meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Zeraim/English Explanation of Mishnah Orlah/English/merged.txt"}
text: English Explanation of Mishnah Orlah
  ביאור אנגלי על משנה ערלה
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  -
  
  English Explanation of Mishnah Orlah
  
  Introduction
  
  Tractate Orlah is concerned with fruit that grows on a tree during its first three years of growth. The laws are all based on Leviticus 19:23-24:
  When you enter the land and plant any tree for food, you shall regard its fruit as forbidden (arel). Three years its fruit shall be forbidden (arel) for you, not to be eaten. In the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, (set aside) for jubilation before the Lord; and only in the fifth year may you use its fruit—that its yield to you may be increased. I the Lord am your God.
  According to this verse, fruit which grows on a tree during its first three years is prohibited. The rabbis add that it is prohibited not just to eat this fruit, but also to derive any benefit from it. 
  The years of a tree are counted not by how long ago the tree was actually planted but by the calendar years. The first of Tishrei is the date that is considered the first of the year for orlah (see Rosh Hashanah 1:1) so a tree planted before the first of Tishrei (actually thirty days before the first of Tishrei so that it has time to grow roots), is considered to already be in its second year. 
  In its fourth year the fruit is called “fourth year produce” or “neta revai.” The mishnah dealt with this subject at the end of tractate Maaser Sheni because this fruit is treated similarly to second tithe. 
  Our tractate also deals extensively with the subject of orlah fruit that has become mixed up with other permitted produce. It also deals with mixed seeds and terumah that have become mixed up with other produce, because these halakhot are all similar.  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah teaches that if a fruit tree is planted for a reason other than to provide fruit, it is exempt from the laws of orlah and its fruit may be eaten within the first three years of growth. This law is a great example of the strong role intent, in Hebrew, kavvanah, plays in rabbinic law. The intent of the person planting the tree is what determines the status of its fruit, and not the mere physicality of whether the tree is three years or older.
  One who plants [a fruit tree] as a fence or to provide wood beams, it is exempt from [the law of] orlah.  As stated in the introduction, if the tree was planted for another reason other than for its fruit, its fruit is permitted immediately, without having to wait three years. This law also stems (no pun intended) from Leviticus 19:23, which begins, “When you enter the land and plant any tree for food...” The tree is subject to the laws of orlah only if it is planted for food.
  Rabbi Yose says: even if he said “The inward [facing part of the tree] is for food, and the outward [facing part] is for a fence,” the inward [facing part] is subject [to orlah], and the outward [facing part] is exempt.  Rabbi Yose says that one can divide a tree into two parts. If the inward part, the part facing the field, was planted for food and the outer part was planted to serve as a fence to his field, he can eat the fruit of the outside part without waiting three years. But the laws of orlah do apply to the inside part.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with situations in which a tree is exempt from the laws of orlah, or situations in which it is subject, even though one might have thought that it should be exempt.
  If at the time when our ancestors came into the land and they found [a tree already] planted it was exempt [from the laws of orlah]. If they planted [a tree], even though they had not yet conquered [the land], it was subject [to orlah].  This law is based on the beginning of Leviticus 19:23, “When you enter the land and plant any tree for food.” The laws of orlah do not apply to trees that were planted before the Israelites entered the land of Israel in the times of Joshua. If they planted a tree, the laws would apply even though the land had not yet been conquered. Obviously this law is not of any practical significance. This is a good example of what interests the rabbis. They are interested in practical matters and there are many halakhot in the Mishnah that have practical significance. But they are no less interested in explaining the Torah, even in cases where there is no practical implication to their words. This section of this mishnah is solely meant to explain the verse.
  If one planted a tree for [the use of] the many, it is subject. But Rabbi Judah makes it exempt.  According to the first opinion, if one plants a tree on his own property for the use of many others, the tree is still subject to the laws of orlah. Rabbi Judah disagrees and says that it is not.
