## Jerusalem Talmud Orlah Chapter 1

###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:1)

**משנה:** הַנּוֹטֵעַ לִסְיָיג וּלְקוֹרוֹת פָּטוּר מִן הֶעָרְלָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר אֲפִילוּ אָמַר הַפְּנִימִי לְמַאֲכָל וְהַחִיצוֹן לִסְיָיג הַפְּנִימִי חַיָיב וְהַחִיצוֹן פָּטוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody plants for fences or building logs he is exempt from ‘*orlah*. Rebbi Yose says, even if he says the inner part is for food, the outer part for a fence¹ if he does not intend to harvest its yield in the future. But the inner part which will be harvested is obligated., the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt.

footnotes:
¹ A tree planted at the border between an orchard and the public domain. If he intends that the part facing the public domain should be integrated into a fence then the part facing the public is exempt from ‘orlah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:2)

**הלכה:** הַנּוֹטֵעַ לִסְיָיג וּלְקוֹרוֹת פָּטוּר כול׳. כְּתִיב וּנְטַעְתֶּם כָּל עֵץ מַאֲכָל. אֶת שֶׁהוּא לְמַאֲכָל חַיָיב. לִסְיָיג וּלְקוֹרוֹת וּלְעֵצִים פָּטוּר. מֵעַתָּה אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלְמַאֲכָל אֲפִילוּ חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו לִסְיָיג יְהֵא חַיָיב. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר עֵץ מַאֲכָל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody plants for fences or building logs he is exempt,” etc. It is written (*Lev*. 19:23): “If you plant any food tree.” What is for food is obligated; for fencing, logs, or wood it is exempt. Then the one for food even if he intended it as a fence should be obligated! The verse says, “a food tree². 1:11–12); it must be intended for food; a fruit tree grown for its timber is exempt. A similar argument in *Sifra Qedošim Parsha* 3(2)..”

footnotes:
² It says “a food tree”, not “a fruit tree” as in the Creation story (Gen


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:3)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לָמַד דָּבָר מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ. מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים יִהְיֶה לָכֶם עֲרֵילִים לֹא יֵאָכֵל. וְכִי אֵין יוֹדְעִין שֶׁבְּעֵץ מַאֲכָל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּנְטַעְתֶּם כָּל עֵץ מַאֲכָל אֵת שֶׁהוּא לְמַאֲכָל חַיָיב לִסְיָיג וּלְקוֹרוֹת וּלְעֵצִים פָּטוּר. רִבִּי יוֹנָה לָמַד דָּבָר מִסּוֹפוֹ. מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּבַשָּׁנָה הַחֲמִישִׁית תֹּאכְלוּ אֶת פִּרְיוֹ לְהוֹסִיף לָכֶם תְּבוּאָתוֹ. וְכִי אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁבְּעֵץ מַאֲכָל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּנְטַעְתֶּם כָּל עֵץ מַאֲכָל אֵת שֶׁהוּא לְמַאֲכָל חַיָיב לִסְיָיג וּלְקוֹרוֹת וּלְעֵצִים פָּטוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose understood the text from its beginning, from the meaning of what is said (*Lev*. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten.” Does this not imply that the verse speaks about a fruit tree? Why does the verse say: “If you plant any food tree”? What is for food is obligated, for fencing, logs, or wood is exempt. Rebbi Jonah understood the text from its end, from the meaning of what is said (*Lev*. 19:25): “In the fifth year you shall eat its fruit, to increase its yield for you.” Does this not imply that the verse speaks about a fruit tree? Why does the verse say: “If you plant any food tree”? What is for food is obligated; for fencing, logs, or wood it is exempt.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:4)

תַּנֵּי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמָן שֶׁנָּטַע לִסְיָיג וּלְקוֹרוֹת וּלְעֵצִים דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לָהֶם. נָטַע דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָהֶן חַיָיב. יְאוּת אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בִּמְשַׁנֶּה סֵדֶר נְטִיעָתָם לָעֵצִים בְּרוֹצַף לְקוֹרוֹת בִּמְשַׁפֶּה לִסְיָיג מְקוֹם הַסְּיָיג מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated⁴ 3(3).: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, when has this been said? If he planted for fencing, logs, or wood, kinds appropriate for that use. If he planted an inappropriate kind it is obligated.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said it correctly, what is the reason of the rabbis? Rebbi Zeïra said, if he changed the way it is usually planted⁵ 2:1.
The Rome ms. does not read במשנה; then R. Zeïra’s is a straight declarative sentence: “The way it is usually planted: …” In this version, the rabbis eliminate the intention of the planter as a matter of biblical law.: For wood tightly together, for logs cutting off branches, for a fence the location of the fence proves it.

footnotes:
⁴ Tosephta 1, Sifra Qedošim Parsha
⁵ For the majority, a tree bearing edible fruit is exempt only if from the start it is treated so that any passer-by will see that the tree is not intended as fruit tree. In this version, the restriction of the rabbis is rabbinic. For Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel it all depends on the planter’s intention, an attitude rejected by R. Simeon ben Ioḥai in Mishnah Ševi‘it


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:5)

תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר כָּל הָאִילָנוֹת בָּאִין לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת פְּטוֹר חוּץ מִן הַזַּיִת וּמִן הַתְּאֵינָה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר כְדַעְתֵּיהּ דְּאָמַר כָּל אִילָנוֹת אִילָן סְרָק חוּץ מִזַּיִת וּתְאֵינָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: “All trees can be exempted by intention except olive and fig trees.” Rebbi Meïr is consistent since he says⁶ 6:6. He holds there that any “futile” fruit-bearing tree may be planted in a vineyard to support the spreading vines without infringing on the prohibition of mixing species in a vineyard. all trees are futile except olive and fig trees.

footnotes:
⁶ Mishnah Kilaim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:6)

תַּנֵּי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵין לָךְ בָּא לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת פְּטוֹר אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשֶׁת הַמִּינִין בִּלְבַד רִימוֹן וְשִׁקְמִים וּצְלָף. מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ חַיָיבִין בְּמַעֲשֵׂר. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל וּדְרִבִּי הִילָא. דְּאִיתפַלְּגוֹן הַמְּשַׁמֵּר פֵּירוֹתָיו לָעֵצִים רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל אָמַר חַיָיב. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר פָּטוּר. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל אָמַר חַיָיב. מִן הָדָא וּבָא הַלֵּוִי כִּי אֵין לוֹ חֶלֶק וְנַחֲלָה עִמָּךְ. מִמָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָךְ וְאֵין לוֹ אַתְּ חַיָיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ. יָצָא הֶבְקֵר שֶׁיָּדָךְ וְיָדוֹ שָׁוִין בּוֹ. הוּא לֶקֶט הִיא שִׁכְחָה הִיא פֵיאָה הִיא הֶבְקֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: The only kinds admitting an intention of exemption are three: [buckthorn]⁷ 1:1) by Arabic נַבק “buckthorn, lotus fruit.” Pomegranate trees (רימון) have valuable fruits and are not planted for their wood. Cf. *Demay* 1, Note 4., sycamore, and caper bush. Are these obligated for tithes⁷ 1:1) by Arabic נַבק “buckthorn, lotus fruit.” Pomegranate trees (רימון) have valuable fruits and are not planted for their wood. Cf. *Demay* 1, Note 4.? This is a dispute between Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila. They differed: If somebody kept his fruit trees for wood, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, Rebbi Hila said he is exempted. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, from the following⁹ 1:1, Note 20.: (*Deut*. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not¹⁰.. This excludes abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, *peah*, and abandoned property are all equal.

footnotes:
⁷ Reading with R. S. Cirillo רימין for רימון, defined by Maimonides (Demay
⁷ Reading with R. S. Cirillo רימין for רימון, defined by Maimonides (Demay
⁹ Ma‘serot
¹⁰ Since the fruits of the tree destined to be cut down as fire wood remain private property, they are subject to tithes. The next two sentences are irrelevant here; they are just copied from the source in Ma‘serot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:7)

רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר פָּטוּר מִן הָדָא כּוּסְבָּר שֶׁזְּרָעָהּ לְזֶרַע יַרְקָהּ פָּטוּר. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא כּוּסְבָּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ גוֹרֶן אֲחֶרֶת. וְהַיי דָא אָמַר דָּא הַמְּקַיֵים מְלֵיאָה שֶׁלְכְּרוּב לְזֶרַע בָּטְלָה דַעְתּוֹ קְלָחִין יְחִידִין לֹא בָטְלָה דַעְתּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְהוּא שֶׁלִּיקֵּט יָרָק. אֲבָל אִם לֹא לִיקֶּט יָרָק כָּךְ אָנוּ אוֹמְרִים עֵצִים חַיָיבִין בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yose said he is exempt, from the following¹¹ 4:5.: “If coriander is sown for its seed, its greenery is free.” Coriander is different since it has a different threshing floor¹². But he says from the following¹³ 1:1, Notes 32–36. If somebody keeps an entire cabbage patch to grow seeds it does not exempt the patch from tithes even though the seeds are inedible.: “If someone keeps cabbage for seeds, his opinion is inoperative; for single stalks it is not inoperative.” Rebbi Jonah said, only if he collected greens. But if he did not collect greens, do we say that wood is subject to tithes¹⁴ only if they are taken down. Since it is stated later that ‘*orlah* is forbidden for any use, declaring the fruits as wood makes them usable.?

footnotes:
¹¹ Mishnah Ma‘serot
¹² The seeds. Exempting the greenery is not exempting the entire plant.
¹³ Ma‘serot
¹⁴ Fruits from trees grown for their wood are subject to the laws of ‘orlah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:8)

מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם גֶּזֶל. וְכִי עֵצִים אֵינָן אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם גֶּזֶל. מַה צְרִיכָא לֵיהּ כְּגוֹן אִילֵּין תּוּתַיָיא דְּלָא אִית בְּהוֹן מַמָּשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Are these forbidden because of robbery? Is wood not also forbidden because of robbery? What is his problem? For example, mulberry trees having no solidity¹⁵.

footnotes:
¹⁵ If a mulberry tree visibly is grown for firewood (Note 5), is it permitted for strangers to take mulberries without paying for them since these cannot be used as firewood? The question is not answered. (Explanation of R. Eliahu Fulda.)


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:9)

רִימוֹן שֶׁנְּטָעוֹ לְשֵׁם רִימוֹן. בְּנוֹת הֲדַס שֶׁנְּטָעָן לְשֵׁם בְּנוֹת הֲדַס. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי חַיָיב. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי פָּטוּר. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא מָאן דְּאָמַר חַיָיב בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁרוֹב מְשַׁמְּרִין. מָאן דְּאָמַר פָּטוּר בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הָרוֹב מְשַׁמְּרִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי אִם בְּמָקוֹם מְשַׁמְּרִין לָמָּה לִי חִישֵׁב אֲפִילוּ לֹא חִישֵּׁב. כָּךְ אָנוּ אוֹמְרִים זַיִת וּתְאֵינָה עַד שֶׁיַּחֲשׁוֹב עֲלֵיהֶן. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ מֶחֱצָה מְשַׁמְּרִין וּמֶחֱצָה שֶׁאֵין מְשַׁמְּרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתְיָה מִן דְּבַתְרָתָהּ מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין רוֹב מְשַׁמְּרִין אֲפִילוּ לֹא חִישֵׁב פָּטוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
A buckthorn⁷ 1:1) by Arabic נַבק “buckthorn, lotus fruit.” Pomegranate trees (רימון) have valuable fruits and are not planted for their wood. Cf. *Demay* 1, Note 4. planted for buckthorn berries, a myrtle planted for myrtle berries¹⁶, some Tannaïm stated: obligated, some Tannaïm stated: exempt. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said “obligated”, at a place where most are guarded¹⁷; he who said “exempt”, at a place where the majority do not guard. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is at a place where most do guard why does he have to think, even if he did not think! Are we saying: Olive trees and fig trees only if the thinks about them¹⁸ only if expressly planted for their fruit. Therefore, at a place where myrtle berries customarily are used in food, the individual’s intent should be irrelevant.? But even if one half do guard, one half do not guard¹⁹! Rebbi Matthew²⁰ understood this from the final statement: “At a place where the majority²¹ do not guard” even if he did not think it is exempt.

footnotes:
⁷ Reading with R. S. Cirillo רימין for רימון, defined by Maimonides (Demay
¹⁶ These trees are not usually planted for their berries.
¹⁷ The rare places where the berries of these bushes are eaten and valuable.
¹⁸ Since these are always guarded and used for their fruit, nobody thinks that they are subject to ‘orlah
¹⁹ In that case, no preponderant use is established.
²⁰ In the Rome ms.: R. Mattaniah.
²¹ “The majority do not” means “strictly more than one-half”.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:10)

רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹצָדָק גֶּפֶן שֶׁעָלַת בְּמָקוֹם חוֹרְשִׁין פְּטוּרָה מִן הֶעָרְלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֲפִילוּ נְטָעָהּ. וְהָתַנִּינָן הָעוֹלֶה מֵאֵילָיו חַיָיב בְּעוֹרְלָה. תַּמָּן בְּשֶׁנְּטָעָן בְּמָקוֹם יִישׁוּב. בְּרַם הָכָא שֶׁנְּטָעָהּ בְּמָקוֹם חוֹרְשִׁין. אָמַר רִבִּי לָיעְזָר הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה כְדֵי טְפֵילָתָהּ. אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה עוֹשָׂה כְדֵי טְפֵילָתָהּ חַיֶיבֶת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joẓadaq: A vine growing in a copse is exempt from ‘*orlah*. Rebbi Yose said, even if he planted it. But did we not state: “If it grew by itself it is obligated for ‘*orlah*”? There, when it was planted in a cultivated place, but here if it was planted in a copse. Rebbi Eleazar said, this means if its yield is not worth its tending but if its yield is worth its tending it is obligated.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:11)

