משנה: הַנּוֹטֵעַ לַסְּייָג וּלְקוֹרוֹת פָּטוּר מִן הֶעָרְלָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר אֲפִילוּ אָמַר הַפְּנִימִי לְמַאֲכָל וְהַחִיצוֹן לִסְייָג הַפְּנִימִי חַייָב וְהַחִיצוֹן פָּטוּר. 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 fence1A 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 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.
הלכה: הַנּוֹטֵעַ לַסְּייָג וּלְקוֹרוֹת פָּטוּר כול׳. כְּתִיב וּנְטַעְתֶּם כָּל־עֵץ מַאֲכָל. אֶת שֶׁהוּא לְמַאֲכָל חַייָב. לִסְייָג וּלְקוֹרוֹת וּלְעֵצִים פָּטוּר. מֵעַתָּה אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלְמַאֲכָל אֲפִילוּ חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו לִסְייָג יְהֵא חַייָב. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר עֵץ מַאֲכָל. HALAKHAH: “If somebody plants for fences or building logs he is exempt,” etc. It is written (Leviticus.19.23">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 tree2It says “a food tree”, not “a fruit tree” as in the Creation story (Genesis.1.11-12">Gen. 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)..”
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 חַייָב לִסְייָג 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 חַייָב לִסְייָג וּלְקוֹרוֹת וּלְעֵצִים פָּטוּר. Rebbi Yose understood the text from its beginning, from the meaning of what is said (Leviticus.19.23">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 (Leviticus.19.25">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.
תַּנֵּי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמָן שֶׁנָּטַע לִסְייָג וּלְקוֹרוֹת וּלְעֵצִים דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לָהֶם. נָטַע דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָהֶן חַייָב. יְאוּת אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בִּמְשַׁנֶּה סֵדֶר נְטִיעָתָם לָעֵצִים בְּרוֹצַף לְקוֹרוֹת בִּמְשַׁפֶּה לִסְייָג מְקוֹם הַסְּייָג מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו. It was stated4Tosephta 1, Sifra Qedošim Parsha 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 planted5For 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 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.
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. 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 says6Kilayim 6:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.6.3.1">Mishnah Kilaim 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.
תַּנֵּי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵין לָךְ בָּא לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת פְּטוֹר אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשֶׁת הַמִּינִין בִּלְבַד רִימוֹן וְשִׁקְמִים וּצְלָף. מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ חַייָבִין בְּמַעֲשֵׂר. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל וּדְרִבִּי הִילָא. דְּאִיתפַלְּגוֹן הַמְּשַׁמֵּר פֵּירוֹתָיו לָעֵצִים רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל אָמַר חַייָב. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר פָּטוּר. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל אָמַר חַייָב. מִן הָדָא וּבָא הַלֵּוִי כִּי אֵין לוֹ חֶלֶק וְנַחֲלָה עִמָּךְ. מִמָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָךְ וְאֵין לוֹ אַתְּ חַייָב לִיתֵּן לוֹ. יָצָא הֶבְקֵר שֶׁיָּדָךְ וְיָדוֹ שָׁוִין בּוֹ. הוּא לֶקֶט הִיא שִׁכְחָה הִיא פֵיאָה הִיא הֶבְקֵר. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: The only kinds admitting an intention of exemption are three: [buckthorn]7Reading with R. S. Cirillo רימין for רימון, defined by Maimonides (Demay 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 tithes7Reading with R. S. Cirillo רימין for רימון, defined by Maimonides (Demay 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 following9Ma‘serot 1:1, Note 20.: (Deuteronomy.14.29">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 not10Since 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.. This excludes abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal.
רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר פָּטוּר מִן הָדָא כּוּסְבָּר שֶׁזְּרָעָהּ לְזֶרַע יַרְקָהּ פָּטוּר. שַׁנְייָא הִיא כּוּסְבָּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ גוֹרֶן אֲחֶרֶת. וְהַיי דָא אָמַר דָּא הַמְּקַייֵם מְלֵיאָה שֶׁלְכְּרוּב לְזֶרַע בָּֽטְלָה דַעְתּוֹ קְלָחִין יְחִידִין לֹא בָֽטְלָה דַעְתּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְהוּא שֶׁלִּיקֵּט יָרָק. אֲבָל אִם לֹא לִיקֶּט יָרָק כָּךְ אָנוּ אוֹמְרִים עֵצִים חַייָבִין בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yose said he is exempt, from the following11Mishnah Ma‘serot 4:5.: “If coriander is sown for its seed, its greenery is free.” Coriander is different since it has a different threshing floor12The seeds. Exempting the greenery is not exempting the entire plant.. But he says from the following13Ma‘serot 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 tithes14Fruits from trees grown for their wood are subject to the laws of ‘orlah 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.?
מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם גֶּזֶל. וְכִי עֵצִים אֵינָן אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם גֶּזֶל. מַה צְרִיכָא לֵיהּ כְּגוֹן אִילֵּין תּוּתַייָא דְּלָא אִית בְּהוֹן מַמָּשׁ. Are these forbidden because of robbery? Is wood not also forbidden because of robbery? What is his problem? For example, mulberry trees having no solidity15If 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.).
רִימוֹן שֶׁנְּטָעוֹ לְשֵׁם רִימוֹן. בְּנוֹת הֲדַס שֶׁנְּטָעָן לְשֵׁם בְּנוֹת הֲדַס. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי חַייָב. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי פָּטוּר. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא מָאן דְּאָמַר חַייָב 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. A buckthorn7Reading with R. S. Cirillo רימין for רימון, defined by Maimonides (Demay 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 berries16These trees are not usually planted for their berries., some Tannaïm stated: obligated, some Tannaïm stated: exempt. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said “obligated”, at a place where most are guarded17The rare places where the berries of these bushes are eaten and valuable.; 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 them18Since these are always guarded and used for their fruit, nobody thinks that they are subject to ‘orlah 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 guard19In that case, no preponderant use is established.! Rebbi Matthew20In the Rome ms.: R. Mattaniah. understood this from the final statement: “At a place where the majority21“The majority do not” means “strictly more than one-half”. do not guard” even if he did not think it is exempt.
רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹצָדָק גֶּפֶן שֶׁעָלַת בְּמָקוֹם חוֹרְשִׁין פְּטוּרָה מִן הֶעָרְלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֲפִילוּ נְטָעָהּ. וְהָתַנִּינָן הָעוֹלֶה מֵאֵילָיו חַייָב בְּעוֹרְלָה. תַּמָּן בְּשֶׁנְּטָעָן בְּמָקוֹם יִישׁוּב. בְּרַם הָכָא שֶׁנְּטָעָהּ בְּמָקוֹם חוֹרְשִׁין. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽיעְזָר הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה כְדֵי טְפֵילָתָהּ. אֲבָל אִם הָֽיְתָה עוֹשָׂה כְדֵי טְפֵילָתָהּ חַייֶבֶת. 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.
רַב חוּנָה שָׁאַל אֶתְרוֹג שֶׁנְּטָעוֹ לְמִצְװָתוֹ מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא חַייָב בְּעָרְלָה. חָזַר רַב חוּנָא וְאָמַר אֶתְרוֹג שֶׁנְּטָעוֹ לְמִצְוָתוֹ חַייָב 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. Rav Ḥuna asked: If an etrog tree22The etrog is identified as the “fruit of the splendid tree” (Leviticus.23.40">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: (Leviticus.23.40">Lev. 23:40) “You shall buy for yourselves” and not from the obligation23The “four kinds”, etrog, 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, (Leviticus.23.24">Lev. 23:24) “a day of blasts it shall be for you”, from anywhere24Since “religious obligations are not for usufruct”, a shofar can be used for blowing even if it is forbidden for usufruct.. And here, (Leviticus.19.23">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 this25Using the etrog 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, (Leviticus.23.40">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 candelabrum26An 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.; then both are biblical.
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יָקִים בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נְטָעוֹ צַד הַתַּחְתּוֹן לִסְייָג וְהָעֶלְיוֹן לְמַאֲכָל. צַד הַתַּחְתּוֹן לְמַאֲכָל וְהָעֶלְיוֹן לִסְייָג. אָמַר לֵיהּ הִיא הָדָא הִיא הָדָא. הִיא צַד הַתַּחְתּוֹן לִסְייָג וְהָעֶלְיוֹן לְמַאֲכָל. הִיא צַד הָעֶלְיוֹן לִסְייָג וְהַתַּחְתּוֹן לְמַאֲכָל. כֵּיצַד הוּא יוֹדֵעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה מֵבִיא זְמוֹרָה וּמְסַייֵם עַד כָּאן לִסְייָג מִיכָּן וָאֵילָךְ לְמַאֲכָל. 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 fence27Reading of the Rome ms. Leyden (corrected) זמודה, Leyden uncorrected and Venice ומודה “and agrees”.. How does one know? He brings a string and ties it as a sign: So far as fence, the excess for food.
רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעֵי נִיחָא צַד הַתַּחְתּוֹן לִסְייָג וְהָעֶלְיוֹן לְמַאֲכָל. צַד הַתַּחְתּוֹן לְמַאֲכָל וְהָעֶלְיוֹן לִסְייָג 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. 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 opinion29Kilayim 5:6:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.5.6.4">Kilaim 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.