  If one has planted [a tree] in the public domain, or if a non-Jew has planted, or if a robber has planted, or one who plants on a boat, or [a tree] that has grown of itself, it is subject to orlah.  In all of the cases in this mishnah we might have thought the tree is not subject to the laws of orlah, therefore the mishnah teaches that the tree is subject. The first three categories all seem to say that the status of the planter and the status of the tree do not matter. Thus, although a tree in the public domain does not belong to the one who planted it, it is still subject to orlah. Halakhah does not generally apply to non-Jewish produce, but since the status of the tree is not determined by its owner, the tree planted by a non-Jew is subject to orlah. The robber does not own the field in which he planted the tree. Nevertheless, the tree is subject to the laws of orlah.  All three of these categories serve to distinguish orlah from most of the other agricultural laws. For instance, produce which grows in the public domain is exempt from tithes. A tree that is planted on a boat is also liable, because the boat is treated as if it was land. Finally, a tree that has no owner is also liable, because as we have stated, it is the tree that is determinative, not the owner.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah discusses whether a replanted tree counts as if it was newly planted, such that one would have to wait another three years before its produce could be eaten.
  If a tree was uprooted and the hard soil together with it, or if a stream swept it away and the hard soil together with it, [then] if it could have lived it is exempt, But if [it could] not, it is subject.  The criterion throughout the mishnah for determining whether the tree is considered to be replanted is whether it could have lived from the amount of soil that was uprooted with it. The test would seem to be placing it in a pot if there was enough soil still stuck to the roots of the tree that the tree could continue to live then it is exempt from the laws of orlah, meaning that this is not considered replanting. But if it could not live from this soil, then the clock is rewound and the fruit of next three years will be prohibited.
  If the hard soil has been detached from its side, or if a ploughshare shook it, or if someone shook it, and one reset it with earth, [then] if it could have lived, it is exempt, But if not, it is subject.  This same rule applies in situations where the tree lost some of its soil and then a person put more soil back there. If the tree could have lived off of the soil that was left attached to it, then putting new soil on it doesn’t count as replanting. But if it could not have lived off of this soil, then it does count as replanting.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with when a tree is considered to have been uprooted.
  If a tree was uprooted and one root was left [in the ground], it is exempt.  As long as one root is still attached to the ground, the tree is considered to still be planted and, if the tree is older than three years, it is exempt from the rules of orlah.
  How much must the [thickness of the] root be? Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said in the name of Rabb Eliezer ben Judah a man of Bartota:  as [thick as] a pin [used for] stretching.  In order for the root to count as still attaching the tree to ground, it must be as thick as a pin that weavers used for stretching the cloth. Others explain that this is a pin used by launderers. In any case, if the root is thinner than that, it would not be sufficient to nourish the tree, so we would have to consider the tree as having been detached and then replanted, which means that for the next three years its fruit will be prohibited.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  There are two agricultural practices mentioned in this mishnah. The first is taking a branch from a vine, bending it down into the ground and then bringing it up again elsewhere. Underground the branch will grow new roots. Our mishnah will ask the question of how to reckon the years of the vine that grows from what it calls a “bent-down and rooted shoot.”
  The second practice is grafting, whereby one takes a detached branch and grafts into onto an existing vine.
  A tree which was uprooted and it has a bent-down [and rooted] shoot, and it [the tree] derives sustenance from it [the shoot], the old [tree] is [considered] like the shoot.  In this case the original, old tree (or vine) was uprooted, but a branch that had been bent into the ground still remains in the ground and provides sustenance to the tree. The mishnah rules that the tree is considered to be like the shoot. Shoots that are bent into the ground are not subject to the laws of orlah as long as they are still attached to the older vine/tree, because the Torah says, “When you plant” and the rabbis understand this as excluding bending shoots into the ground. Note that the innovation here is that even though the branch that had been bent and rooted into the ground now looks like a new vine, it still counts as far as attaching the old vine to the ground.