רַב חוּנָה שָׁאַל אֶתְרוֹג שֶׁנְּטָעוֹ לְמִצְוָותוֹ מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָיב בְּעָרְלָה. חָזַר רַב חוּנָא וְאָמַר אֶתְרוֹג שֶׁנְּטָעוֹ לְמִצְוָתוֹ חַיָיב בְּעָרְלָה. וְלֹא כֵן תַּנִּינָן וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם וְלֹא מִן הַמִּצְוָה. תַּמָּן וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם בְּדָמִים לֹא מִן הַמִּצְוָה. בְּרַם הָכָא כְּמַה דְתֵימַר גַּבֵּי שׁוֹפָר יוֹם תְּרוּעָה יִהְיֶה לָכֶם מִכָּל מָקוֹם. וָכָא שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים יִהְיֶה לָכֶם עֲרֵילִים לֹא יֵאָכֵל מִכָּל מָקוֹם. מַה בֵינוֹ לִמְשַׁמֵּר פֵּירוֹתָיו לְעֵצִים. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא רוֹצֶה בְּפִרְיוֹ כָּךְ הוּא רוֹצֶה בְּעֵצוֹ. בְּרַם הָכָא רוֹצֶה הוּא בְּפִרְיוֹ וְאֵין רוֹצֶה בְּעֵצוֹ. וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה פֶּרִי אִם אוֹמֵר עֵצוֹ אֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בָהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְחָג. מַה דָמֵי לָהּ. זַיִת שֶׁנְּטָעוֹ לְהַדְלִיק בּוֹ בַחֲנוּכָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר בּוּן זֶה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה וְזֶה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם וְאַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. מַה דָמֵי לָהּ. זַיִת שֶׁנְּטָעוֹ לְהַדְלִיק בּוֹ אֶת הַמְּנוֹרָה. זֶה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה וְזֶה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rav Ḥuna asked: If an *etrog* tree²² is identified as the “fruit of the splendid tree” (*Lev*. 23:40) to be taken in procession on the holiday of Tabernacles. If ‘*orlah* did apply, then the fruits of the young tree would not be usable. The question presupposes that the *etrog* is edible, the fruit of *Citrus medica cedrata*, cf. *Ma‘serot* 1, Note 86, but it is not intended to be eaten. was planted for its obligation, is it obligated for ‘*orlah*? Rav Ḥuna came back and said: An *etrog* tree planted for its obligation is obligated for ‘*orlah*. Did we not state there: (*Lev*. 23:40) “You shall buy for yourselves” and not from the obligation²³, palm fronds, myrtle, and willow twigs, should be acquired for the holiday, not taken from what is already obligated for religious purposes; in the case of the *etrog* this refers to fruits of Second Tithe brought to Jerusalem for the holiday.? There, “you shall buy *for yourselves*” with money, not from the obligation. But here, as you say in the matter of *shofar*, (*Lev*. 23:24) “a day of blasts it shall be *for you*”, from anywhere²⁴ can be used for blowing even if it is forbidden for usufruct.. And here, (*Lev*. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ *for you*, it may not be eaten,” in any way. What is the difference between this²⁵ for Tabernacles instead as food. and him who guards his fruits to use as wood? He wants the tree itself just as he wants the fruits. But here, he wants the fruit and is not interested in the tree. In addition, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, (*Lev*. 23:40) “fruit”; if you say it is part of the tree nobody can acquit himself of his obligation on the holiday! What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted for light on Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, one is biblical, the other rabbinic! And you say so? What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted to light the candelabrum²⁶.; then both are biblical.

footnotes:
²² The etrog
²³ The “four kinds”, etrog
²⁴ Since “religious obligations are not for usufruct”, a shofar
²⁵ Using the etrog
²⁶ An olive tree planted with the idea that its fruits should be used exclusively to produce oil for the candelabrum in the Temple. By the preceding argument, it is subject to the rules of ‘orlah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:12)

רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יָקִים בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נְטָעוֹ צַד הַתַּחְתּוֹן לִסְיָיג וְהָעֶלְיוֹן לְמַאֲכָל. צַד הַתַּחְתּוֹן לְמַאֲכָל וְהָעֶלְיוֹן לִסְיָיג. אָמַר לֵיהּ הִיא הָדָא הִיא הָדָא. הִיא צַד הַתַּחְתּוֹן לִסְיָיג וְהָעֶלְיוֹן לְמַאֲכָל. הִיא צַד הָעֶלְיוֹן לִסְיָיג וְהַתַּחְתּוֹן לְמַאֲכָל. כֵּיצַד הוּא יוֹדֵעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה מֵבִיא זְמוֹרָה וּמְסַיֵים עַד כָּאן לִסְיָיג מִיכָּן וָאֵילָךְ לְמַאֲכָל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If he planted the lower part as fence but the upper part for food, or the lower part for food but the upper part as fence? He said to him, one is like the other, whether the upper part for food but the lower part as fence, or the lower part for food but the upper part as fence²⁷. How does one know? He brings a string and ties it as a sign: So far as fence, the excess for food.

footnotes:
²⁷ Reading of the Rome ms. Leyden (corrected) זמודה, Leyden uncorrected and Venice ומודה “and agrees”.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:13)

רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעֵי נִיחָא צַד הַתַּחְתּוֹן לִסְיָיג וְהָעֶלְיוֹן לְמַאֲכָל. צַד הַתַּחְתּוֹן לְמַאֲכָל וְהָעֶלְיוֹן לִסְיָיג גָּדַל מִתּוֹךְ אִיסּוּר וְאַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵן. רִבִּי זְעִירָה כְדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן בָּצָל שֶׁלְכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁעֲקָרוֹ וּשְׁתָלוֹ אֲפִילוּ מוֹסִיף כַּמָּה אָסוּר שֶׁאֵין גִּידּוּלֵי אִיסּוּר מַעֲלִין אֶת הָאִיסּוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeïra asked: One understands if the lower part is for a fence but the upper part for food, but the lower part for food but the upper part as fence? It grows out of something forbidden and you say so? Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion²⁹ 5:7, Note 76., as Rebbi Zeira said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from *kilaim* in a vineyard which he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

footnotes:
²⁹ Kilaim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:14
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:14)

נְטָעוֹ לִסְיָיג וְחִישֵּׁב עָלָיו לְמַאֲכָל בָּא בְמַחֲשָׁבָה. לְמַאֲכָל וְחִישֵּׁב עָלָיו לִסְיָיג לֹא כָּל הִימֵינוּ. נְטָעוֹ שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה לִסְיָיג מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו לְמַאֲכָל מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁחִישֵּׁב בּוֹ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת חִיּוּב יְהֵא חַיָיב. וְהָתַנִּינָן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ הַפְּנִימִי לְמַאֲכָל וְהַחִיצוֹן לִסְיָיג הַפְּנִימִי חַיָיב וְהַחִיצוֹן פָּטוּר. תַּמָּן לְמַאֲכָל לְמַאֲכָל לְעוֹלָם. לִסְיָיג לִסְיָיג לְעוֹלָם. בְּרַם הָכָא מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁעִירֵב בּוֹ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת חִיּוּב יְהֵא חַיָיב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If he planted as a fence and then thought to use it for food, it goes after his thought. [If he first thought to use it] for food and then thought to use it as a fence, his [intent] cannot be accepted³⁰. If he planted as a fence the first year and afterwards thought to use it for food, since he thought to obligate it is obligated. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? There, what is for food is always for food, for a fence always for a fence, but here, since he proceeded with a thought of obligation, it is obligated.

footnotes:
³⁰ An obligation can be created by intent; it cannot be removed by intent.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:15
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:15)

נְטָעוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים לִסְיָיג מִיכָּן וָאֵילָךְ חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו לְמַאֲכָל וְהוֹסִיף תּוֹסַפְתּוֹ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר הַתּוֹסֶפֶת פְּטוֹר. רִבִּי בָּא אָמַר הַתּוֹסֶפֶת חִיּוּב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָדָא דִרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִתְחַמְיָא קַשְׁיָא וְלֵית הִיא אֶלָּא נִיחָא. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי שָׂדֶה שֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ לִפְנֵי גוֹי וּלְקָחָהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר הַתּוֹסֶפֶת פְּטוֹר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים הַתּוֹסֶפֶת חִיּוּב. וְהָכָא עִיקָּרוֹ פְטוֹר וְתּוֹסַפְתּוֹ חִיּוּב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If he planted as a fence for three years, afterwards thought to use it for food, and it grew more? Rebbi Jeremiah said the addition is exempt, Rebbi Abba said the addition is obligated. Rebbi Yose said, the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah seems to be difficult but it is only reasonable, as we have stated³¹ 5:4, Note 66. It seems that R. Jeremiah follows R. Aqiba in holding that any branches grown after the first three years are exempt from ‘*orlah*.: “If a field became one-third ripe in the possession of a Gentile and a Jew bought it, Rebbi Aqiba says the addition is exempt. But the Sages say, the addition is obligated.” In our case the stem is exempt and its addition should be obligated³².?

footnotes:
³¹ Ma‘serot
³² This is R. Yose’s argument that R. Jeremiah’s position is reasonable: Grain one-third grown is only potentially subject to tithes, after harvesting and processing. Since usually grain is not harvested one-third grown, any additional growth after one-third is normally subject to tithes. But after three years, the stem of a tree has totally outgrown any obligation of ‘orlah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:16
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:16)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כָּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עָרְלָה אֵין לוֹ רְבָעִי. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים עָרְלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה עִיקַּר עָרְלָה צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ אֵין עִיקַּר עָרְלָה פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ שָּׁנִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי עִיקַּר רְבָעִי צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ כָּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אֵין לוֹ עָרְלָה אֵין לוֹ רְבָעִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Ismael: Anything not subject to *‘orlah* is not subject to the fourth year³⁴ when (*Lev*. 19:24) “in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy for praises of the Eternal.”. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Until it was subject to *‘orlah* for three years? Rebbi Jonah said, he asked about the principle of *‘orlah* and no principle of *‘orlah* is less than three years³⁵ less than three years can induce the holiness of the fourth year fruits.. Rebbi Yose said, he asked about the principle of the fourth year; anything not having three years is not subject to *‘orlah* and not subject to the fourth year³⁶ which ends at the end of the third year after planting induces the holiness of the fourth year fruits; no plant not surviving a full three years can be subject to *‘orlah*..

footnotes:
³⁴ The year following the three years of ‘orlah
³⁵ According to R. Jonah, no period of ‘orlah
³⁶ According to him, any period of ‘orlah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:17
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:17)

תַּנֵּי אִילָן שֶׁמִּקְצָתוֹ נָטוּעַ בָּאָרֶץ וּמִקְצָתוֹ חוּץ לָאָרֶץ מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁמִּקְצָתוֹ נָטוּעַ בָּאָרֶץ כִּילּוּ כּוּלּוֹ בָאָרֶץ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר צַד הַנָּטוּעַ בָּאָרֶץ חַיָיב צַד הַנָּטוּעַ חוּץ לָאָרֶץ פָּטוּר. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נַעֲשָׂה כְטֶבֶל וְכִמְעוּשָּׂר מְעוּרָבִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated³⁸ 2:22. A different text in the Babli (*Giṭṭin* 22a, *Baba Batra* 27b; also *Nedarim* 59b) attributes to Rebbi the statement here of R. Joḥanan. “Outside the Land” excludes Syria, cf. Mishnah 3:9.: “If a tree is partially planted in the Land and partially outside the Land, since it is partially planted in the Land it is as if completely planted in the Land, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the part planted in the Land is obligated, the part planted outside the Land is free.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is as if *ṭevel* and tithed are mixed together³⁹.

footnotes:
³⁸ Tosephta Ma‘serot
³⁹ This implies that, for Rebbi, fruits from this tree cannot be used as heave and tithe for other trees, neither can any fruit from this tree be freed from the obligation of heave and tithes by anything but other fruits from the same tree. The reason is that each fruit is both obligated and not obligated; taking from another tree would be potentially tithing from what is obligated for what is not obligated.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:18
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:18)

רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שׁוֹרֶשׁ פָּטוּר פּוֹטֵר. מַה כְרִבִּי דְּרִבִּי אָמַר שׁוֹרָשִׁין חַיִין זֶה מִזֶּה. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. הָכָא שׁוֹרֶשׁ פָּטוּר פּוֹטֵר. הֵן דְּתֵימַר שׁוֹרֶשׁ פָּטוּר פּוֹטֵר בְּשׁוֹרֶשׁ יָשָׁן שֶׁהִשְׁרִישׁ מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ אֲבָל אִם הִשְׁרִישׁ מֵחוּץ לָאָרֶץ בָּאָרֶץ לֹא בְדָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An exempt root exempts. Is that following Rebbi who said roots live off one another? It is the opinion of everybody. Here, an exempt root exempts. When you say that an exempt root exempts, [you deal with] an old root that expanded from its own ground to that of another’s⁴⁰ since it is considered a branch of the old tree. This is important for “sinking” branches (*Kilaim* 7:1, Note 1).; but if it extended from outside the Land into the Land it⁴¹ status. does not apply.

footnotes:
⁴⁰ If an older fruit tree develops a new stem from an old root, the new stem is exempt from the rules of ‘orlah
⁴¹ The previous argument. An “exempt root” is not one exempt from the start but one that has outgrown its ‘orlah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:19
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:19)

