Purpose of Orlah/2

Purpose of Orlah

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

The commandment of orlah, the prohibition to eat from the fruit of a tree in its first three years, has been understood in varying ways. Rambam assumes that this law, like many others, was instituted to distance the nation from the idolatrous practices of surrounding nations. R"Y Bekhor Shor assumes that the law's purpose is the inverse of this, to promote recognition of Hashem and bless Him for His gifts. Others give a more mundane reason for the prohibition, suggesting that the fruit in its initial years is harmful to man and so Hashem banned its consumption to preserve the health of the Children of Israel. Finally, R. Hirsch maintains that the law is meant to teach the nation abstinence and self-control on their path to moral perfection.

Spiritual Benefits

The commandment of orlah was instituted for its spiritual benefits.  This approach subdivides, with some focusing on how it serves to distance the nation from idolatrous rites and others on how it brings one to recognize Hashem.

Distancing from Idolatry

The prohibition to eat of the fruit of a tree in its first three years is meant to keep the nation from imitating idolatrous practices.

Sources:Rambam Moreh Nevukhim3 37About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim, RambanVayikra 19:23-25About R. Moshe b. Nachman #3,¹ AbarbanelVayikra 19:23About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel

Idolator's customs – The Rambam suggests that people in surrounding nations would engage in various magical rites to accelerate the pace at which their trees would bear fruit.  When the fruit appeared they would then bring of it to the gods in whose name the magical rites had been performed.  To prevent people from imitating these rites, Hashem prohibited benefiting from any fruit grown in the tree's first three years, ensuring that there would be no need for anyone to try and hasten the fruit's production.

Connection to נטע רבעי – This commandment, too, constitutes a reaction to these foreign practices.  In contrast to the surrounding cultures who brought of the fruit to their idols, Hashem mandates that we bring the fourth year's fruit to Hashem.

Meaning of "ערלה" – The word "ערלה" elsewhere in Tanakh refers to a foreskin, and the word ערלים is used to describe those who are uncircumcised and not part of the Jewish faith.  As such, it is possible that by choosing specifically this root in forbidding the fruit, the Torah is subtly reminding the people not to engage in foreign, idolatrous rites. They need to distance themselves from that which is "ערלה", from that which is markedly not-Jewish.

Context – This understanding of the law might be supported by the fact that the prohibitions which follow this one similarly relate to magical and idolatrous practices, banning divination and necromancy.²

Biblical Parallels – The Rambam is consistent in viewing many laws throughout Torah as being aimed at distancing the nation from idolatrous customs.

The blessing: "לְהוֹסִיף לָכֶם תְּבוּאָתוֹ" – Hashem's promise of extra produce might serve as an incentive to keep the obligation and counter the desire to hasten a tree's production.  Hashem promises that if one does not attempt to have the tree bear fruit prematurely, Hashem will ensure that more fruit will be produced later. As such, there is nothing to be lost by heeding the directive, only what to be gained.

Recognition of Hashem

The commandment is intended to promote recognition of Hashem as Creator and  to thank Him for His blessings.

Sources:R. Yosef Bekhor ShorVayikra 19:23-25About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, ChizkuniVayikra 19:23About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, RambanVayikra 19:23-25About R. Moshe b. Nachman #1,³  Sefer HaChinukh247About Sefer HaChinukh #1, RalbagVayikra 19:23-25About R. Levi b. Gershom,

Why is the fruit off-limits? These sources suggest that the fruit is off-limits because one cannot eat of one's fruit until it has first been given to Hashem in recognition of His role in providing them. Yet, the first three year's worth of fruit tend to be of poor quality, not worthy of a Divine gift.  As such one can only bring of the fourth year's yield to God and any fruit grown beforehand is banned from human benefit.

