Orlah And Revai - Part 2

Speaker:
Ask author
Date:
May 01 2019
Downloads:
0
Views:
69
Comments:
0
 

However, we cannot say that the ENTIRE idea of Orlah is that one may not eat the fruits for the first three years so that he can eat them in Yerushalayim with kedusha in the fourth, because there are Amoraim [Brachos 35a] who hold that רבעי [eating in the fourth year] applies only to a כרם [vineyard] while everyone holds that Orlah applies to all trees. So we see that there is more to Orlah than just not eating for three years in order to bring the first fruits to Hashem in the fourth [as the Ramban said and compared it to Bikkurim] because most fruits don't have a din of רבעי and Orlah stands alone. 




 




In addition the Rambam [Maachalos Asuros 10-15] holds that נטע רבעי [eating in the 4th year] doesn't apply to fruits in חוץ לארץ and only Orlah applies. But according to the Ramban there should be no איסור ערלה since there is no רבעי?!  So again we see that ערלה and רבעי are not necessarily linked. 




 




Rashi [סוטה מ"ג: ד"ה קלא אית להו] writes that according to the opinion that רבעי only applies only to a כרם, there is no ערלה if there is only one sapling. There must be a complete כרם. The Rishonim [Baal Hamaor Brachos 35, Ramban Rosh Hashana 10a, R' Akiva Eiger Gilyonei Hashas, Chasam Sofer Yo"d 285] wonder where Rashi gets this from. The Sefer Hashlam explains that Rashi certainly holds that ערלה applies even to one tree and Rashi means that נטע רבעי applies only to a complete כרם [I hope to explain why he writes "ערלה" and not "נטע רבעי"]. If so, how does one tree have a din of ערלה if there is no din of נטע רבעי [according to the Ramban who links the two]. 




 




We see again from this that ערלה applies to fruits independent of the obligation to being the fruits fruits to Hashem in Yerushalayim. So the rationale for the איסור can be as the Ramban writes further that it is unhealthy to eat fruits in the first three years or as the Rambam says in the Moreh Nevuchim [quoted by the Ramban] that the idea is to prevent witchcraft or for other possible reasons. However, the first reason mentioned by the Ramban still applies [as implied by the words of the pasuk, as we explained earlier]. Therefore, a tree planted for a fence which by definition can't be brought to eat before Hashem, because it is not a tree for eating and thus precluded from the mitzva of נטע רבעי, is not subject to the איסור of ערלה [even though the other reasons for the איסור still apply]. Just in חוץ לארץ or when it is not a כרם [according to the opinion that only a כרם is obligated in רבעי] even though there is no din to bring it to Yerushalayim before Hashem, since there is no הפקעה [preclusion] in its essence from being brought before Hashem, the איסור of ערלה applies.  




 




The Zera Avraham [סימן י"ד אות כ"ב] discusses the איסור רבעי and suggests that it is really an extension of the איסור ערלה which is permitted if redeemed [see there]. The Derech Emunah [Orlah 9-1] also talks about this and notes the opinion of the Behag who only enumerates the mitzva of ערלה and doesn't enumerate the mitzva of נטע רבעי which would imply that they are one mitzva. He also quotes the Ramban [Rosh Hashana 10a] who writes regarding נטע רבעי in חוץ לארץ, that from the fact that the mishna says that "any mitzva that depends on the land is only kept in the Land [Eretz Yisrael] except for Orlah" and רבעי is not mentioned, even though רבעי is an independent mitzva, we see that רבעי is not obligatory in חוץ לארץ [see there at length].  This would imply that ערלה and רבעי are two distinct concepts, as the Ramban noted that רבעי is an independent mitzva.



 




Based on what we said earlier, the correct understanding is not that the איסור רבעי is an extension of the איסור ערלה which is permitted when redeemed, but the opposite - the איסור ערלה is a result of the איסור רבעי. Since one should eat his first fruits in front of Hashem in the fourth year, it is forbidden to eat for the first three years [as we saw in the Ramban Al Hatorah]. Therefore the Behag correctly included them in the same mitzva since they are conceptually related. But as we said, there is also an aspect of the mitzva of ערלה that is NOT connected to the mitzva of רבעי and that is what the Ramban [Rosh Hashana 10a] meant when he said that רבעי is an independent mitzva. So when the mishna mentions ערלה being in חו"ל that is not a proof that the same applies to רבעי because maybe this din stems from the aspect of ערלה that is unrelated to רבעי. So ערלה is both connected conceptually to רבעי and also independent.  




 




[עפ"י דברי מו"ר הגאון הגדול רבי ד"י מן זצ"ל]        








 


Mishna:
Orlah 
Parsha:

    More from this:
    Comments
    0 comments
    Leave a Comment
    Title:
    Comment:
    Anonymous: 

    Learning on the Marcos and Adina Katz YUTorah site is sponsored today by Judy & Mark Frankel & family l'ilui nishmos מרדכי בן הרב משה יהודה ע"ה and משה יהודה ז"ל בן מאיר אליהו ויהודית and by the Polinsky Family to commemorate the 5th Yahrzeit of Gil Polinsky, Gedalyahu Gootmun Chaim ben Yaakov Dov