  If one bends [and roots] from it year after year, and it became detached, one counts from the time it became detached.  If one bends and roots branches into the ground year after year, and at some point the new vines the grow from these shoots become detached from the mother tree, their count as far as orlah goes begins from the time they become detached. Up until that point their count went according to the old vine but once they are detached we have to look at them as if they were just planted.
  A grafted shoot of vines, and a grafted shoot [growing] on another grafted shoot, even if he rooted them in the soil, they are permitted.  This section deals with grafting vines onto an older tree. If one grafts new vines onto an old tree their orlah count goes according to the older tree. This is true even if he puts grafts onto other grafts, and even if he bends some of those grafts into the ground such that they receive nourishment from the soil. In all of these cases, as long as the new grafts are connected to the old tree, one does not have to start a new count of years for the issue of orlah.
  Rabbi Meir said: in an instance where it is strongly [grafted], it is permitted, but in an instance where it is poorly [grafted], it is prohibited.  Rabbi Meir is referring to a grafted branch which is grafted onto an already existing grafted branch. If the grafted branch onto which the new one is being grafted is strongly attached to the tree, meaning this graft is successful and is producing new fruits, then the new graft is permitted in terms of orlah. The old graft is considered part of the old tree. But if the prior graft is not strongly attached, then the new one is prohibited, because we can’t look at the old graft as if it is attached to the tree.
  A bent-down [and rooted] shoot that has become detached and is full of fruit, [then] if it increased one two hundredth, it is prohibited.  The final section of our mishnah returns to discuss a branch of a vine that is bent down and rooted into the ground. As we learned above, as long as the branch is attached to the old vine, its fruit is permitted.  In this case, the branch grows fruit while attached and then becomes detached. The question is: does the orlah count restart for the fruit that has already grown? The mishnah rules that if the fruit grew 1/200 in size, then the fruit is prohibited. This is the standard number for cases of orlah mixed with non-orlah. If there is 1/200th orlah, then the mixture is prohibited. This would also be the case here the part that grew when the branch was attached is not orlah, whereas the new growth is orlah. So if the new growth is 1/200th or more of the total volume, then it is prohibited.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with orlah or a vineyard into which seeds had been planted which then become mixed up with non-prohibited plants or produce. The question is: does this mixture become nullified if the prohibited part is less than 1/200 of the permitted part?
  If a shoot of orlah or a vineyard in which seeds had been planted (, became mixed up with [other] shoots, behold one may not gather [the fruit].  A person has a bunch of plants in his backyard, or a few vineyards. Some of the plants are orlah, or some of the vineyards have seeds of grain planted in them (kilayim). These plants or vineyards are prohibited. However, he doesn’t know which plants are orlah or which vineyards are kilayim (the grain is assumedly gone). If he has not yet gathered the fruit, he cannot gather any of the fruit from any of these plants. While some times prohibited things can become nullified if they are small enough percentages of a mixture, this is the case only if the produce is already detached from the ground. Since this produce is still attached to the ground, he cannot even pick it.
  But if one has gathered [it], it is neutralized in two hundred-and-one, provided that he did not act deliberately. Rabbi Yose says: even if he acted deliberately, it becomes neutralized in two hundred-and-one.  If he gathered it already without realizing that some of the produce was prohibited, then as long as there is not more than 1/200 part orlah or kilayim, the prohibited stuff is nullified. However, if he deliberately picked the produce, knowing that this would allow it to be nullified, he is penalized and it is prohibited. The rule is that one is not allowed to intentionally nullify a prohibited substance. Rabbi Yose says that this is not really a case of intentionally nullifying a prohibited substance. When he picks the produce he is not yet nullifying the prohibited plants, because the stuff still attached to the ground can’t be nullified. It is only nullified when the produce is picked and it turns out that less than 1/200 of it is prohibited. Therefore, he can deliberately pick the produce so that the prohibited plants will be nullified.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with the subject of what parts of a vine are prohibited because of orlah.
