The Torah forbids deriving benefit from orla fruit, which grows during the first three years of a tree’s life. It also commands that fourth-year fruit be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there in sanctity, with praise to God. Through this mitzva, blessing extends to the fruit that grows from the fifth year onward. The Torah states: “When you come into the Land and plant any tree for food, you shall treat its fruit as closed off. For three years it shall be closed off to you; it may not be eaten. In the fourth year, all its fruit shall be sacred, for praise of the Lord. In the fifth year, you may eat its fruit, so that it may yield its increase to you. I am the Lord your God” (Vayikra 19:23–25).
The word orla means a blockage. Thus, an “uncircumcised heart” is a heart that is blocked; “uncircumcised ears” are ears blocked from hearing; and “uncircumcised lips” are lips unable to speak freely. From this we learn that the fruit of the first three years is forbidden to us: we may neither eat it nor derive benefit from it (Rashi and Rashbam on Vayikra 19:23).
When the Children of Israel crossed the Jordan in the time of Yehoshua bin Nun and entered the Land, the laws of orla took effect. This follows from the verse: “When you come into the Land and plant.” Even if a gentile planted a tree in his own field after that point, it became subject to orla, and one may not derive benefit from its fruit. The verse says, “any tree for food,” including a tree planted by a gentile (Sifra on Vayikra 19:23).
In the Diaspora, the law of orla applies by virtue of a halakha transmitted to Moshe at Sinai — a tradition that limits the prohibition to cases where the fruit is certainly orla. Thus, in the Diaspora, fruit is forbidden only when it is known with certainty to be orla; if its status is uncertain, it is permitted, even when there is strong reason to presume that it is orla. When it is uncertain whether fruit is orla, the fruit is forbidden in Eretz Yisrael but permitted in the Diaspora (Mishna, Orla 3:7; Yerushalmi, Orla 3:7; Kiddushin 39a; SA YD 294:8; see below, section 11). The boundaries of the Land for this mitzva are the boundaries of those who ascended from Egypt. Even according to those who maintain that the southern Arava lies outside those boundaries, since it is under the sovereignty of the State of Israel, the Torah obligation applies there as well (see below, chapter 12, section 2, note 2, and chapter 17).[1]
Whether one plants a seed or a cutting, the three years are counted from the time it takes root in the ground (as explained below, section 4).
[1]. The Mishna in Orla 1:2 teaches: “When our ancestors came to the Land, fruit from trees they found already planted was not subject to orla; fruit from trees they planted, even before they conquered the Land, was subject to orla.” The Yerushalmi explains that “when you come” means “as soon as you enter.” Rambam rules accordingly (MT, Laws of Second Tithe and Fourth-Year Fruit 10:9). Some Aḥaronim maintain that according to the view that the Land’s second sanctification, in the Second Temple period, lapsed with the Temple’s destruction, the law of orla today is rabbinic (Mishneh la-Melekh on MT, Laws of Forbidden Foods 10:11). Others maintain that the Torah obligation of orla applies only when most of Israel lives in the Land, based on the phrase “when you come” (Tzlaḥ, Berakhot 36a). In practice, however, the accepted ruling is that orla in Eretz Yisrael applies by Torah law even today (SA YD 294:8; Radvaz; Mabit; Maharshdam; Maharit). In pressing circumstances, the lenient views may be combined as an additional basis for leniency (R. Herzog, Pesakim u-Ketavim 3:1; Yabi’a Omer 6, YD 24).Since fruit whose orla status is uncertain is permitted in the Diaspora, the Sages said: “Whoever rules leniently in Eretz Yisrael, the halakha follows his view in the Diaspora” (Berakhot 36b). Accordingly, the caper’s peel does not have the status of orla. The same applies to every dispute in the laws of orla: whenever a Tanna or Amora rules leniently, the Diaspora follows that lenient view (see SA YD 294:17). It also appears that in disputes among the Rishonim and Aḥaronim, one should incline toward leniency. Still, when the stringent position seems far more compelling, it is proper to be stringent.