נְטָעוֹ לִסְייָג וְחִישֵּׁב עָלָיו לְמַאֲכָל בָּא בְמַחֲשָׁבָה. לְמַאֲכָל וְחִישֵּׁב עָלָיו לִסְייָג לֹא כָּל־הִימֵינוּ. נְטָעוֹ שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה לִסְייָג מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו לְמַאֲכָל מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁחִישֵּׁב בּוֹ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת חִיּוּב יְהֵא חַייָב. וְהָתַנִּינָן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ הַפְּנִימִי לְמַאֲכָל וְהַחִיצוֹן לִסְייָג הַפְּנִימִי חַייָב וְהַחִיצוֹן פָּטוּר. תַּמָּן לְמַאֲכָל לְמַאֲכָל לְעוֹלָם. לִסְייָג לִסְייָג לְעוֹלָם. בְּרַם הָכָא מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁעִירֵב בּוֹ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת חִיּוּב יְהֵא חַייָב. 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 accepted30An obligation can be created by intent; it cannot be removed by intent.. 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.
נְטָעוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים לִסְייָג 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. 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 stated31Ma‘serot 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 obligated32This 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.?
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. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Ismael: Anything not subject to ‘orlah is not subject to the fourth year34The year following the three years of ‘orlah when (Leviticus.19.24">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 years35According to R. Jonah, no period of ‘orlah 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 year36According to him, any period of ‘orlah 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..
תַּנֵּי אִילָן שֶׁמִּקְצָתוֹ נָטוּעַ בָּאָרֶץ וּמִקְצָתוֹ חוּץ לָאָרֶץ מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁמִּקְצָתוֹ נָטוּעַ בָּאָרֶץ כִּילּוּ כּוּלּוֹ בָאָרֶץ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר צַד הַנָּטוּעַ בָּאָרץ חַייָב צַד הַנָּטוּעַ חוּץ לָאָרֶץ פָּטוּר. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נַעֲשֶׂה כְטְבֵל וְכִמְעוּשָּׂר מְעוּרָבִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. It was stated38Tosephta Ma‘serot 2:22. A different text in the Gittin.22a">Babli (Giṭṭin 22a, Baba Batra 27b; also Nedarim.59b">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 together39This 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..
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. 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’s40If an older fruit tree develops a new stem from an old root, the new stem is exempt from the rules of ‘orlah since it is considered a branch of the old tree. This is important for “sinking” branches (Kilayim 7:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.7.1.1">Kilaim 7:1, Note 1).; but if it extended from outside the Land into the Land it41The previous argument. An “exempt root” is not one exempt from the start but one that has outgrown its ‘orlah status. does not apply.
שׁוֹרֶשׁ פָּטוּר פּוֹטֵר. וְהָתַנִּינָן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ הַפְּנִימִי לְמַאֲכָל וְהַחִיצוֹן לִסְייָג הַפְּנִימִי חַייָב וְהַחִיצוֹן פָּטוּר. וְיִפְטוֹר צַד הַחִיצוֹן לְצַד הַפְּנִימִי. רִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר לָהּ סְתָם רִבִּי לָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר רָאוּי הוּא לַחֲשׁוֹב עָלָיו לְחַייְבוֹ. 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.42The roots are not exempt; part of the tree is exempt by force of the (revocable) intention of the planter.
רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שָׁרָשִׁים אֵין בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא לְרִבִּי יָסָא בְּפֵירוּשׁ שְׁמַעְתָּנָהּ מִן דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹ בְעָרְלָה הֲוִיתוֹן קַייָמִין 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. 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 count43Since in presenting First Fruits to the Temple the farmer has to declare (Deuteronomy.26.10">Deut. 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 count44Any 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..
סִיפְּקָהּ לִזְקֵינָה פָטוּר לְחוּץ לָאָרֶץ פָּטוּר. לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ חַייָב לְצַד הַתַּחְתּוֹן לְצַד הָעֶלְיוֹן חַייָב. לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ חַייָב שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לִפְדּוֹתוֹ וּלְחַייְבוֹ. לְצַד הָעֶלְיוֹן חַייָב שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לַחֲשׁוֹב עָלָיו וּלְחַייְבוֹ. If one bound it to an old tree45“Binding” is an inexact expression (cf. Kilayim 6:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.6.4.1">Mishnah Kilaim 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 it46The same argument as above, Note 41..
רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אֲפִילוּ יִסְבּוֹר כְּרִבִּי עָרְלָה תְּלוּיָה לְדַעְתּוֹ וּמַעְשְׂרוֹת אֵינָן תְּלוּיִין לְדַעְתּוֹ. Does Rebbi Yose47In the Mishnah, Note 1. follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel48In the Tosephta dealing with heave and tithes from a tree on the border line, Note 37.? He might even hold with Rebbi! ‘Orlah depends on one’s intention, tithes do not depend on his intention.