  Leaves, sprouts, sap of vines, and vine-buds are permitted in respect of orlah and the laws of the fourth year, and to a nazirite, but are prohibited if they come from an Asherah [tree]. Rabbi Yose says: vine-buds are prohibited because they are fruit.  The laws of orlah and fourth year produce do not apply to the non-edible parts of the tree only to the fruit. So if one wants to derive benefit from these parts during the first four years of the tree’s existence, he may do so. When it comes to the vine, these parts are permitted to a nazirite, since he is prohibited from consuming only the grapes and the parts of the grapes (see Numbers 6:3-4). However, when it comes to an Asherah tree, which is a tree used in idolatry, then every part of the tree is prohibited. Rabbi Yose considers the vine-buds to be food, even though most people wouldn’t eat them before they fully ripen. Therefore, the laws of orlah and fourth year produce and the Nazirite prohibitions apply to them.
  Rabbi Eliezer said: if one curdles [milk] with the resinous substances of [a tree liable to] orlah, it is prohibited. Rabbi Joshua said: I have received an explicit tradition that if one curdles [milk] with the resinous substance of the leaves, or with the resinous substance of the roots, it is permitted, but with the resinous substance of the unripe berries, it is prohibited, because these are fruit.  This section deals with the resin that comes from the tree and is used to curdle milk and make cheese. Rabbi Eliezer says that the laws of orlah apply to this substance and therefore if one uses it to curdle milk, the cheese will be prohibited. Rabbi Joshua disagrees based on a received oral tradition that the laws of orlah do not apply to the resin that comes from the tree and is used to curdle the milk. This is true as long as the resin comes from the leaves or roots, parts of the tree to which the laws of orlah never apply. However, if he uses the resin that comes from the unripe berries, the cheese is prohibited because these unripe berries are, according to Rabbi Yose, subject to the laws of orlah. And even according to the opinion that disagrees with Rabbi Yose, although the unripe berries are not subject to orlah, when they ripen they will be subject to orlah. Therefore, this cheese will be prohibited.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah continues to deal with what parts of the grape or fruit are subject to the laws of orlah, the asherah (idol-tree), the nazirite prohibitions and fourth-year vineyards.
  Defective grapes, grape kernels, grape husks, and the temed drink made from them, the peel of a pomegranate and its sprout, nutshells, and fruit-seeds, are all subject to the laws of orlah, asherah and a nazirite, but permitted in respect of a fourth year vineyard.  All of the parts of grapes, fruits and nuts are subject to the laws of orlah, so that one could not use them during the first three years of growth. They are also prohibited if they grow from an asherah tree, for as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, all parts of the asherah tree are prohibited. Finally, they are prohibited to a nazirite because Numbers 6:3-4 states, “no vinegar of (new) wine or vinegar of old wine, nor shall he drink any liquor of grapes…from the kernels even to the husk she shall not eat.” However, the rules of the fourth year vineyard, which must be taken to Jerusalem and eaten there, do not apply to these parts of the grape or fruit, because the laws of maaser sheni and the fourth year vineyard (which are always the same) apply only to the parts of the plant that are normally eaten.
  Fallen unripe fruit is subject to all of them.  Fallen unripe fruit is subject to all of these prohibitions because it is food, even though it is not yet ready to be eaten.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with planting things that come from an orlah tree which is orlah.
  Rabbi Yose says: one may plant a shoot of orlah;  Since the laws of orlah do not apply to the branches or shoots of a tree, one may plant a shoot of orlah. If the laws of orlah did apply, it would be forbidden to derive any benefit from the shoot, including planting it to grow a tree.
  But one may not plant a nut of orlah, because it is fruit.  The laws of orlah do apply to the nuts of a tree, because they are considered to be fruit. Hence, one cannot plant a nut.
  And one may not graft early date berries of orlah.  The laws of orlah also apply to the “early date berries”, which according to some commentators are early date-palm branches and according to others, are a certain type of date. In any case, these date berries count as fruit and hence cannot be used in grafting.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  The second chapter of orlah deals with mixtures consisting of permitted and forbidden produce. Specifically the issue is, when does the prohibited part of the mixture become nullified by the permitted part of the mixture?