שׁוֹרֶשׁ פָּטוּר פּוֹטֵר. וְהָתַנִּינָן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ הַפְּנִימִי לְמַאֲכָל וְהַחִיצוֹן לִסְיָיג הַפְּנִימִי חַיָיב וְהַחִיצוֹן פָּטוּר. וְיִפְטוֹר צַד הַחִיצוֹן לְצַד הַפְּנִימִי. רִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר לָהּ סְתָם רִבִּי לָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר רָאוּי הוּא לַחֲשׁוֹב עָלָיו לְחַיְיבוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
An exempt root exempts. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? Should not the outer part make the inner exempt? Rebbi Zeïra said it anonymously, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He might think about it to obligate it.⁴²

footnotes:
⁴² The roots are not exempt; part of the tree is exempt by force of the (revocable) intention of the planter.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:20
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:20)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שָׁרָשִׁים אֵין בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא לְרִבִּי יָסָא בְּפֵירוּשׁ שְׁמַעְתָּנָהּ מִן דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹ בְעָרְלָה הֲוִיתוֹן קַיָימִין וְאִתְדַּכָּרַת הָדָא מִילְתָא בְבִיכּוּרִין. וְאָמַר שָׁרָשִׁין אֵין בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא הֵן דְּתֵימַר שׁוֹרָשִׁין אֵין בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ. בְּהִשְׁרִישׁוּ מֵחוּץ לָאָרֶץ לָאָרֶץ. אֲבָל מִשֶּׁהִשְׁרִישׁוּ מֵהָאָרֶץ לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. שָׁרָשִׁים יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Roots do not count. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, did you hear that explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan or did you discuss *‘orlah* and this came up relating to First Fruits when he said, roots do not count⁴³. 26:10): “Here I brought the first of the fruits of the land You gave me,” one might think that a tree on the farmer’s land whose roots extend under the land of another owner would be disqualified for First Fruits. Maybe the statement of R. Joḥanan means only that any tree on the farmer’s land qualifies, without implications for the rules of *‘orlah*?? Rebbi Zeïra said, what we say, roots do not count, if the roots spread from outside the Land into the Land. But when they spread from the Land to outside the Land they do count⁴⁴.

footnotes:
⁴³ Since in presenting First Fruits to the Temple the farmer has to declare (Deut
⁴⁴ Any tree in the Land is obligated, even if its root started growing outside the Land. Any tree growing on any root which started to grow in the Land is also obligated.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:21
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:21)

סִיפְּקָהּ לִזְקֵינָה פָטוּר לְחוּץ לָאָרֶץ פָּטוּר. לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ חַיָיב לְצַד הַתַּחְתּוֹן לְצַד הָעֶלְיוֹן חַיָיב. לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ חַיָיב שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לִפְדּוֹתוֹ וּלְחַיְיבוֹ. לְצַד הָעֶלְיוֹן חַיָיב שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לַחֲשׁוֹב עָלָיו וּלְחַיְיבוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If one bound it to an old tree⁴⁵ 6:9); the young tree is grafted or otherwise made to be fed by the old tree. it is exempt, to [a tree] outside the Land it is exempt. To a dedicated [tree] it is obligated, to the lower or upper part it is obligated. To a dedicated [tree] it is obligated because one might redeem it and make it obligated. To the lower part it is obligated because he might think about and obligate it⁴⁶.

footnotes:
⁴⁵ “Binding” is an inexact expression (cf. Mishnah Kilaim
⁴⁶ The same argument as above, Note 41.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:22
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:1:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:1:22)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אֲפִילוּ יִסְבּוֹר כְּרִבִּי עָרְלָה תְּלוּיָה לְדַעְתּוֹ וּמַעְשְׂרוֹת אֵינָן תְּלוּיִין לְדַעְתּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Does Rebbi Yose⁴⁷ follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel⁴⁸? He might even hold with Rebbi! *‘Orlah* depends on one’s intention, tithes do not depend on his intention.

footnotes:
⁴⁷ In the Mishnah, Note 1.
⁴⁸ In the Tosephta dealing with heave and tithes from a tree on the border line, Note 37.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:2:1)

**משנה:** עֵת שֶׁבָּאוּ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ לָאָרֶץ וּמָצְאוּ נָטוּעַ פָּטוּר. נָטְעוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא כִיבְּישׁוּ חַיָיב. הַנּוֹטֵעַ לָרַבִּים חַיָיב. רִבִּי יוּדָה פוֹטֵר. הַנּוֹטֵעַ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהַנָּכְרִי שֶׁנָּטַע וְהַגַּזְלָן שֶׁנָּטַע וְהַנּוֹטֵעַ בִּסְפִינָה וְהָעוֹלֶה מֵאֵילָיו חַיָיב בְּעָרְלָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** When our forefathers came into the Land, what they found planted was exempt. If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated. If somebody plants for the benefit of the public⁴⁹, it is obligated; Rebbi Jehudah exempts⁵⁰ 23a) explains that R. Jehudah concludes from *Lev*. 19:21, “it shall be like ‘foreskin’ *for you* (plural)” that the commandment is addressed to the individual; a communal obligation would require the collective.. If somebody plants on public property, the Non-Jew who planted⁵¹, the robber who planted, and he who plants on a ship, are obligated for *‘orlah*.

footnotes:
⁴⁹ But on his private property.
⁵⁰ This is not discussed in the Yerushalmi. The Babli (Pesaḥim
⁵¹ If he planted a tree in the Holy Land, its fruits are forbidden for Jews during the first three years. The other cases of the Mishnah are discussed in the Halakhah.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:2:2)

**הלכה:** וּנְטַעתֶּם פְּרָט לְשֶׁנָּטְעוּ גוֹיִם עַד שֶלֹּא בָאוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לָאָרֶץ. רִבִּי הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּא הָדָא אָמְרָה שׁוֹרֶשׁ פָּטוּר פּוֹטֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** (*Lev*. 19:21) “When you plant,” this excludes what Gentiles planted before Israel came to the Land⁵⁴ 3(2).. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Abba, this implies that an exempt root exempts⁵⁵.

footnotes:
⁵⁴ Sifra Qedošim Parašah
⁵⁵ Since a tree planted a day before Israel crossed the Jordan is permanently exempt.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:2:3)

נָטְעוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא כִיבְּשׁוּ חַיָיב. וּכְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּאָמַר כָּל בִּיאוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה לְאַחַר אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה נֶאֱמָרוּ. שֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּיבְּשׁוּ וְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִילְּקוּ. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר מוֹדֵי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּחַלָּה וּבְעָרְלָה. וְתַנֵּי כֵן כְּבוֹאֲכֶם לְפִי שֶׁשִּׁינֶּה הַכָּתוּב מַשְׁמָעוֹ שִׁינּוּ חֲכָמִים חִיּוּבוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָּעֵי מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר הִיא הֲוָיָיה הִיא הֲקָמָה הִיא שְׁבִירָה הִיא נְפִיצָה הִיא גְּאוּלָה הִיא פְדִיָיה. וְהָכָא הוּא מְשַׁנֶּה בֵּין לִישָׁן לְלִישָׁן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated.” Following Rebbi Ismael who said all “comings”⁵⁶ Chap. 11 (in the author’s edition, Northvale NJ 1998, Notes 3–5). Cf. *Ševi‘it* 6, Note 10, *Ḥallah* 2:1, Note 12. The statement of R. Ismael is discussed at length in Babli *Qiddušin* 37a–38a; it is also quoted in Yerushalmi *Soṭah* 7:4 (fol. 21c), 9:1 (fol. 23c). said in the Torah refer to after 14 years, seven when they conquered and seven when they distributed? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Ismael agrees in the cases of *ḥallah* and *‘orlah*. It was also stated thus: (*Num*. 15:18)⁵⁷, applies only to *ḥallah* where the usual form כבאכם is used. The rules for *‘orlah* start: וכי תבאו אל הארץ but it does not say וירשתם וישבתם בה “after you inherited and settled there.” This kind of argument is applicable only to the Babylonian version which insists not on “coming” but on “settling”. In *Sifra* (*loc. cit*. N. 53), the immediate obligation of *‘orlah* after the crossing of the Jordan, whether planting was done by Jew or Gentile, is deduced from *Lev*. 19:23: “When you come into the Land and plant *any* food-tree.” “At your coming,” because the verse changed its language, the Sages changed⁵⁸ the terms of obligation.” Rebbi Jonah asked: Rebbi Ismael is inconsistent. There, he says “being” and “getting” is the same⁵⁹. 27:9 ff., the redemption of a house is described by והיה לו “it shall be his”, whereas the redemption of a field is וקם לו “it shall be confirmed for him”. The rules are identical even though the expressions are different. The corresponding *baraitot* in *Sifra Beḥuqqotai Pereq* 10 are anonymous., “breaking” and “smashing” is the same⁶⁰. 12:3. In this case, *Sifry Deut*. #61 disagrees and notes that “smashing” is more than “breaking”., “redemption” and “deliverance” is the same⁶¹. 27:28,29; two parallel verses., and here he takes note of a change in expression!

footnotes:
⁵⁶ Any command introduced by the words “it shall be when you come into the Land” applies only after the distribution of the Land to the tribes which by rabbinic tradition was 14 years after the crossing of the Jordan, cf. Seder Olam
⁵⁷ This argument, directly attributed to R. Ismael in Sifry Šelaḥ #110
⁵⁸ This seems to imply that Sadducee interpretation was different.
⁵⁹ In the chapter on dedications, Lev
⁶⁰ Two parallel synonymous expressions in Deut
⁶¹ Lev


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:2:4)

נְטָעוֹ לָרַבִּים חַיָיב. רִבִּי יוּדָה פוֹטֵר. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתִין דְּרַבָּנִין. תַּמָּן אִינּוּן אָמְרִין יְרוּשָׁלֵם וְחוּץ לָאָרֶץ אֵין מִיטָּמִין בִּנְגָעִין. וְהָכָא אִינּוּן אָמְרִין הָכֵין. תַּמָּן וּבָא אֲשֶׁר לוֹ הַבָּיִת. פְּרָט לִירוּשָׁלֵם שֶׁהִיא לְכָל הַשְּׁבָטִים. בְּרַם הָכָא וּנְטַעְתֵּם מִכָּל מָקוֹם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If he planted for the public benefit, it is obligated; Rebbi Jehudah exempts”. The rabbis seem inconsistent. There⁶² 12:4; cf. Babli *Yoma* 12a., they say: “Jerusalem and outside the Land cannot become impure by skin disease,” but here, they say so⁶³! There (*Lev*. 14:35) “the owner of the house comes”⁶⁴. 14:34: “I shall put skin disease on a house on the Land of your inheritance.” This excludes all houses in territory not distributed to the tribes; Jerusalem was conquered by David as capital not belonging to any particular tribe. *Sifra Meẓora‘ Parašah* 5 proves from the verse that (a) the rules did not apply before the distribution of the Land, (b) a house built on poles, not being a “house on the Land” is also not subject to the rules, (c) houses in Jerusalem (and certainly outside the Land) are excluded., excluding Jerusalem which was not distributed among the tribes. But here, (*Lev*. 19:21) “when you plant,” in any way.

footnotes:
⁶² Mishnah Nega‘im
⁶³ As explained in the next Note, Jerusalem is public property and any tree planted there should be exempt as planted for public use.
⁶⁴ The actual verse referred to is Lev


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:2:5)

מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. תַּמָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר אֲנִי לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי אֶלָּא בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵין. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר אֲנִי לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי אֶלָּא בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ שְׁמוּעָה אָמְרָהּ. בְּרַם הָכָא גַּרְמֵיהּ אָמַר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Judah seems inconsistent. There⁶⁵ 5(5), Tosephta *Nega‘im* 6:1, Babli *Yoma* 12a, *Megillah* 26a, *Baba Qama* 82b; referring to the exemption from the laws of skin disease. he says, “I heard only the Temple,⁶⁶. 18:16), but the Temple Mount was bought by David with tax money (*2S*. 24:24, *1Chr*. 21:25) and therefore became the property of the entire people.” and here he says so! There, he says “I heard only the Temple” as a tradition, here in his own name.

footnotes:
⁶⁵ Sifra Meẓora‘ Parašah
⁶⁶ Since Jerusalem itself is clearly part of the domain of the tribe of Benjamin (Jos


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:2:6)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן תִּיפְתָּר כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשְּׁמוֹ הַנּוֹטֵעַ לָרַבִּים חַיָיב בְּעָרְלָה. עָלָה מֵאֵילָיו פָּטוּר מִן הָעָרְלָה. הַנּוֹטֵעַ לָרַבִּים חַיָיב בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים פָּטוּר. הַנּוֹטֵעַ לָרַבִּים חַיָיב כְּנוֹטֵעַ בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ. לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים פָּטוּר בְּשֶׁגָּזַל קַרְקַע. וְיֵשׁ קַרְקַע נִגְזָל. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא אַף עַל פִּי שׁאֵין קַרְקַע נִגְזָל יֵשׁ יִיאוּשׁ לְקַרְקַע.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated⁶⁷: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in his⁶⁸ name, if somebody plants for the public, it is obligated for *‘orlah*. If it grew by itself⁶⁹ it is exempt from *‘orlah*.” ⁷⁰If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated, in the public domain it is exempt. If somebody plants for the public, it is obligated as if he planted on his own property. In the public domain it is exempt, if he robbed real estate⁷¹. Can real estate be robbed? Rebbi Hila said, even though real estate cannot be robbed, hope for recovery of real estate can be given up.

footnotes:
⁶⁷ Tosephta 1:2.
⁶⁸ R. Jehudah’s. R. Simeon ben Eleazar holds that the Mishnah misrepresents R. Jehudah’s position.
⁶⁹ In the Tosephta: “If it grew by itself in the public domain.”
⁷⁰ This sentence, which has no parallel in the Tosephta, is probably part of R. Simeon ben Eleazar's baraita.
⁷¹ If somebody took possession of real estate by force and the original owners gave up hope of recovery, the real estate is no longer in the possession of the original owners. It cannot be legally in the possession of the robber since real estate “cannot be robbed.” Therefore, the legal status of the parcel is that of public property.Movables are acquired by a robber or thief; the robber or thief is required to pay (eventually with a fine added) for what he took. But real estate is not mentioned in the biblical laws of restitution. There also is no rabbinic provision of monetary restitution for real estate illegally taken since it is assumed that times of lawlessness in which real estate can be taken by force are relatively short and that with the return of civilized society, genuine claims of title can be regained in court.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:2:7)

רִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה מַיְיתֵי נְטִיעוֹת מֵחוּץ לָאָרֶץ בְּגוּשֵׁיהֶן וּנְצִיב לוֹן בָּאָרֶץ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה לְשָׂכְרוֹ שָׁנִים. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לְשָׂכְרוֹ רְבָעִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joshia brought saplings from outside the Land in their earth and planted them in the Land. Rebbi Jona, to gain the years⁷² applies also outside the Land by tradition (Mishnah 3:9), by bringing the saplings in their earth he did not interrupt the years of *‘orlah*.. Rebbi Yose, to gain the fourth year⁷³. 19:24, cf. *Peah* 7, Note 99) which does never, even rabbinically, apply to trees planted outside the Land except vines..