Connection to נטע רבעי – This approach views the commandment of orlah as being secondary to the obligation of נטע רבעי, only mandated to ensure proper observance of the latter. It has no inherent worth and is simply a means to an end.⁴

Biblical parallels

• The two laws are similar to the laws of first-born animals (בכור) and fruits (בכורים) which are all consecrated to Hashem in recognition that all belongs to Him and that any good one has is bestowed upon him by God. Before partaking of any "first fruits" it is necessary to first thank Hashem.⁵ 
• The law is also parallel to the second tithe (מעשר שני) which similarly requires one to bring of one's produce and eat in Jerusalem "לְמַעַן תִּלְמַד לְיִרְאָה אֶת ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ".‎ R. Moshe AlshikhDevarim 14:23About R. Moshe Alshikh explains that this tithe, too, is intended to prevent a person from attributing all his agricultural success to himself and to ensure that he recognize that he is simply the servant of the Master to whom all belongs.

Context – The placement of the commandment within a list of laws regarding holiness is expected, as these first fruits are consecrated to Hashem, and the fourth year's fruit is even referred to as "קֹדֶשׁ הִלּוּלִים לַי"י". It is not clear, however, why it follows a law of a forbidden sexual union and precedes the prohibition against "eating on blood" specifically.⁶

Meaning of ערלה – Ramban, following RashiVayikra 19:23-25About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, assumes that the root "ערל" means "sealed" or "closed". Ramban suggests that since Tanakh uses the root "פתח" to describe a fruit's first appearance on a tree,⁷ when Hashem wanted to forbid these fruit he uses the opposite term, "closed." The first three years worth of fruit are as if closed, as if the tree had not born them. One need not read anything negative into the term.

Health Benefits

The law serves to preserve the health of the Children of Israel. Since the fruit that a tree bears in its first three years is detrimental to one's health, Hashem prohibited its consumption.

Sources:RambanVayikra 19:23-25About R. Moshe b. Nachman #2,⁸ Sefer HaChinkuh247About Sefer HaChinukh #2,

Connection to נטע רבעי – According to this position the two mitzvot have different reasons and are only connected in that both dictate what to do with the initial fruit born by a tree.  "נטע רבעי" is similar to the laws of בכורים, the first fruits, which are dedicated to Hashem in recognition of Him as Creator.

Meaning of "ערלה" – This position might suggest that the verse intentionally uses the root "ערל" (rather than a synonym) since the word has a negative connotation in Tanakh, thereby implying that these fruit are inherently negative at this stage. [See Ibn EzraVayikra 19:23-25About R. Avraham ibn Ezra who writes, "שהוא הפרי חשוב כערלה, שהיא מזקת ולא תועיל".]

Biblical parallels – Ramban compares the mitzvah to the laws of kashrut, which he similarly suggests were instituted for health reasons. See Purpose of the Laws of Kashrut for elaboration.

Context of holiness – Since holiness implies separation, any law which requires one to separate from something might relate to holiness. As such, these laws, even if instituted for purely practical purposes, fit nicely into the chapter.

Can laws be utilitarian in nature? One might question whether the purpose of Torah is not to instill good character and deeds rather than to proffer medical advice.⁹ Ramban might argue that the assumption that laws cannot be utilitarian in nature is simply wrong. In fact, multiple laws have been understood by varying commentators to be instituted for purely practical reasons. See, for instance, Rambam's understanding of Shemittah and Ralbag's understanding of the laws of Tzara'at.

Lesson in Self-Control

Abstaining from eating of the tree's fruit is an important lesson in self restraint.

Sources:R. S.R. HirschVayikra 19:23-25About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, perhaps R. David Zvi HoffmannVayikra 19:23-25About R. David Zvi Hoffmann¹⁰

Goal of abstinence – R. Hirsch suggests that learning self-control is the key to living an ethical life and attaining moral perfection.  Only through self control can one learn to do only what is right and prevent one's self from sin.

Meaning of ערלה – R. Hirsch suggests that the root "ערל" refers to something whose usage is limited in some way. Thus, for example, one who is "עֲרַל שְׂפָתָיִם" has limited usage of his tongue.¹¹  The fruit of our verse is so termed because it, too, is being limited to man, as one may not partake of it as usual.  Using this word specifically to ban the fruit highlights how the entire law revolves around the concept of setting limits.

