וְכִי־תָבֹ֣אוּ אֶל־הָאָ֗רֶץ וּנְטַעְתֶּם֙ כָּל־עֵ֣ץ מַאֲכָ֔ל וַעֲרַלְתֶּ֥ם עָרְלָת֖וֹ אֶת־פִּרְי֑וֹ שָׁלֹ֣שׁ שָׁנִ֗ים יִהְיֶ֥ה לָכֶ֛ם עֲרֵלִ֖ים לֹ֥א יֵאָכֵֽל׃
Apabila kamu masuk ke negeri itu dan menanam segala jenis pohon yang buahnya dapat dimakan, kamu harus memperlakukan buahnya sebagai sesuatu yang tertutup dan terlarang. Selama tiga tahun buah itu harus tertutup dan terlarang bagimu; buah itu tidak boleh dimakan.
Jerusalem Talmud Orlah
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 tree2It says “a food tree”, not “a fruit tree” as in the Creation story (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)..”
Jerusalem Talmud Orlah
HALAKHAH: “Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shells should be burned,” etc. It is written (Lev. 19:23): “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin.4The problem is the word ערלתו. It seems that the verse would be perfect without it, וערלתם את פריו “you shall treat its fruit as foreskin.”” Some Tannaїm state: What is close to the fruit. Some Tannaїm state: What envelopes the fruit. He who says what envelopes the fruit, understands shells and pits5The foreskin is an envelope around the male organ which has the shape of a solid cylinder. In the opinion of this Tanna, usually a fruit has the shape of a torus, bounded at the outside by the shell or skin and at the inside by the pit. Therefore, the envelope of the fruit must have two parts, an inner and an outer one, and “envelope” designates the union of both.
“Foreskin” as applied to fruits is only a metaphor since human foreskin is permanently forbidden but fruits of trees only the first three years.. He who says what is close to the fruit understands shells but not pits6He will not agree that the foreskin is an envelope but rather an outer shell since the human foreskin is only an outer shell if the male organ is considered as a cylindrical shell bounded at the inside by the urinary duct.. From where pits7Since practice includes pits, where is a hint of the inclusion found in the biblical text?? You must finally conclude that “its fruit” means “What touches its fruit.”8This is the opinion of the Babli (Berakhot 36b). Some want to understand it from here: “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin,” anything which envelopes its fruit or its fruit envelopes it.9The definition of the envelope in Note 5 is natural for modern mathematics. For Euclidean mathematics, for which all geometric figures are compact and connected [cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Axioms of Betweenness in Euclid, Dialectica 31(1977) 187–192], the two-sheeted hyperboloid is composed of two separate surfaces. Therefore, in the spirit of the times the reformulation is appropriate.
The discussion here is hinted at in Ma‘serot 4:6, Note 88. The Amora quoted there, Samuel, is known as strict adherent of Ptolemaic astronomy but it seems that in the quote, he prefers the modern formulation (Note 5) to the classical. This fits with his acceptance of infinite decimal expansions as numbers (Demay 7:8, Note 104).
“Foreskin” as applied to fruits is only a metaphor since human foreskin is permanently forbidden but fruits of trees only the first three years.. He who says what is close to the fruit understands shells but not pits6He will not agree that the foreskin is an envelope but rather an outer shell since the human foreskin is only an outer shell if the male organ is considered as a cylindrical shell bounded at the inside by the urinary duct.. From where pits7Since practice includes pits, where is a hint of the inclusion found in the biblical text?? You must finally conclude that “its fruit” means “What touches its fruit.”8This is the opinion of the Babli (Berakhot 36b). Some want to understand it from here: “You shall treat its foreskin with its fruit as foreskin,” anything which envelopes its fruit or its fruit envelopes it.9The definition of the envelope in Note 5 is natural for modern mathematics. For Euclidean mathematics, for which all geometric figures are compact and connected [cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Axioms of Betweenness in Euclid, Dialectica 31(1977) 187–192], the two-sheeted hyperboloid is composed of two separate surfaces. Therefore, in the spirit of the times the reformulation is appropriate.
The discussion here is hinted at in Ma‘serot 4:6, Note 88. The Amora quoted there, Samuel, is known as strict adherent of Ptolemaic astronomy but it seems that in the quote, he prefers the modern formulation (Note 5) to the classical. This fits with his acceptance of infinite decimal expansions as numbers (Demay 7:8, Note 104).
Jerusalem Talmud Orlah
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.