footnotes:
⁷² Since ‘orlah
⁷³ The saplings were already three years old; R. Joshia brought them in their earth so they should not be subject to the requirement of redemption in the fourth year (Lev


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:2:8)

תַּנֵּי גּוֹי שֶׁהִרְכִּיב אִילַן מַאֲכָל עַל גַּבֵּי אִילַן סְרָק אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל רַשַּׁאי לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן חַיָיב בְּעָרְלָה. עָרְלָה מֵאֵימָתַי הוּא מוֹנֶה לוֹ מִשְׁעַת נְטִיעָתוֹ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר בִּלְבַד דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן בָּאִין בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה כְּגוֹן חָרוּבֵי צַלְמוֹנָה וְחָרוּבֵי גִידוֹדָה. אֲבָל עֲרָבָה כִּנְטוּעַ בָּאָרֶץ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֲפִילוּ עֲרָבָה. וְהָתַנִּינָן אֵין נוֹטְעִין וְאֵין מַבְרִיכִין וְאֵין מַרְכִּיבִין עֶרֶב שְׁבִיעִית פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם לִפְנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וְאִם נָטַע אוֹ הִבְרִיךְ אוֹ הִרְכִּיב יֵיעָקֵר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דּוּ פָתַר לָהּ בָּעֲרָבָה נִיחָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דּוּ אָמַר אֲפִילוּ עֲרָבָה לָמָּה לִי יֵיעָקֵר. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁהֵן מִתְאָחִין בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. וְהֵיי דָא אָמַר דָּא הַנּוֹטֵעַ וְהַמַּבְרִיךְ וְהַמַּרְכִּיב שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם לִפְנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה עָלְתָה לוֹ שָׁנָה שְׁלֵימָה וּמוּתָּר לְקַיְימָהּ בִּשְׁבִיעִית פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם לִפְנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לֹא עָלְתָה לוֹ שָׁנָה שְׁלֵימָה וְאָסוּר לְקַיְימוֹ בִשְׁבִיעִית. אֲבָל אָמְרוּ פֵּירוֹת נְטִיעָה זוֹ אֲסוּרִין עַד חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בִּשְׁבָט. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹנָיָא לֵית כָּאן מַרְכִּיב. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי אֲפִילוּ כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לֵית כָּאן מַרְכִּיב לְשֶׁעָבַר הָא בַתְּחִילָּה לֹא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated⁷⁴ of the futile tree, not the grafting of the fruit tree. The Tosephta was not known to the editors of the Yerushalmi.: “If a Gentile grafted a food-tree on a futile⁷⁵6:6. tree, even though a Jew is not permitted to do this, it is obligated for *‘orlah*.” From when does one count *‘orlah*? From the moment it⁷⁶ is planted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only those for which intent is important⁷⁷; for example carob trees from Ẓalmon or Gidud⁷⁸; but on a willow⁷⁹ it is as if planted in the earth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even on a willow. But did we not state⁸⁰ 2:6; Note 42. “Sinking” is bending a branch down to the soil to have it grow roots.: “One does not plant, sink, or graft in the year preceding a Sabbatical year later than thirty days before the New Year; if he planted, sank, or grafted it should be uprooted.” According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who will explain it by grafting on a willow it is understandable⁸¹. According to Rebbi Joḥanan who said even on a willow, why should it be uprooted? There is a difference because they unite in the Sabbatical year⁸².. And that is what has been said, ⁸³ 2:3, *Roš Haššanah* 1:8; *Ševi‘it* 2:6 (Notes 50–52), *Roš Haššanah* 1:2 (fol. 57a); Babli *Roš Haššanah* 9b. The Tosephta adds: “If it is *‘orlah* it remains *‘orlah*, fourth year remains fourth year [until the 15th of *Ševaṭ*.]”“If somebody planted, sank, or grafted 30 days before the New Year, it counts for him as a full year and he is permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Less than 30 days before the New Year, it does not count for him as a full year and he is not permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Truly, they said, the fruits from this planting are forbidden until the fifteenth of Shevaṭ.” Rebbi Joshua from Ono⁸⁴. stated: There is no “grafted” here⁸⁵.. Rebbi Abba Mari said, even for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no “grafted” here; for the past, certainly not to start out with⁸⁶. But in that case, R. Simeon ben Laqish agrees that *orlah* is counted for the root tree. R. Simeon ben Laqish has not stated how he would rule if somebody grafted on a willow and only afterwards came to ask..

footnotes:
⁷⁴ In Tosephta 5: “If a Gentile grafted a food tree on a futile tree, one counts from the moment it was planted.” In this version, it is clear that the count starts with the planting
⁷⁵ A tree either without edible fruits or whose fruits are not generally objects of trade; cf. Mishnah Kilaim
⁷⁶ The futile stem.
⁷⁷ Trees whose fruits are usually considered animal feed and only the intent of the grower can give them the status of human food.
⁷⁸ These places and the kinds of carob referred to have not been identified.
⁷⁹ “Willow” is taken as example of a tree whose fruits are neither human food nor animal feed.
⁸⁰ Mishnah Ševi‘it
⁸¹ The forbidden graft is graft of a fruit tree on a willow.
⁸² אחה is usually used for “invisible mending”. The two trees unite; this is forbidden agricultural activity in the Sabbatical. It has nothing to do with the rules of ‘orlah
⁸³ Tosephta Ševi‘it
⁸⁴ An early Amora acting as “Tanna”, memorizing baraitot
⁸⁵ According to R. Joḥanan, grafting never creates a problem of ‘orlah
⁸⁶ Since grafting a fruit tree on a fruitless tree is forbidden, the Tosephta cannot speak only about somebody coming to ask whether he might graft on a fruit tree before Roš Haššanah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:2:9)

רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר חֲקוֹלָה בְּשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה הַנּוֹטֵעַ בֶּעָצִיץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב חַיָיב בְּעָרְלָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַשָּׁרָשִׁין מְפַעְפְּעִין אוֹתוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה מַפִּיק לִשְׁנָה כְּלֵי חֶרֶשׂ עוֹמֵד בִּפְנֵי שָׁרָשִׁין. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי נָטַע בּוֹ דְּלַעַת מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא כְּנָקוּב אֵצֶל הָאִילָן כְּנָקוּב הוּא אֵצֶל זְרָעִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqola in the name of Ḥizqia: If somebody plants in a flower pot without a hole⁸⁷2:2, that the ship is under the agricultural laws of the Land only if it touches the ground. The Tosephta (2–3) in ms. Erfurt has “exempt” for ship and pot without hole; the passage is missing in ms. Vienna., it is subject to *‘orlah*. Rebbi Yose said, because the roots break through it⁸⁸. Rebbi Jonah uses the expression: Clay vessels withstand roots⁸⁹. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he planted a gourd in it, since it is as if there were a hole for trees, is it like as if with a hole for vegetables?

footnotes:
⁸⁷ In the Mishnah, “planting in a ship.” Since the ship in question must be in the Land, it is a small river boat, sometimes made of clay. Cf. Ḥallah
⁸⁸ Tree roots cause clay pots to burst.
⁸⁹ Rebbi Jonah, a generation after R. Jeremiah, gives a negative answer to the latter’s question. Clay vessels withstand all roots except tree roots.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:2:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:2:10)

רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי אִילָן שֶׁנְּטָעוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַבָּיִת חַיָיב בְּעָרְלָה וּפָטוּר מִן הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת דִּכְתִיב עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר אֵת כָּל תְּבוּאַת זַרְעֶךָ הַיּוֹצֵא הַשָּׂדֶה. וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית צְרִיכָה דִּכְתִיב וְשָׁבְתָה הָאָרֶץ שַׁבָּת לַיי. וּכְתִיב שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע וְכַרְמְךָ לֹא תִזְמוֹר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: A tree planted inside a house is obligated for *‘orlah*⁹⁰. but free from tithes since it is written (*Deut*. 14:22): “You shall certainly tithe all yield of your seeds which comes from the *field*.” For the Sabbatical it is problematic⁹¹ since it is written (*Lev*. 25:5): “The Land shall celebrate a Sabbath for the Eternal.” And it is written (*Lev*. 25:6): “You shall not sow your *field* nor prune your vineyard.”

footnotes:
⁹⁰ Nowhere is “field” mentioned in the verses defining ‘orlah
⁹¹ Whether the Sabbatical restrictions apply to fruit-bearing house plants.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:3:1)

**משנה:** אִילָן שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר וְהַסֶּלַע עִמּוֹ אִם יָכוֹל לִחְיוֹת פָּטוּר וְאִם לָאו חַיָיב. נֶעֱקַר הַסֶּלַע מִצִּידּוֹ זִיעְזְעָתוֹ הַמַּחֲרֵישָׁה אוֹ שֶׁזִּיעְזְעָתוֹ וְעָשָׂאוֹ כְעָפָר אִם יָכוֹל לִחְיוֹת פָּטוּר וְאִם לָאו חַיָיב. אִילָן שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר וְנִשְׁתַּיֵיר בוֹ שׁוֹרֶשׁ פָּטוּר. וְכַמָּה יְהֵי בְשׁוֹרֶשׁ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ בִּירְתּוֹתָא כְּמַחַט שֶׁלְמִתּוֹן. אִילָן שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר וּבוֹ בְּרִיכָה וְהוּא חָיֶה מִמֶּנּוּ חָזְרָה זְקֵינָה לִהְיוֹת כִּבְרִיכָה. הִבְרִכָהּ שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה וְנִפְסְקָה מוֹנֶה מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנִּפְסְקָה. סִיפּוּק הַגְּפָנִים סִיפּוּק עַל גַּבֵּי סִיפּוּק אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִבְרִיכָן בָּאָרֶץ מוּתָּר. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר מָקוֹם שֶׁכּוֹחָהּ יָפָה מוּתָּר. וּמָקוֹם שֶׁכּוֹחָהּ רַע אָסוּר. בְּרִיכָה שֶׁנִּפְסְקָה וְהִיא מְלֵיאָה פֵירוֹת אִם הוֹסִיף בְּמָאתַיִם אָסוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If a tree was moved with its lump⁵² is created. But if the roots are moved without sufficient earth then a new count of *‘orlah* has to start., if it can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated. If the lump was partially moved, or the plough displaced it and turned it into dust⁵³ all read בעפר “it was repaired with dust”, i. e., the hole created when the tree was pushed aside by the plough was filled with earth. If the tree could have survived without the new earth, it is not a new planting. *Or zarua‘* (#215) reads כעפר with the Yerushalmi mss. and the corrector of the Kaufmann ms. but explains as if it were written בעפר., if the tree can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated.
If a tree was cut but there remained a root, it⁹³ is exempt. How large shall the root be? Rabban Gamliel⁹⁴ in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota: Like a tenter’s needle⁹⁵, Maimonides, and R. Simson. The tenter is the frame holding the warp in clothmaking; the needle is used to stretch the threads. In the Halakhah, the word appears as מיתוי. In *Kelim* 13:5, the Gaonim read מיתח, “to stretch”, and explain that the weavers use broken needles to stretch the warp. Buxtorf derives the word from Greek μιτόω “to stretch”..
If a tree was uprooted but it had a sunken branch¹⁰⁵. But if now the original tree is separated from its roots and the new tree must live off the new roots of the sunken branch, it reverts to *‘orlah* for the next three years. and now lives off that, the original trunk becomes like the sunken branch. If he sank year after year and it was interrupted, one counts¹⁰⁶. from the moment it was interrupted. Attachment of vines¹⁰⁷, attachment after attachment, even if he sank them into the earth, are permitted. Rebbi Meïr says, where it is in its force it is permitted, where it is weak it is forbidden¹⁰⁸ only if the previous graft had become one with the tree before the last graft.. A sunk branch which became separated but is full of fruits, if it increased by one twohundredth it is forbidden¹⁰⁹, the fruits grown before the new roots were separate from the original trunk grew exempt from *‘orlah*. It now is stated that *‘orlah* fruits are permitted only if the exempt parts of any fruit are more than 200 times the forbidden; cf. also Mishnah 2:1; *Kilaim* 5:6..

footnotes:
⁵² Literally “the rock”. It means the roots with the earth compacted by them. If the roots are totally contained in the earth moved with the tree, it is not a new planting and no ‘orlah
⁵³ Maimonides (autograph), R. Simson, the Cambridge, Munich, and Parma mss. of the Mishnah, as well as the first hand of the Kaufmann ms. and the editio princeps
⁹³ The new growth from the existing root.
⁹⁴ It must be Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as read in some Mishnah mss., since Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota was younger than Rabban Gamliel and a teacher of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel; cf. J. N. Epstein, מבוא לנוסח המשנה2, p. 1199.
⁹⁵ Definition of Arukh
¹⁰⁵ A branch of the tree had been bent down to the earth and part of it covered with earth so that it grew new roots from which a new tree started to grow. As long as everything remains connected, the new tree is considered part of the old and is exempt from ‘orlah
¹⁰⁶ The new parts, no longer connected to the original trunk, become ‘orlah
¹⁰⁷ This term covers sinking of shoots of vines and grafting new shoots on branches of an old vine.
¹⁰⁸ According to him, repeated grafting exempts the new limb from ‘orlah
¹⁰⁹ Since it was stated at the beginning of the Mishnah that sinking does not create an obligation of ‘orlah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:3:2)

**הלכה:** כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא אִם הָיָה יָכוֹל לִחְיוֹת פָּטוּר וְאִם לָאו חַיָיב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** So is the Mishnah: If it could⁹² is created. Cf. J. N. Epstein, מבוא לנוסח המשנה2, p. 450. survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated.

footnotes:
⁹² This is the discussion of Mishnah 3. If the transplanted tree could survive depending only on the earth transferred with it, without help from the earth surrounding it at the new site, no new ‘orlah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:3:3)