Context of Holiness – R. Hirsch maintains that the root "קדש" means to separate and that attaining holiness entails first and foremost learning self-control (and abstinence).¹²  It is thus appropriate that the mitzvah of orlah would be found in the list of laws related to holiness. He further suggests that the law is juxtaposed specifically to the prohibition of having relations with a maidservant who has been pledged to marry another (שפח חרופה) , because both relate to urges which need to be controlled. Man must learn to curb both his sexual and his gustatory appetite.

Connection to נטע רבעי – The two laws have distinct purposes, one to inculcate self-control and one to recognize Hashem's role as Creator. The two are nonetheless related, as recognizing that Hashem (rather than one's self) is Master of all will help one control one's desires.  And inversely, a person who has learned restraint will more easily be able to recognize God as Creator.

Biblical parallels – This law can be compared to other laws requiring abstinence, such as the laws of kashrut or prohibited sexual unions. Akeidat Yitzchak¹³ goes a step further to suggest that all laws whose reason is unclear (such as the prohibition to wear linen and wool together) need have no other purpose other than the fact that they restrict man. The very existence of guiding laws forces man to control himself and recognize that he is meant to live according to Hashem's desires and not his own.

¹ Ramban brings multiple possible reasons for the law.

² The other prohibitions listed, such as not cutting certain portions of one's hair and not making a tattoo, have been understood to relate to idolatrous rites as well, even though there is nothing inherent in these actions which need make one posit such a  connection. Rambam goes further to suggest that the laws of כלאים (crossbreeding)  and שאטנז (prohibited mixtures) that appear earlier in the chapter are also a reaction to idolatry.

³ Ramban brings multiple possible reasons for the law.

⁴ R. D"Z Hoffmann questions this approach on this basis, claiming that there needs to be a reason for the commandment of "ערלה" which is not dependent on that of "נטע רבעי". He points out that the verse actively commands "וַעֲרַלְתֶּם עׇרְלָתוֹ", suggesting that there is something inherently worthwhile in actively refraining from the fruit, and that the commandment is not simply a means to a different end..

⁵ Ralbag suggests that the fourth year's fruit is termed "קֹדֶשׁ הִלּוּלִים לַי"י" because we are meant to come to the Mikdash and praise Hashem for what He has granted us.

⁶ It should be noted, though, that it is very difficult to figure out the logic of the ordering of many of the laws of the chapter, and so this is not necessarily more of a question on this approach than on some of the others. See N. Leibowitz, Iyyunim in Sefer Vayikra (Jerusalem, 1986): 231-232 who points out that commentators throughout the ages have attempted to explain the logic of the chapter's arrangement, but usually to no avail. She suggests that maybe the lack of logical order is intentional, lest anyone conclude that a commandment's placement in the list is an indicator of its importance or lack thereof.

⁷ See Shir HaShirim 7:13, "נִרְאֶה אִם פָּרְחָה הַגֶּפֶן פִּתַּח הַסְּמָדַר הֵנֵצוּ הָרִמּוֹנִים".

⁸ Ramban brings multiple possible reasons for the law.

⁹ See the Akeidat Yitzchakk and Abarbanel who use this argument to question those who suggest that the laws of kashrut are mandated due to their health benefits. [See Purpose of the Laws of Kashrut.]

¹⁰ R. Hoffmann's position is somewhat ambiguous and he appears to combine this approach with the position above that speaks of how the commandment brings one to recognition of Hashem.

¹¹ Similarly, when the Israelites are referred to "ערל אוזן" (Yirmeyahu 6:10) or"עַרְלֵי לֵב" (Yirmeyahu 9:25), this is because they are preventing themselves from listening and thinking properly.

¹² He writes, "קדושה נקנית באמצעות שליטה על כל כוחות ויכולות האדם ועל כל הפיתויים והנטיות הקשורים אליהם".

¹³ He does not discuss this in relationship to our verses specifically but rather in the context of the laws of kashrut.