  Terumah, terumat maaser of demai, hallah and bikkurim, are neutralized in a hundred-and-one mixture.  If terumah, or terumat maaser of demai (demai is produce acquired from an am haaretz, concerning whom we have doubt whether he tithed; terumat maaser is the terumah taken from the tithe), hallah or bikkurim (first fruits) become mixed up with hullin produce, meaning produce that has no status of holiness, then there needs to be 100 parts hullin for every part of holy stuff, in order for the holy stuff to be neutralized. If there is not 100 parts hullin, then we must treat the entire mixture as if it were holy. This will almost always cause a financial loss to the owner.
  And they are reckoned together [to form the statutory minimum].  If some of these things are mixed in together, for instance terumah is mixed in with bikkurim, then they are counted together to prohibit a larger mixture. Thus if ½ part terumah is mixed in with another ½ part bikkurim, there will need to be 100 parts hullin for the holy stuff to be neutralized.
  And it is necessary to remove [from the mixture an amount equal to that of the consecrated produce contained in it].  Once the mixture is neutralized, one would need to take out the amount of holy stuff that is in the mixture and treat it as whatever holy stuff it might be. Thus if 100 parts hullin are mixed in with one part terumah, he can take out one part, give it to a kohen, and treat the rest like hullin. The reason that he has to take the equivalent part out is that someone was supposed to receive these things, in the case of terumah, the priest.
  Orlah and kilayim of the vineyard are neutralized in a two-hundred-and-one mixture.  The necessary ratio to neutralize orlah and kilayim in a vineyard (seeds that were planted in a vineyard) is 200 to 1. The laws are simply stricter with these two types of produce because not only can they not be eaten, one can not even derive benefit from them.
  And they are reckoned together [to form the statutory minimum].  The same rule as in section two.
  But it is not necessary to remove [from the mixture an amount equal to that of the consecrated produce contained in it].  Unlike terumah and the other types of produce in section one, orlah and kilayim don’t go to anyone. Since they don’t go to anyone, he need not take a portion out.
  Rabbi Shimon says: they are not reckoned together.  According to Rabbi Shimon, if orlah and kilayim are mixed together, they are not reckoned together (he disagrees with section five). The reason is that these are completely different prohibitions, unlike terumah, terumat maaser etc. which are all in the same family of halakhot.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: they are reckoned together when they impart flavor, but not to prohibit.  Rabbi Eliezer says that if the two combined prohibited substances, orlah and kilayim, jointly impart their taste to the entire mixture, then they are reckoned together. But if they don’t, then they don’t join together and each will be considered separately. Rabbi Eliezer seems to be a compromise between the two opposite positions found in sections five and seven.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  In this mishnah we learn that if terumah and orlah are mixed in together, each counts with regard to creating the necessary ratio for the other to be voided.
  Terumah can void orlah, and orlah can void terumah.  If terumah and hullin are mixed in together, they can join together to create the necessary 200 to 1 ratio in order to neutralize any orlah or kilayim that are in the mixture. Similarly, orlah can join together with hullin to create the necessary 100 to one ratio to neutralize terumah.
  How so? [For instance] a seah of terumah fell into one hundred, and afterwards three kavs of orlah or three kavs of mixed-seeds of the vineyard [fell in]. This is [an instance] where terumah goes towards neutralizing orlah, and orlah terumah.  The mishnah now illustrates how this works. If a seah of terumah falls into one hundred (actually ninety-nine) of hullin, and then three kavs, which is half a seah, of orlah or kilayim (mixed-seeds) fall in, the orlah or kilayim is neutralized. If we count the terumah with the hullin then there is a 200 to one ratio to neutralize the orlah or kilayim. Similarly, if a seah of orlah is mixed up with 200 seahs of hullin, and then terumah fell into the mixture, if the orlah and hullin are more than 100 to 1 of the terumah, the terumah is neutralized.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is similar to the previous mishnah, but it talks about orlah and kilayim, instead of orlah and terumah.