חִזְקִיָּה שָׁאַל פָּחוֹת מִיכֵּן כְּתָלוּשׁ הוּא. הִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לוֹ אֲסָרוֹ. כּוֹתְבִין עָלָיו גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים. אָמְרִין חָזַר בֵּיהּ חִזְקִיָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה מִן הָדָא חָזַר בֵּיהּ דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ כְּמַחַט שֶׁל מִיתּוּי דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Ḥizqiah asked: Less than that⁹⁶ 3:5). It is talmudic theory that holy trees are forbidden only because statues are buried between their roots., is it as if torn out? If he worshipped it, is it forbidden? Does one write on it women’s bills of divorce⁹⁷. 24:3) “He shall write for her a bill of divorce and hand it over to her,” one concludes that a bill of divorce may not be written on anything that cannot be delivered immediately after signing, e. g., on a leaf connected to the ground which would have to be cut before delivery is possible (*Sifry Deut*. 269, *Giṭṭin* 3:2, Babli *Giṭṭin* 19b).? They say, Ḥizqiah retracted this. Rebbi Jonah said: Ḥizqiah retracted because Rebbi Joḥanan⁹⁸ said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, if it is [thick] like a tenter’s needle it is certain that it is three years old⁹⁹, which means it is planted in the earth..

footnotes:
⁹⁶ If the root is not as thick as a tenter’s needle. While any object of idolatrous worship is forbidden for usufruct, this excludes the earth and anything permanently affixed to it (Mishnah Avodah Zarah
⁹⁷ Since it is written: (Deut
⁹⁸ Who was Ḥizqiah’s student and would not have transmitted a teaching rejected by his teacher.
⁹⁹ If it is thinner, it is obligated for ‘orlah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:3:4)

חִזְקִיָּה שָׁאַל שְׁלִישׁ מַחַט שָׁנָה שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישֵׁי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים. חֲבֵרַיָיא בָּעֵיי מַחַט וּשְׁלִישׁ דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַרְבַּע שָׁנִים. אִין תֵּימַר לֹא חָזַר בֵּיהּ לָמָּה שָׁאַל כֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה מִן מִלְתֵיהּ חָזַר בֵּיהּ דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ כְּמַחַט שֶׁל מִיתּוּי דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Ḥizqiah asked: A third of a needle [means] one year, two thirds two years¹⁰⁰ 5, Notes 20–21.? The colleagues asked: A needle and a third, is it obvious that it is four years old? If you say, he did not retract, why would he have asked this¹⁰¹. The second of Ḥizqiah’s questions cannot be asked if the first is answered in the affirmative.? Rebbi Jonah said: Ḥizqiah retracted this, because Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai. if it is [thick] like a tenter’s needle it is certain that it is three yeards old¹⁰².

footnotes:
¹⁰⁰ Is the thickness proportional to the time passed after planting? The negative answer is in Ševi‘it
¹⁰¹ If a thin root is not in the earth it cannot count for ‘orlah
¹⁰² The condition of the Mishnah is sufficient but not necessary to characterize a three-year-old tree.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:3:5)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֲפִילוּ יֵשׁ בּוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אֵין בּוֹ כְּמַחַט שֶׁל מִיתּוּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר רִבִּי אַף כְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּנוֹת חָמֵשׁ בְּנוֹת שֵׁשׁ בְּנוֹת שֶׁבַע אֶלָּא בִגְפָנִים בְּנוֹת חָמֵשׁ. בִּתְאֵנִים בְּנוֹת שֵׁשׁ. בְּזֵתִים בְּנוֹת שֶׁבַע. וַאֲנָ[ן] חָמֵיי הָדֵין מֻרְוִיתָא דִתְאֵינָה אַתְיָא בְּפֵירֵי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּרִבִּי טְרִיפוֹן לְעוּבְיָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose said, even three years old it will not have the thickness of a tenter’s needle. Rebbi Yudan said, a *baraita* supports Rebbi Yose: ¹⁰³ 1:9, Notes 72–79. The *baraita* explains the Mishnah defining how long a tree is called “sapling.” A tree which is a sapling for seven years cannot have very impressive roots after three years.“Rebbi says, when they said five, six, or seven years old, for vines five years old, for figs six years old, for olives seven years old.” ¹⁰⁴ 1:9 and have no meaning here. In any case, the size of the root is no direct indication of a tree’s age. But do we not see the growth of the fig tree come with fruits? Rebbi Yudan said, according to Rebbi Tryphon we throw it on its width.

footnotes:
¹⁰³ From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is from Ševi‘it
¹⁰⁴ These two sentences belong to Ševi‘it


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:3:6)

אִילָן שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר וּבוֹ בְּרֵיכָה וּבוֹ בְרָכָה. רִבִּי חוּנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּבוֹ בְּרִיכָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא אִית בְּנֵי נָשׁ שְׁמוֹן בְּרִיכָה כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר בּוֹא בְּרוּךְ יי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If a tree was uprooted but it had a sunken branch;” blessing is in it. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is *bĕrîkhâ* in it. Rebbi Mana said, some people are called *Bĕrîkhâ* as you say (*Gen*. 24:31): “Come, the Eternal’s blessed.”¹¹⁰. is עוּל בְּרִיכָא דַה֗ both in Onqelos (Eastern) and Yerushalmi (Pseudo-Jonathan, Western). The modern Ashkenazic version of the name is Brick, Bruck. Cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Jewish Family Names and Their Origins, Ktav, 1992.

footnotes:
¹¹⁰ Both homiletic versions, that sinking branches brings blessing to the farmer, are identical. The Aramaic translation of the phrase from Gen


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:3:7)

רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי יַסִּי רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָא. רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי חִיָיה רִבִּי לָעְזָר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בֶן גַּמְלִיאֵל יַלְדָּה שֶׁסֻּפְּקָה לִזְקֵינָה טֻהֲרָה הַיַּלְדָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר בָּא מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן סִיפּוּק גְּפָנִים סִיפּוּק עַל סִיפּוּק אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִבְרִיכָן לָאָרֶץ מוּתָּר. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא הִשְׁרִישָׁה הַיַּלְדָּה עַד שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְאַחֶה מִן הַזְּקֵינָה. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִלֵּל דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר מִתְאָחָה הִיא עַד שֶׁלֹּא תַשְׁרִישׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: If a young tree was attached to an old one, the young one was cleansed¹¹¹ twig was grafted on an old vine, it is no longer *‘orlah*. In the Babli, *Soṭah* 43b, this is a purely Amoraic statement by R. Abbahu. {The Bablylonian equivalent of ספק is סבך.}. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, the Mishnah says so: “Attachment of vines, attachment after attachment, even if he sank them into the earth, are permitted.” Should we not say that maybe the young tree formed roots before it was well connected¹¹² to the old one¹¹³? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel: This follows Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah says it connects well more quickly than it forms roots.

footnotes:
¹¹¹ If an ‘orlah
¹¹² The term מאחה usually means mending a tear in a garment so that it looks like new.
¹¹³ In case the newly grafted branch was at the same time sunk into the ground.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:3:8)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שָׁרָשִׁים אֵין בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּפֵירוּשׁ שְׁמַעְתָּנָהּ מִן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹ מִן שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְתַנֵּי כֵן הִקְדִּישׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָטַע פָּטוּר מִן הֶעָרְלָה. נָטַע וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישׁ חַיָיב בְּעָרְלָה. וְאַתּוּן סָבְרִין מֵימַר הֶקְדֵּשׁ פָּטוּר וּזְקֵנָה פָּטוּר. וְלָא דָמְיָא הֶקְדֵּשׁ רָאוּי הוּא לִפְדּוֹתוֹ וּלְחַיְיבוֹ הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לַחֲשׁוֹב וּלְחַיְיבוֹ אִית לָךְ גַּבֵּי זְקֵינָה רָאוּי לַחֲשׁוֹב עָלֶיהָ וּלְחַיְיבָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Roots do not count¹¹⁴. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, did you hear that explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan or from his argument? As Rebbi Joḥanan said, moreover it was stated¹¹⁵: “If someone dedicated¹¹⁶ and then planted, it is exempt from *‘orlah;* planted and then dedicated, it is subject to *‘orlah*.” You wanted to say, dedicated is exempt from *‘orlah*, old is exempt from *‘orlah*. But this is not comparable! Dedicated things can be redeemed and become obligated since he might think about it to obligate¹¹⁷ to be counted from the moment of planting. This means that the obligation was latent even in the state of dedication.; can you [say] about an old tree that one might think about it to obligate?

footnotes:
¹¹⁴ Cf. Note 42. R. Assi rejects R. Ḥananiah ben R. Hillel’s solution and holds that, according to R. Joḥanan, nobody cares whether the healing of the graft or the development of new roots is faster.
¹¹⁵ Tosephta 4.
¹¹⁶ Both the sapling and the ground in which it will be planted are dedicated to the upkeep of the Temple.
¹¹⁷ The Tosephta states that redemption of dedicated plants induces ‘orlah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:3:9)

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֶתְרוֹג שֶׁחָנַט בִּשְׁנַת עָרְלָה וְיָצָא בִשְׁנַת הֵיתֵר וְסִיפְּקוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ אֲפִילוּ מוֹסִיף כַּמָּה אָסוּר שֶׁאֵין גִּידוּלֵי אִיסּוּר מַעֲלִין אֶת הָאִיסּוּר. הָא יַלְדָּה שֶׁסִּיפְּקָהּ טְהוֹרָה הַיַּלְדָּה. אִין תֵּימַר לֹא טֻהֲרָה אֲפִילוּ מוֹסִיף כַּמָּה אָסוּר. רִבִּי זְעִירָה בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִין אֶתְרוֹג שֶׁחָנַט בִּשְׁנַת עָרְלָה וְיָצָא בִשְׁנַת הֵיתֵר וְסִיפְּקוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ אֲפִילוּ מוֹסִיף כַּמָּה אָסוּר. לוֹקִין עָלָיו בִּכְזַיִת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A *citrus medica* tree which formed flower buds subject to *‘orlah* and the fruits grew when it was permitted¹¹⁸ the determining factor is the formation of the flower, for tithes the time of collection (Mishnah *Bikkurim* 2:6). A flower fertilized in the third year cannot produce permitted fruit.; if [the tree] was attached to another tree even if [the fruit] grows much it is forbidden because growth of something forbidden cannot lift what is forbidden¹¹⁹ is forbidden.. Therefore, an attached young twig must be permitted because, if you say it is not permitted, even if it grows much it will be forbidden¹²⁰! Rebbi Zeïra in the name of the rabbis: A *citrus**medica* tree which formed flower buds subject to *‘orlah* and the fruits grew when it was permitted; what was attached to another tree even if it grows much is forbidden; one whips for the size of an olive¹²¹ (the edible kind, *citrus medica cedrata*) is criminal then all that grew after the third year must be forbidden by biblical law since otherwise there would not be the volume of an olive of biblically forbidden fruit..

footnotes:
¹¹⁸ Its fruits stay on the tree longer than one season; therefore, for ‘orlah
¹¹⁹ Even if the growth after the end of the third year is more than 200 times the volume in existence at the end of the third year, the etrog
¹²⁰ This explains the Mishnah.
¹²¹ This is taken to be another formulation of the reasoning of R. Joḥanan: If eating the volume of an olive from this etrog


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:3:10)

אָמַר רִבִּי מַיְישָׁא לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא תַּרְתֵּין מִילִּין אַתּוּן אָמְרִין וְאִינּוּן פְּלִיגִין חָדָא עַל חָדָא. הָכָא אַתּוּן אָמְרִין שֶׁאֵין גִּידוּלֵי אִיסּוּר מַעֲלִין אֶת הָאִיסּוּר. וְהָכָא אַתּוּן אָמְרִין לוֹקִין עָלָיו בִּכְזַיִת. וְיִלְקֶה לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה כָּאן מַחְמַת עַצְמוֹ הוּא חַי. וְכָאן מַחְמַת הַסִּיפּוּק הוּא. מֵעַתָּה אֶתְרוֹג שֶׁחָנַט בִּשְׁנַת עָרְלָה וְיָצָא בִשְׁנַת הֵיתֵר וְסִיפְּקוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְכֵן חֲבֵירוֹ סִיפְּקוּ זֶה לָזֶה טִהֲרוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Maisha said to Rebbi Zeïra: You say two things which contradict each other. Here you say, because growth of anything forbidden cannot lift what is forbidden¹²² period. Then the argument outlined in Note 121 is faulty.; there you say one whips for the size of an olive. Should he not be whipped only in the proportion¹²³ period is *a* and the final volume is *b* (measured in volumes of olives) then using a piece of the fruit is criminal only if the size of the piece is at least b/a 1. it contains? Rebbi Jonah said, in the first case it lives because of itself¹²⁴, in the second because of the attachment¹²⁵ tree is attached to an older tree. While the act of attaching lifts the condition of *‘orlah* from future fruits of the young tree, it is ineffective for the fruits already growing on the sapling at the moment of attachment.. Then if a *citrus medica*, which blossomed in an *‘orlah* year and grew in an exempt year, is attached reciprocally¹²⁶ to a tree of the same kind they will cleanse one another¹²⁷, both will be exempt at the moment one of them becomes exempt..

footnotes:
¹²² One does not say “all growth is forbidden” but “[permitted] growth of something forbidden cannot lift the prohibition inherent in the fruit.” Therefore, the essentially forbidden thing is only the fruit as it exists at the end of the ‘orlah
¹²³ If the volume of the fruit at the end of the ‘orlah
¹²⁴ No attaching or grafting; in this case the entire fruit is forbidden.
¹²⁵ The rabbinic argument that “[permitted] growth of anything forbidden cannot lift the prohibition inherent in the fruit” applies only if the ‘orlah
¹²⁶ The two trees keep their own roots but two branches, one of each tree, are grafted together.
¹²⁷ If both of them are ‘orlah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:3:11)

