, it is very difficult to understand why many authorities, including Tur and SA, omit Rambam’s ruling entirely. Even those who cite Rambam do not spell out such a serious and common problem, despite the fact that many pomegranate growers would be likely to stumble in it. We may therefore conclude that adjacent shoots are not actually prohibited. Moreover, according to Or Zaru’a, based on his version of Bava Metzia 119a, shoots that emerge from roots do not require a new orla count at all, similar to a layered branch. For a rabbinic matter such as this, one may rely on that view. Still, since many contemporary authorities maintain that such shoots are forbidden, and some are even concerned that the prohibition may apply by Torah law, it is proper to be stringent out of consideration for their view (Mishpetei Eretz 6:4; see R. Yoel Friedman, Emunat Itekha 14).
