לע"נ ר' שמואל פנחס בן ר' יעקב צבי 

The pasuk says [Vayikra 19-23]:

וְכִי־תָבֹ֣אוּ אֶל־הָאָ֗רֶץ וּנְטַעְתֶּם֙ כׇּל־עֵ֣ץ מַאֲכָ֔ל וַעֲרַלְתֶּ֥ם עׇרְלָת֖וֹ אֶת־פִּרְי֑וֹ שָׁלֹ֣שׁ שָׁנִ֗ים יִהְיֶ֥ה לָכֶ֛ם עֲרֵלִ֖ים לֹ֥א יֵאָכֵֽל׃

“When you come into the land, and have planted all kinds of trees for food, then you shall count their fruit as forbidden. Three years shall they be forbidden to you. It shall not be eaten."

The pasuk seems easy and straightforward. But wait.... 

Rashi says: 

וערלתם ערלתו – ואטמתם אטימתו, יהא אטום ונסתם מליהנות ממנו.

meant lit., you shall close its closing (regard it as enclosed): the meaning being that it shall be, as it were, closed up and barred so that no benefit may be derived from it.

Targum Unkelos renders - ותרחקון רחקא ית אבה - You should surely [double usage of the word ריחוק] distance it.

We have to understand both Rashi and Unkelos. Why the double language of אטימה [closing] according to Rashi and the double distancing according to Unkelos?

We also have to understand the end of the pasuk: 

שלש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים לא יאכל

Three years they shall be forbidden to you, they shall not be eaten.

We already said in the first part of the pasuk that it is ערלה?! Just tell me "three years" and the ערלה part I already know from a second ago?! [See Pesachim 21b where various drashos are made on this. We would like to know the simple meaning of the pasuk].

Also, the pasuk begins by referring to the ערלה with לשון יחיד, as it says וערלתם ערלתו which is a לשון יחיד. Then the pasuk shifts to לשון רבים as it says יהיה לכם ערלים. [See the Malbim on the pasuk who explains that the Medrash had this question].

The Ramban writes: 

וטעם המצוה הזאת, לכבד את ה' מראשית כל תבואתנו מפרי העץ ותבואת הכרם, ולא נאכל מהם עד שנביא כל פרי שנה אחת הלולים לה', והנה אין הפרי בתוך שלש שנים ראוי להקריבו לפני השם הנכבד לפי שהוא מועט ואין האילן נותן בפריו טעם או ריח טוב בתוך שלש שנים, ורובן לא יוציאו פירות כלל עד השנה הרביעית, ולכך נמתין לכולן, ולא נטעום מהם עד שנביא מן הנטע שנטענו כל פריו הראשון הטוב קדש לפני השם, ושם יאכלוהו ויהללו את שם ה'. והמצוה הזאת דומה למצות הבכורים.

Explains the Ramban that the idea of Orlah is that we want to honor Hashem by giving Him our first fruits. For the first three years the fruit is not worthy of being brought before Hashem and have a poor taste and smell and also most trees don't produce fruits until the fourth year, so we wait until the four year and then bring all the fruits to Yerushalayim and eat them in front of Hashem. This mitzva is similar to Bikkurim. 

This is also the explanation of the Chinuch [רמ"ז]. See also Raavad [Maachalos Asuros 10-14], Shulchan Aruch Yo"d 294-17 and in the Tshuvos Chasam Sofer Yo"d 285 he discusses the inferior nature of Orlah fruit. 

But we have to understand! Since the Ramban wrote that the mitzva is similar to Bikkurim, why does the mitzva of Bikkurim require one to bring only ONE fruit to Yerushalayim while Orlah requires that one bring ALL of the fruits [in the fourth year]? What is the difference?

So we have to say that since Bikkurim is a mitzva on the first FRUITS, one fruit [per species] is enough, while the requirement of Orlah devolves on the first produce of the TREE and therefore one needs to bring ALL of the first produce of the tree. Indeed, we see that the pasuk relates to the tree:

   "ונטעתם כל עץ מאכל וערלתם ערלתו וכו'". 

And in the the first mishna in Orlah it says:

"הנוטע לסייג ולקורות פטור מן הערלה". 

If one plants a tree as a fence or for beams it is not obligated in Orlah. 

The Yerushalmi there derives this law from the pasuk "עץ מאכל" that only a tree that is designated for eating is obligated in Orlah [see there]. The question is that these are the same fruits he could have planted for eating which would be obligated, so how could they be פטור?? This proves our point: That the halacha relates not to the fruit but to the TREE, that if it is fruit TREE, all of the fruits go to Hashem ["יהיה כל פריו קודש הילולים לי-ה-ו-ה"]. But if it is not a fruit tree, since it was planted as a fence etc. there is no din that the fruits go to Hashem. 

According to this, the words "וערלתם ערלתו" mean that indeed as far as the tree itself is concerned, the fruits are "closed off" and "distanced" since they have not yet been brought to Hashem and they may not be brought to Hashem until the 4th year as the Ramban we cited explained the rationale [its inferior quality]. However this is just a rationale and סברא, but we have not yet been told that there is an obligation and biblical prohibition on benefiting from it since the first produce has not yet been brought to Hashem [the Rambam compared Bikkurim with Orlah and when it comes to Bikkurim the fruits are NOT forbidden before the first fruits are brought]. So the pasuk continues and tells us that there is a commandment and prohibition to close off and distance those fruits that are forbidden by dint of logic [inferior quality - the Ramban]. That is the meaning of the continuation of the pasuk "שלש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים לא יאכל". An absolute prohibition. This is through "וערלתם ערלתו את פריו", meaning that even though the law relates to the tree [as we said], this has nothing to do with not using the trees and branches of the tree [which anyway don't go to Hashem]. Rather it is through "וערלתם את פריו" - that the law of the tree is fulfilled through the fruits by not eating them before the first fruits are brought to Hashem. That explains the לשון יחיד - relating to the singular tree and not to the multiple fruits.