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַב חִסְדָּא תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין בִּסְתָם חֲלוּקִין. מַה נָן קַיָימִין אִם דָּבָר בָּרִיא הוּא שֶׁהוּא חַי מִכֹּחַ הַזְּקֵנָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּר. וְאִם דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁהוּא חַי מִכֹּחַ הַיַּלְדָּה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַיָימִין בִּסְתָם. כֵּיצַד הוּא יוֹדֵעַ. רִבִּי בִּיבַי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה אִם הָיוּ הֶעָלִים הֲפוּכִין כְּלַפֵּי הַיַּלְדָּה דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁהוּא חַי מִכֹּחַ הַזְּקֵנָה וְאִם הָיוּ הֶעָלִים הֲפוּכִין כְּלַפֵּי הַזְּקֵנָה דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁהוּא חַי מִכֹּחַ הַיַּלְדָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן בַּר חָנִין סֵימָנָא דְּאָכִל מִן חַבְרֵיהּ בְּהִית מִסְתַּכְּלָא בֵיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן אָבוֹי דְּרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָיה תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁנָּשְׁרוּ הֶעָלִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Ḥisda, both say: they¹²⁸ or not. differ in the uninformed¹²⁹ case. What are we dealing with? If it is certain that it¹³⁰ tree. lives off the old tree, everybody agrees it is permitted. If it is certain that it lives off the young tree, everybody agrees it is forbidden¹³¹.. We must be dealing with the uninformed case. How could one know¹³²? Rebbi Vivian in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If the leaves are turned towards the young tree one may be sure that it lives from the old one; if the leaves are turned towards the old tree one may be sure that it lives from the young one. Rebbi Yudan bar Ḥanin¹³³ said, a sign: He who eats from his neighbor’s is ashamed to look at him. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if the leaves have fallen off.

footnotes:
¹²⁸ Rebbi Meïr and the anonymous majority, whether attaching a young tree to an old one always frees the young one from ‘orlah
¹²⁹ The information required by R. Meïr is not available.
¹³⁰ The ‘orlah
¹³¹ It remains ‘orlah
¹³² How could one measure the flow of sap?
¹³³ One of the last authors mentioned in the Yerushalmi, a student of R. Berekhiah.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:3:12)

בְּרִיכָה שֶׁנִּפְסְקָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר בְּרִיכָה אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ אִילָן דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יָסִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּצָל שֶׁעֲקָרוֹ וּשְׁתָלוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִשְׁרִישׁ מְעַשֵּׂר לְפִי כּוּלוֹ. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּצָל שֶׁעֲקָרוֹ וּשְׁתָלוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִשְׁרִישׁ מְעַשֵּׂר לְפִי כּוּלוֹ דְּלָא תִיסְבּוֹר מֵימַר אוֹף הָכָא כֵן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“A sunk branch which became separated.” Rebbi Yudan said, not only a sunk branch but even a tree¹³⁴ again if uprooted (with its roots exposed) and replanted, and the fruits will become forbidden if they grow by more than one 200th.; as Rebbi Assi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if an onion which one uprooted and replanted grows roots he has to tithe for everything¹³⁵ 6:3, Note 113. The parallel statement in the Babli (*Nazir* 54b, *Menaḥot* 70a), R. Isaac in the name of R. Joḥanan, makes it clear that the onion was fully tithed before being replanted.. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if an onion which one uprooted and replanted grows roots he has to tithe for everything, but you should not say it applies to here also¹³⁶.

footnotes:
¹³⁴ A tree older than 3 years, full of fruits, becomes ‘orlah
¹³⁵ Discussed in Ševi‘it
¹³⁶ The quote from R. Joḥanan is correct, the inference is faulty; trees do not have the same rules as onions.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:3:13)

חִילְפַיי שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּלְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן תֵּבֵל מַהוּ שֶׁיֶּיאֱסֹר בְּיוֹתֵר מִמָּאתַיִם. אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ אֵין תֵּבֵל בְּיוֹתֵר מִמָּאתַיִם. וְהָתַנִּינָן כָּל הַמְּחַמֵּץ וְהַמְּתַבֵּל וְהַמְּדַמֵּעַ. אִין תֵּימַר לְמֵאַה מָאתַיִם אֲפִילוּ לֹא חִימֵּץ. אֲפִילוּ לֹא תִיבֵּל. אֶלָּא בָּעֲנָבִים אֲנָן קַיָימִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֶׁלֹּא צָמְקוּ אֲבָל אִם צָמְקוּ יֵשׁ תֵּבֵל בְּיוֹתֵר מִמָּאתַיִם. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֶׁלֹּא בִּישְּׁלוֹ. אֲבָל אִם בִּישְּׁלוֹ יֵשׁ תֵּבֵל בְּיוֹתֵר מִמָּאתַיִם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹³⁷ 6:10 (fol. 55c). It is clear from the later paragraphs that the original place of the text is in *Nazir*.Ḥilfai asked Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish]¹³⁸., do condiments forbid with more than 200¹³⁹ does not forbid food if the forbidden part is less than 1/200 of the total. Does this also apply to spices which might be tasted in smaller amounts?? They said to him, condiments are not in more than 200¹⁴⁰. But did we not state¹⁴¹, make everything forbidden. Since no quantities are mentioned one has to infer that there is no minimal quantity below which they are not active.: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates *dema‘*?” If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create *dema‘*¹⁴² Chapter 1, Note 175.! But we deal with grapes¹⁴³. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not raisins, but if they were raisins they are condiments in more than 200. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not cooked, but if they were cooked they are condiments in more than 200.

footnotes:
¹³⁷ From here to the last paragraph of the Halakhah the text is also in Nazir
¹³⁸ Missing here, supplied from the text in Nazir
¹³⁹ The Mishnah implies that ‘orlah
¹⁴⁰ The 1/200 rule also applies to condiments.
¹⁴¹ Mishnah 2:4. The Mishnah states that these ingredients, if from ‘orlah
¹⁴² Defined Demay
¹⁴³ Used as condiment for another dish. The 200 rule does not apply to spices proper.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:14
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:3:14)

רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי בְשֵׁם בַּר פְּדָיָה [נוֹתְנֵי טְעָמִים אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה. {רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם} רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי בְשֵׁם בַּר פְּדָיָה] נוֹתְנֵי טְעָמִים אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק לְרִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר בָּא הָא רִבִּי יוֹסֵי פְלִיג וּמַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל תְּרֵיכוֹן כָּל הַמְּחַבֵּץ הַמְּתַבֵּל וְהַמְּדַמֵּעַ. אִין תֵּימַר לְמֵאָה מָאתַיִם אֲפִילוּ לֹא חִימֵּץ. אֲפִילוּ לֹא תִיבֵּל. אֶלָּא בְּיוֹתֵר אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה תִּיפְתָּר בָּשָׂר בְּבָשָׂר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא בָּשָׂר בְּבָשָׂר הִיא שְׁאָר כָּל הָאִיסּוּרִין. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כָּל הָאִיסּוּרִין מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתָן כִּילּוּ כֵן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: [All sources of taste one in a hundred¹⁴⁹. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah:] All sources of taste one in sixty. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Assi disagrees with you and the Mishnah disagrees with both of you: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates *dema‘*? If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create *dema‘*¹⁴² Chapter 1, Note 175.! Therefore, we hold even more. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it for meat in meat¹⁵⁰ 10:9, Notes 106–109. The discussion in the next paragraph centers on this case.. Rebbi Yose said, meat in meat is the same as all other prohibitions since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one estimates as if they were so¹⁵¹ 10:1, Notes 10–11). Since onions and leeks are used for their taste, it follows that admixtures of spices also follow the same 1%/1⅔% rule..

footnotes:
¹⁴⁹ A forbidden substance which can be tasted will make food forbidden if it represents more than 1% (for R. Ḥiyya, more than 1⅔%) of the total.
¹⁴² Defined Demay
¹⁵⁰ He applies the 1%/1⅔% rule only to forbidden meat cooked with permitted, cf. Terumot
¹⁵¹ “So” are onions and leeks since R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Joḥanan that all forbidden [food] is estimated as if it were onion, as if it were leeks (Terumot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:15
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:3:15)

מַיי כְדוֹן הָהֵן אָמַר נוֹתְנֵי טְעָמִים אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה. וְהֵן אָמַר נוֹתְנֵי טְעָמִים אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים. מָאן דְּאָמַר נוֹתְנֵי טְעָמִים אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים אַתְּ עוֹשֶׂה הַזְּרוֹעַ אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים בָּאַיִל. וּמָן דְּאָמַר אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה אַתְּ עוֹשֶׂה הַזְּרוֹעַ אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה לָאַיִל. מָאן דְּאָמַר אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה אַתְּ מוֹצִיא הָעֲצָמוֹת מֵהַזְּרוֹעַ. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים אֵין אַתְּ מוֹצִיא אֶת הָעֲצָמוֹת מִן הַזְּרוֹעַ. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאַתְּ מוֹצִיא אֶת הָעֲצָמוֹת מִן הַזְּרוֹעַ כָּךְ הוֹצִיאֵם מִן הָאַיִל. לֵית יְכִל דְּתַּנֵּי אֵין טִנּוֹפֶת שֶׁלְתְּרוּמָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת עִם הַתְּרוּמָה לֶאֱסוֹר אֶת הַחוּלִין. אֲבָל טִנּוֹפֶת שֶׁלְחוּלִין מִצְטָרֶפֶת עִם הַחוּלִין לְהַעֲלוֹת אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. רִבִּי בִּיבַי בָּעֵי טִינּוֹפֶת שֶׁלְתְּרוּמָה מָהוּ שֶׁתִּצְטָרֵף עִם הַחוּלִין לְהַעֲלוֹת אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. מִן מַה דְאָמַר רַב חוּנָא קִלְיפֵּי אִיסּוּר מִצְטָרְפְוֹת לְהֵיתֵר. הָדָא אָמְרָה טִינּוֹפֶת שֶׁלְתְּרוּמָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת לַחוּלִין לְהַעֲלוֹת אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
How is this? One says, all sources of taste by one in 100; the other one says, all sources of taste by one in 60. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 60, you take the forearm as one in 60 of the ram¹⁵² from his vow (*Num*. 6:19). In general, from a well-being sacrifice a hind leg and the breast has to be given to the Cohen to be eaten by him and his family; that part then is forbidden to lay persons (*Num*. 18:18). But the ram which is the *nazir*’s well-being offering has to be cooked before the Cohen’s part, a foreleg, is separated and given to him; the remainder of the sacrifice is permitted to lay persons. From this one concludes that if in anything cooked the ratio of forbidden to permitted is no greater than that of the forarm to the entire ram, the food remains permitted.. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 100, you take the forearm as one in 100 of the ram. For him who says one in 100, you remove the bones from the forearm. But if you remove the bones from the forearm, remove them from the ram! This you cannot do, as it was stated¹⁵³ 5:9, Notes 103–106, and has been explained there. Since the bones of the forearm, being inedible, are not forbidden to lay persons, not only are they not counted as forbidden but they are added to the amount of permitted food.: “The waste of heave does not combine with heave to forbid the profane, but the waste of profane combines with the profane to lift the heave.” Rebbi Vivian asked: Does the waste of heave combine with profane to lift the heave? Since Rav Ḥuna said, the husks of what is forbidden combine to permit, that means waste of heave combines with profane to lift the heave.

footnotes:
¹⁵² The entire idea that biblical law permits to disregard minute amounts of forbidden food in otherwise permitted food is derived from the ceremony which releases the nazir
¹⁵³ This and the rest of the paragraph is from Terumot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:16
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:3:16)

תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה כָּל מַה שֶׁאָסַרְתִּי לָךְ מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר הִתַּרְתִּי לָךְ כָּאן. לְפִי שֶׁבַּכֹּל מֵאָה אִיסּוּר וּמֵאָה וְעוֹד מוּתָּר בְּרַם הָכָא אֲפִילוּ מֵאָה מוּתָּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: All I forbade to you at other places I permitted to you here. Since everywhere 100 is a prohibition, more than 100 is permitted, but here even 100 is permitted¹⁵⁴ and the Rome ms., the statement is in the name of Ḥizqiah, R. Ḥiyya’s (the elder’s) son. The previous argument is not quite conclusive since as a matter of practice we require that the amount of forbidden material should be strictly less than 1% (in the opinion adopted by the Babli, 1⅔%). But nobody asserts that the edible part of the foreleg is less than 1% of the entire ram; so one has proved only the requirement ≤ 1%. Therefore, the rule remains one of traditional practice..

footnotes:
¹⁵⁴ In Nazir


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:17
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:3:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:3:17)

(ותוּב) אִם הוֹסִיף בְּמָאתַיִם אָסוּר. דְּבֵית יַנַּאי מְשַׁעֲרִין בְּהָדֵין יַרְבּוּזָה. כֵּיצַד הוּא יוֹדֵעַ. רַב בִּיבַי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה לוֹקֵט אֶחָד וּמֵנִיחַ אֶחָד מַה שֶׁזֶּה פּוֹחֵת זֶה מוֹסִיף.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
(In addition,)¹⁵⁵; the entire paragraph is from *Kilaim* 5, end of Halakhah 6. “if it increased by one twohundredth it is forbidden.” Those of the house of Rebbi Yannai estimate by purslain. How does one know? Rav Vivian in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah: He takes one out and leaves one in [the ground]; what the first one is less, the other did increase.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁵ Missing in the text in Nazir


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:4:1)

**משנה:** נְטִיעָה שֶׁלְעָרְלָה וְשֶׁלְכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בִנְטִיעוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִלְקוֹט. וְאִם לִיקֵּט יַעֲלוּ בְאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם וּבִלְבַד שֶלֹּא יִתְכַּוֵּן לִלְקוֹט. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר יִתְכַּוֵּן וְיִלְקוֹט וְיַעֲלוּ בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If a sapling of *‘orlah* or vineyard *kilaim*¹⁵⁶, that the usufruct of anything sown in a vineyard is forbidden. *Kilaim* also follow the rule that less than 1/200 is not counted (Mishnah *Kilaim* 5:6). became mixed with [other] saplings, one should not harvest. If he harvested it can be lifted¹⁵⁷ 4:6, Note 62. by one in two hundred on condition that he did not have the intention to harvest¹⁵⁸. Rebbi Yose says, he may intend to harvest¹⁵⁹ 54b), R. Yose holds that the prohibition of intentional use of forbidden substances is rabbinic and does not apply in a situation that never will happen since nobody will risk losing 45 vines because of one extraneous plant (Mishnah *Kilaim* 5:5). For the explanation of the Yerushalmi see Note 175.; it will be lifted by one in two hundred.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁶ Cf. Introduction to Tractate Kilaim
¹⁵⁷ One takes out 1/200; the remainder is permitted. For this meaning of “lifting” cf. Terumot
¹⁵⁸ Since all the rules of lifting and disregarding the forbidden part are only for accidents; it is forbidden intentionally to use forbidden substances with the idea that they should e disregarded.
¹⁵⁹ He holds that the lifting is only after the harvest; therefore this case does not fall under the forbidden category. Maimonides in his Commentary rejects the opinion of R. Yose, in his Code he accepts it. According to the Babli (Giṭṭin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:4:2)

**הלכה:** נְטִיעָה שֶׁלְעָרְלָה נְטִיעָה שֶׁלְכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. וַהֲלֹא כָל הַנְּטִיעוֹת אֵינָן כִּלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא עֲרוּגָה שֶׁלְכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי (מַתְנִיתָא עֲרוּגָה שֶׁלְכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי) בּוּן בְּשֶׁהֵבִיא עָצִיץ נָקוּב וְהֶעֱבִירוֹ תַּחַת הַגֶּפֶן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “A sapling of *‘orlah* or vineyard *kilaim*.” But no saplings are *kilaim* in a vineyard¹⁶¹. 22:9) only forbids sowing in a vineyard (grain or vegetables; never trees).! So is the Mishnah: “A vegetable bed of vineyard *kilaim*.”¹⁶² Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi (the Mishnah: “A vegetable bed of vineyard *kilaim*.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi) Abun said, if he brought a flower pot and temporarily put it under a vine¹⁶³ 7:8, Halakhah 6; cf. Note 88. A tree in a flower pot rabbinically is considered a vegetable. A discussion of this text in J. N. Epstein, 2מבוא לנוסח המשנה p. 451..

footnotes:
¹⁶¹ Since the verse (Deut
¹⁶² In that case, it is difficult to see how one could not know which vegetable bed was forbidden.
¹⁶³ Mishnah Kilaim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:4:3)

רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה לוֹקֵט שְׁלֹשָׁה אֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת וּמַתִּיר. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. תַּמָּן אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה הָיוּ לְפָנָיו מֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים חָבִיּוֹת. נִתְפַּתְּחוּ מֵאָה מוּתָּרוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים אֲסוּרוֹת וְהַשְּׁאָר לִכְשֶׁיְּפַתְּחוּ יְהוּ מוּתָּרוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא לִכְשֶׁיְּפַתְּחוּ. הָא לִיפְתַּח כַּתְּחִילָּה אָסוּר. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵין. תָּמָּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה וְהָכָא בְּשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה. וְאָמְרִין תַּמָּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ פּוֹתֵחַ שָׁלֹשׁ חָבִיּוֹת וּמַתִּיר. וְאַתְיָא כְּחִזְקִיָּה דְהָכָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: He harvests three bunches and permits¹⁶⁴. The position of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted! There¹⁶⁵ 4:8, Note 83. Mishnah *‘Orlah* 3:7 will explain that amphoras never can be disregarded; if there are 150 amphoras of which one is of *terumah* (which may be lifted by one in 100) that according to Hoshaia one may open only 100 and lift from them 1% as heave; the other 50 will be usable only if opened by accident (as R. Zeïra explains) because opened intentionally they will be forbidden. Why does he require only three here, not at least 50?, he said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If there were before him 150 amphoras which were opened, one hundred are permitted, fifty are forbidden, and the remainder will be permitted if they were opened. Rebbi Zeïra said, he said only “*if* they were opened;” therefore at the start it is forbidden to open them. And here, he says so? There in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, here in the name of Ḥizqiah. They say there¹⁶⁶ in the name of Ḥizqiah: He opens three amphoras and permits; one follows Ḥizqiah here.

footnotes:
¹⁶⁴ If he has a vineyard with one forbidden vine whose situation is unknown, he harvests three bunches and considers them to be forbidden as fruits of the forbidden vine. Then the remainder is permitted.
¹⁶⁵ Terumot
¹⁶⁶ In Babylonia, where no heave is biblical and in every respect one follows the more lenient opinion. While this does not imply anything for practice in the Land, it shows that Ḥizqiah is consistent and R. Simeon ben Laqish simply reports what others have said.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:4:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:4:4)

וְהָא תַנִּינָן הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִלְקוֹט. לְשֶׁעָבַר. וְהָא תַנִּינָן אִם לִקֵּט יַעֲלוּ בְאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן כָּאן בְּשֶׁלִּיקֵּט שְׁלֹשָׁה וְכָאן בְּשֶׁלִּיקֵּט כּוּלְּהֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
But did we not state: “One should not harvest;” after the fact. And we have stated: “If he harvested it can be lifted by one in two hundred.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the first case if he harvested three¹⁶⁷ or *kilaim*.; in the second case if he harvested all of them¹⁶⁸.

footnotes:
¹⁶⁷ They are forbidden for all use, being ‘orlah
¹⁶⁸ They are lifted by one in 200.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:4:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:4:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:4:5)

תַּנֵּי רִימּוֹנֵי בְּדָן שֶׁסְּפֵיקוֹ מַעֲלֶה וַדָּיָין אֵינוֹ מַעֲלֶה. אַף בְּקַרְקַע כֵּן. סָפֵק קַרְקַע מַעֲלֶה וְקַרְקַע אֵינוֹ מַעֲלֶה. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָה נְטִיעָה שֶׁלְעָרְלָה וְשֶׁלְכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בִנְטִיעוֹת. אֲפִילוּ סָפֵק קַרְקַע מַעֲלֶה וְקַרְקַע אֵינוֹ מַעֲלֶה. רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי אַף לְעִנְיָין נְבֵילָה כֵן. חָזַר רִבִּי יוּדָן וָמַר נְבֵילָה אֵין לָהּ עֲלִיָיה קַרְקַע יֵשׁ לוֹ עֲלִיָיה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: Pomegranates of Bedan¹⁷⁰ points out, if it is not known whether a certain pomegranate is of the Bedan kind or not, that one will be treated as a regular pomegranate because it will never fetch Bedan prices. in case of doubt can be lifted, if certain cannot be lifted. It is the same on the ground¹⁷¹ 54b holds that plants in the ground can never be lifted.}. A doubt on the ground can be lifted, but the ground cannot lift¹⁷² or vineyard *kilaim* has disappeared.. How is this? If a sapling of *‘orlah* or vineyard *kilaim* became mixed with [other] saplings, (even) a case of doubt on the ground can be lifted, but the ground cannot lift. Rebbi Yudan asked: Is it the same for a cadaver¹⁷³? Rebbi Yudan turned around and said, a cadaver has no lifting¹⁷⁴, and *kilaim*. All others are either a negligible quantity, where everything is permitted, or not, where everything is forbidden., the ground has a lifting.

footnotes:
¹⁷⁰ They are so expensive that they never can be disregarded, Mishnah 3:7. But this is the rule only if it is certain that any of them is present. As Sefer Nir
¹⁷¹ The case of the Mishnah, trees planted in the ground. {Rashi in Giṭṭin
¹⁷² One cannot simply choose a tree out of more than 200, cut it down, and declare that the problem of ‘orlah
¹⁷³ If a piece of cadaver meat (or any other piece of forbidden food) was not recognizable among similar pieces of kosher meat, may one take out one, declare it as cadaver meat, and declare the remainder as kosher. Is this a legitimate deduction from the opinion of R. Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah?
¹⁷⁴ The only things that can be lifted are heave, ‘orlah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:4:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:4:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:4:6)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אַף יִתְכַּוֵּין וְיִלְקוֹט וְיַעֲלוּ בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לִהְיוֹת מֵידַל בִּגְפָנִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Rebbi Yose says, he even may intend to harvest, it will be lifted by one in two hundred.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? People are always thinning vines¹⁷⁵; cf. *Or Zarua‘* vol. 1, #320.}.

footnotes:
¹⁷⁵ Following R. Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah, the unripe bunches of grapes cut out in thinning can be used to permit the remainder. {One cannot say that “thinning” refers to thinning out vines that were planted too close to one another since then the entire vineyard would still be ‘orlah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:4:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:4:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:4:7)

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה טְחָנָן וּפָחֲתוּ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁפָּחֲתוּ הַחוּלִין כָּךְ פָּחֲתָה הַתְּרוּמָה. מוּתָּר. תַּנֵּי אַף יִתְכַּוֵּין וְיִלְקוֹט. וְיַעֲלוּ בְאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ הַכֹּהֲנִים לִהְיוֹת טוֹחֲנִין מְדוּמָּע לְתוֹךְ בָּתֵּיהֶן. מַה נְפַק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי טוֹחֵן וּמַתִּיר. עַל דַּעְתּוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין אֵין טוֹחֵן וּמַתִּיר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
There, we have stated: ¹⁷⁷ 5:9 and has been explained there, Notes 100, 109–111.“If a *seah* of heave fell into 100 and one milled it and it lost volume, in proportion to what the profane lost, the heave lost, and it is permitted.” It was stated: [“One may mill from the start to permit.” The *baraita* is Rebbi Yose’s, since “Rebbi Yose said,] he even may intend to harvest, it will be lifted by one in two hundred”. Rebbi Zeïra said, Cohanim are used to mill *dema‘* in their houses. What is the difference between them? *Kilaim* in a vineyard. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, one mills to permit; in the opinion of the rabbis, one may not mill to permit.

footnotes:
¹⁷⁷ From here on, the text is from Terumot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:5:1)

**משנה:** הֶעָלִים וְהַלּוּלָבִים וּמֵי גְפָנִים וְהַסְּמָדַר מוּתָּרִין בְּעָרְלָה וּבִרְבִיעִי וּבְנָזִיר וַאֲסוּרִין בַּאֲשֵׁירָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר הַסְּמָדַר אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פֶּרִי. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר הַמְּעַמֵּד בִּשְׂרָף הֶעָרְלָה אָסוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שָׁמַעְתִּי בְּפֵירוּשׁ שֶׁהַמְּעַמֵּד בִּשְׂרָף הֶעָלִים וּבִשְׂרָף הָעִיקָּרִים מוּתָּר. בִּשְׂרָף הַפַּגִּים אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פֶּרִי. עַנְקוֹקְלוֹת וְהַחַרְצָנִים וְהַזָּגִים וְהַתֶּמֶד שֶׁלָּהֶן קְלִיפֵּי רִימּוֹן וְהַנֵּץ שֶׁלּוֹ קְלִיפֵּי אֱגוֹזִים וְהַגַּרְעִינִים אֲסוּרִין בְּעָרְלָה וּבָאֲשֵׁירָה וּבְנָזִיר. וּמוּתָּרִין בָּרְבִיעִי וְהַנּוֹבְלוֹת כּוּלָּן אֲסוּרוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר נוֹטְעִין יִיחוּר שֶׁלְעָרְלָה. וְאֵין נוֹטְעִין אֱגוֹז שֶׁלְעָרְלָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פֶּרִי. וְאֵין מַרְכִּיבִין בְּכַפְנִיּוֹת שֶׁלְעָרְלָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Leaves, shoots, vine sap, and the flower¹⁷⁸: “The state between budding of the flower and development of the fruit.” are permitted for *‘orlah*, the Fourth Year, and a *nazir*¹⁷⁹, but forbidden from a pagan sacred grove¹⁸⁰. Rebbi Yose said, the flower is forbidden because it is a fruit. Rebbi Eliezer says, it is forbidden to use *‘orlah* sap as curd. Rebbi Joshua said, I heard explicitly that one is permitted to use sap of leaves and sap of roots as curd. But the sap of unripe figs is forbidden because that is a fruit.
*Anqoqlot*¹⁹⁰, the word designates the edible young shoots of the vine; this follows the Gaonic commentary of R. Nathan Av Hayeshivah who reads קנוקלות, or the reading of *Or Zarua* קנוקנות, “hairline sinews” (Babli *Ḥulin* 92b). This explanation is incompatible with the Yerushalmi. In the opinion of S. Krauss, the word is an expansion of עקל to which compare Arabic עקּל “to produce grapes”. The text of *Sifra* [*Qedošim Parasha* 3(3)] את ענקוקלות והבוסר also shows that ענקוקלות are misdeveloped grapes., the grape skins, the grape seeds, and the afterwine made from them, pomegranate skins and their flowers¹⁹¹, nut shells, and seeds¹⁹² tree. are forbidden from *‘orlah*, sacred groves, and for a *nazir*¹⁹³. They are permitted in the fourth year¹⁹⁴. Windfall¹⁹⁵ is forbidden for all of these.
Rebbi Yose said, one may plant an *‘orlah* shoot but not an *‘orlah* nut because the latter is a fruit. Also, one does not graft with spathe¹⁸⁵ and Rashi, based on Gaonic sources, define as “dates that never ripen.” I. Löw (followed by S. Lieberman) takes it as the male flower which from an *‘orlah* date palm may not be taken to hang into the branches of a female tree. of *‘orlah*.

footnotes:
¹⁷⁸ Definition of Maimonides, Arabic אַלפֻקָאח. He emphasized that חִצרִם “budding fruit” is forbidden. The same definition may be found in Arukh
¹⁷⁹ He is forbidden (Num. 6:4) “anything made from the wine-vine”.
¹⁸⁰ Anything used in pagan worship is permanently forbidden for all usufruct except the soil and what stands on it. Therefore the grove itself cannot be forbidden but everything taken from it is.
¹⁹⁰ Neither the meaning nor the etymology of this word are known as will be clear from the Halakhah. In the opinion of Arukh
¹⁹¹ The remainder of the flower visible at the tip of the outer skin.
¹⁹² Of any ‘orlah
¹⁹³ Only the first four items.
¹⁹⁴ Only fruits are forbidden unless redeemed.
¹⁹⁵ Of fully formed fruits.
¹⁸⁵ Definition of Maimonides; Arabic טַלע. Arukh


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:5:2)

**הלכה:** הֶעָלִים וְהַלּוּלָבִים. מַתְנִיתָא דְּלֹא כְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּתַנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן מֵחַרְצַנִּים וְעַד זָג לֹא יֹאכֵל אַף הֶעָלִים וְהַלּוּלָבִין בְּמַשְׁמַע.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Leaves and shoots.” Our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Eliezer, as was stated¹⁸¹ 6:1 (fol. 54d), 6:2 (fol. 55a); Babli *Nazir* 34b. in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: (*Num*. 6:4) “Anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to skin he shall not eat,” that includes leaves and shoots.

footnotes:
¹⁸¹ Nazir


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:5:3)

תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר סְמָדַר אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פֶּרִי. וְקַשְׁיָא אִם אָסוּר בְּנָזִיר לָמָּה לִי פֶּרִי אִם פֶּרִי הוּא יְהֶא אָסוּר בַּכֹּל. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יִצְחָק אָמְרָה שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּכֹּל. רִבִּי יִצְחָק שָׁאַל מָאן תַּנָּא אֵין מַרְכִּיבִין בְּכַפְנִיוֹת שֶׁלְעָרְלָה רִבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated¹⁸² 6:2, fol. 55a. There, the text reads “Rebbi Yose says the flower is forbidden *for the nazir* because it is a fruit.” The discussion presupposes this text; the question is whether the Mishnah has to be interpreted in the light of the *baraita* or whether R. Yose also forbids *‘orlah* flower and requires redemption in the forth year.: “Rebbi Yose says the flower is forbidden because it is a fruit.” It is difficult! If it is forbidden for the *nazir* why a fruit¹⁸³ and the fourth year explicitly refer to fruits, if a flower is counted as a fruit automatically it would be subject to *‘orlah* and the Fourth Year. If R. Yose restricts the prohibition of vine flowers to the *nazir* he must hold with R. Eliezer.? If it is a fruit it should be forbidden for everybody! The word of Rebbi Isaac implies that it is forbidden for everybody. Rebbi Isaac asked: Who stated ¹⁸⁴“one does not graft with spathe¹⁸⁵ and Rashi, based on Gaonic sources, define as “dates that never ripen.” I. Löw (followed by S. Lieberman) takes it as the male flower which from an *‘orlah* date palm may not be taken to hang into the branches of a female tree. of *‘orlah*”? Rebbi Yose!

footnotes:
¹⁸² Nazir
¹⁸³ Since the rules for ‘orlah
¹⁸⁴ Mishnah 9.
¹⁸⁵ Definition of Maimonides; Arabic טַלע. Arukh


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:5:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:5:4)

תַּנֵּי פֶּרִי אַתְּ פּוֹדֶה וְאֵין אַתְּ פּוֹדֶה לֹא בּוֹסֵר וְלֹא פַגִּים. הוֹרֵי רִבִּי זְבִידָא בְּאִילֵּין פָגֵּי תְּמָרָה שֶׁיִּקָּבֵרוּ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָּעֵי עָבַר וּפְדָיוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ פָדוּי. וְתֵימַר טָעוּן קְבוּרָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated¹⁸⁶. 19:24 declares all fourth-year *fruit* holy; implying that it must be redeemed. The next verse notes that the rules for the first four years were given so the tree should increase its *yield* starting from the fifth year. The word *yield* is taken in *Sifra Qedošim Paraša* 3(10) to mean that the duty of redemption in the fourth year starts at the point in the ripening of the fruit at which in the fifth year the duty of tithing starts (*Ma‘serot* 1:2); in the case of grapes if there is some sap in the fruit. The two sources seem to contradict one another but Maimonides (*Ma‘aser Šeni* 9:2) adopts both of them.: You redeem fruit; you do not redeem either unripe grapes or unripe figs. Rebbi Zavida instructed about unripe dates that they should be buried¹⁸⁷. Rebbi Jonah asked: If he transgressed and redeemed them, is it not redeemed? And you want to say, it needs to be buried!

footnotes:
¹⁸⁶ Lev
¹⁸⁷ He holds that they cannot be eaten since they cannot be redeemed; they have to be treated like a firstling which died before it could be sacrificed.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:5:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:5:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:5:5)

רִבִּי פְּדָת רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שְׁנֵיהֶם אָמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. תַּמָּן תַנִּינָן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אֵין לִקְטָף שְׁבִיעִית מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ פֶּרִי. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָה לְרִבִּי פְּדָת כְּמַה דְתֵימַר תַּמָּן הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְהָכָא הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְדַמְיָה הִיא לְכָל רַבִּיָּה. קְטָף בָּטֵל עַל יְדֵי שְׂרָפוֹ. [וְאִילָן אֵינוֹ בָטֵל עַל גַּבֵּי שְׂרָפוֹ.] אוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה קְדוּשַּׁת שְׁבִיעִית חָל עֲלֵיהֶן. אֵין קְדוּשַּׁת עָרְלָה חָל עֲלֵיהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן אִית לָךְ חוֹרִי. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמְרָהּ שְׁמוּעָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּשֵׁם גַּרְמֵיהּ אָמְרָהּ. לָמָּה שְׂרָף פֶּרִי פַּגִּין פֶּרִי. אִין תֵּימַר שְׂרָף פֶּרִי עָשָׂה כֵן בִּתְרוּמָה מוּתָּר. אִין תֵּימַר פַּגִּין פֶּרִי עָשָׂה כֵן בִּתְרוּמָה מוּתָּר. לָמָּה שֶּׁהַנָּיַית תְּרוּמָה מוּתֶּרֶת וַהַנָּיַית עָרְלָה אֲסוּרָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁸⁹ 7:7, Notes 102–113. Rebbi Pedat, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon follows that of Rebbi Joshua, as we have stated there¹⁹⁰, the word designates the edible young shoots of the vine; this follows the Gaonic commentary of R. Nathan Av Hayeshivah who reads קנוקלות, or the reading of *Or Zarua* קנוקנות, “hairline sinews” (Babli *Ḥulin* 92b). This explanation is incompatible with the Yerushalmi. In the opinion of S. Krauss, the word is an expansion of עקל to which compare Arabic עקּל “to produce grapes”. The text of *Sifra* [*Qedošim Parasha* 3(3)] את ענקוקלות והבוסר also shows that ענקוקלות are misdeveloped grapes.: “Rebbi Simeon says, balsamum is not subject to the Sabbatical because it is not a fruit.” Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Pedat, since we say there that practice follows Rebbi Joshua, would you have to say here that practice follows Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Jonah said, are the situations similar? It is the other way: Balsamum is essentially sap, a tree is not essentially in its sap. The holiness of the Sabbatical falls on animal feed, but the holiness of *orlah* never falls on it. Rebbi Abun said, there is another [difference]: Rebbi Joshua quoted it as a tradition, Rebbi Simeon said it in his own name. Sap may be fruit, unripe fruits may be fruit. If you say that sap has the status of fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted. If you say that unripe fruits are fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted. Why? Because usufruct of heave is permitted but usufruct of *orlah* is forbidden.

footnotes:
¹⁸⁹ The parallel, references switched from there to here, is in Ševi‘it
¹⁹⁰ Neither the meaning nor the etymology of this word are known as will be clear from the Halakhah. In the opinion of Arukh


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:5:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:5:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:5:6)

עַנְקוֹקְלוֹת וְהַחַרְצָנִים. רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְחַד מִן רַבָּנִין בְּשֵׁם רַב עֲנָבִים שֶׁלָּקוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאוּ שְׁלִישׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אֲפִילוּ לָקוּ מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאוּ שְׁלִישׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר אָדָא לְשׁוֹן נוֹטָרִיקוֹן הוּא עֲנָבִין דְּלָקֵי תַלְתֵּיהוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“*Anqoqlot* and the grape skins.” Rebbi Zeïra and one of the rabbis in the name of Rav: Grapes which went bad before they were one-third ripe. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even after they were one-third ripe¹⁹⁶. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, it is a stenographic expression: “Grapes becoming bad at a third¹⁹⁷.”

footnotes:
¹⁹⁶ In contrast to בוסר, “unripe grape berry”, these were spoiled before ripening.
¹⁹⁷ He must read ענקולות: עֲ֗נָ֗בִין דְּלָקֵ֗י תַלְ֗תֵּ֗יהוֹן but there are no Mishnah mss. to back this up.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:5:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:5:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:5:7)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אֵין נוֹטְעִין יִיחוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עָבַר וְנָטַע מוּתָּר. עָבַר וְהִרְכִּיב אָסוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Rebbi Yose said, one may not¹⁹⁸ 48b) disagrees: “Rav Jehudah said, Rav said that R. Yose agrees that if one planted, grafted, or sank, it is permitted.” According to Rashi, that statement refers to both shoot and nut, according to Maimonides (*Ma‘aser Seni* 10:20) only to planting a nut.
There is a disagreement in principle between Babli and Yerushalmi. The Babli holds that any growth caused by the common action of a forbidden (‘*orlah*) and a permitted (the ground or the stem of an older tree) factor is automatically permitted (זו וזו גורם מותר). The Yerushalmi accepts this only if no one factor alone could have caused the result; cf. Chapter 2, Note 126. plant a shoot.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one transgressed and planted, it is permitted; if he transgressed and grafted it is forbidden¹⁹⁹.

footnotes:
¹⁹⁸ This contradicts the Mishnah; the word is not in the Rome ms. However, the formulation of R. Joḥanan’s statement presupposes this reading; following the text of the Mishnah one would expect: “If one planted, it is permitted; if he transgressed and grafted it is forbidden.” The Babli (Avodah Zarah
¹⁹⁹ It is not clear whether this is a biblical or a rabbinic prohibition.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:5:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:5:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:5:8)

אֱגוֹז שֶׁלְעָרְלָה שֶׁנְּטָעוֹ וְכֵן בֵּיצַת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה אֶפְרוֹחַ. רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן חִזְקִיָּה וְכַהֲנָא. כַּהֲנָא אָמַר מוּתֶּרֶת חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר אָסוּר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה אֵין אֶפְשַׁר לְבֵיצַת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית אֶפְרוֹחַ. מַה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּשֶׁפָּחְסָהּ אֵין כָּאן אֶפְרוֹחַ אִם בְּשֶׁהִכְנִיסָהּ לִפְנִימָה מִן הַקַּנְקֵילִין אִתָא חֲמִי וְאִלּוּ הִשְתַּחֲוֶוה לָהּ לֹא אָסְרָהּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִכְנִיסָהּ לִפְנִים מִן הַקַּנְקֵילִין אָסְרָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן אָבוֹי דְּרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה תִּפְתָּר שֶׁגָּדַר בָּהּ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
²⁰¹ 3:6 (fol. 43a). An *‘orlah* walnut which one planted, and similarly, an egg of idol worship which turned into a chick. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: Ḥizqiah and Cahana differ. Cahana said it is permitted, Ḥizqiah said it is forbidden. In the opinion of Ḥizqiah it should be impossible for an egg of idol worship to become a chick. What is this about? If someone squashed it²⁰², Gesammelte Werke Bd. 4, Basel 1954., there is no chick. If he brought it inside the lattice enclosure²⁰³; the fence outside the pagan temple., come and look: If he worshipped it it is not forbidden²⁰⁴ 3:6 (fol. 43a) that nothing becomes forbidden because of idol worship unless something was done with it. R. Joḥanan disagrees; for him an egg introduced into a pagan temple becomes forbidden.; because he brought it inside the grating should it be forbidden? Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if he used it to fence in the idol²⁰⁵.

footnotes:
²⁰¹ This paragraph (without mentioning the walnut) and the next are also in Avodah Zarah
²⁰² Used the egg as a pagan sacrifice. The use of the egg as a pagan symbol was studied by J. J. Bachofen, Versuch über die Gräbersymbolik der Alten
²⁰³ Latin cancelli
²⁰⁴ It is Ḥizqiah’s own opinion in Avodah Zarah
²⁰⁵ There was a hole in the wall which was closed by putting an egg into the hole.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:5:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:5:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Orlah/r/1:5:9)

בֵּיצַת הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂת אֶפְרוֹחַ. אָמַר רִבִּי יָיסָא פְּלִיגֵי בָּהּ כַּהֲנָא וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כַּהֲנָא אָמַר אֲסוּרָה וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מוּתֶּרֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָא רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מוּתֶּרֶת אוֹף הוּא פוֹדֶה אוֹתָהּ בִּזְמַן זַרְעָהּ. רִבִּי חֲנִינָא וְרִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁם כַּהֲנָא פּוֹדֶה אוֹתָהּ בִּזְמַן זַרְעָהּ. וְרִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי פִּינְחָס מְתַקְּנָתָהּ. כַּהֲנָא אוֹמֵר אֲסוּרָה וּפוֹדֶה אוֹתָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִיא. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מוּתֶּרֶת וּפוֹדֶה אוֹתָהּ בִּזְמַן זַרְעָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If an egg dedicated to the Temple became a chick. Rebbi Assi said, Cahana and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree about this. Cahana said it is forbidden and Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, since Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted, does he redeem²⁰⁷ read: does he not redeem it? Since this is a question, there is no material difference. One does not sow an egg; the reference is to Mishnah *Terumot* 9:4 which states that growth from dedicated grain is profane but nevertheless it has to be redeemed but only for the value of the seed grain used, not of the harvest. The question then is whether R. Joḥanan holds that the chick, being different from the egg, is purely profane and needs no redemption or, while being profane, needs redemption for the value of the egg. it as from the time it is sown? Rebbi Hanania²⁰⁸. The reading here, R. Ḥanina, is impossible for chronological reasons. and Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana: He redeems it as from the time it is sown. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas corrects it: Cahana said it is forbidden and he redeems it as it is now; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is permitted and he redeems it as from the time it is sown.

footnotes:
²⁰⁷ The Rome ms. and the text in Avodah Zarah
²⁰⁸ Reading of the text in Avodah Zarah