  Orlah can void kilayim, and kilayim [can void] orlah, and orlah [can void] orlah.  Orlah can be combined with hullin to nullify kilayim and likewise, kilayim can join with hullin to nullify orlah, and there is even a case where orlah can combine with hullin to void other orlah.
  How so? A seah of orlah falls into two hundred [seahs] and afterwards there falls in a seah and a little bit more of orlah, or a seah and a little bit more of kilayim of the vineyard--this is [a case] where orlah can void kilayim, and kilayim [can void] orlah, and orlah [can void] orlah.  As in yesterday’s mishnah, we get an illustration of the aforementioned principle. First, a seah of orlah falls into two hundred seahs of hullin and then becomes void. There are now 201 seahs of hullin in the mixture. If afterwards a seah and a little bit more (1/200th of seah) of orlah fall in, the 201 seahs can nullify the one and 1/200 seahs of orlah that subsequently fall in, even though the 201 seahs is actually 200 seahs of hullin and one seah of orlah. The original seah that fell in counts when it comes to voiding the subsequent seah and a little bit more. The same would be true if a seah and a little bit more of mixed seeds of a vineyard fell in the original seah of orlah counts when it comes to nullifying the subsequent seah and 1/200 of kilayim.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  In the above mishnayot we learned that terumah is nullified if it falls into a mixture that is more than a ratio of 100 to 1 and orlah and kilayim are nullified in a ratio of 200 to 1. Today’s mishnah limits this principle.
  Whatever causes something to ferment, or seasons, or makes medumma with terumah, with orlah or with ‘mixed-seeds’ of the vineyard, is prohibited.  If someone takes starter dough (leaven) made of terumah, orlah or kilayim and uses it to ferment his hullin dough, or seasons a dish with terumah, orlah or kilayim spices, then the whole dish is rendered prohibited. Because the prohibited object caused a substantive change in the entire mixture, either causing it to rise or have flavor, the small prohibited substance cannot be nullified by the larger amount in the mixture, no matter how small a quantity the smaller amount is. The words “or makes medumma” are very difficult to interpret. The Rambam reads not “or makes medumma” but rather “makes medumma” which means that if the starter dough or seasoning is terumah it renders the mixture “medumma” which is terumah mixed in with hullin. Medumma may be eaten by a priest. This reading makes a lot of sense. The problem with this reading is that no other manuscripts read this way.
  Bet Shammai says: it also renders unclean. But Bet Hillel says: it never renders unclean unless it has the volume of an egg.  According to Bet Shammai, the same rule holds true when it comes to the rules of purity. If ritually clean dough has been fermented with unclean dough, or a clean dish has been spiced with an unclean dish, the dough or dish is impure, no matter how small a quantity of starter dough or seasoning was used. Bet Hillel, however, holds that in order to render impure there needs to be an egg’s worth of impure stuff. It doesn’t matter whether the unclean stuff is a leavening agent, spices or anything if it’s not the volume of an egg, it can’t render impure.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Dostai of Kefar Yitmah was one of the disciples of Bet Shammai, and he said, “I received a tradition from Shammai the elder who said: “It never renders unclean unless it contains the volume of an egg.”In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that Bet Shammai holds that unclean hametz (leaven) or spices can render a mixture unclean, even if there is only the smallest amount of the unclean leaven or spices. Bet Hillel says that there must be the volume of an egg. In today’s mishnah a member of the house of Bet Shammai says that Shammai himself agreed with Bet Hillel, that there needs to be the volume of an egg.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah begins to explain two rules with regards to when mixtures of prohibited and permitted substances are prohibited.
  Concerning what did they say: “Anything that causes fermentation or seasons or which renders medumma we rule stringently”? [In the case of] a species [mixed] with its [like] species.  The first general rule is that we rule stringently when a prohibited substance (kilayim, orlah or terumah) which causes fermentation (leavens) or seasons mixes with another similar permitted substance. Such a mixture is prohibited no matter how small the prohibited substance, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.
  [When did they say] “we rule [sometimes] leniently and [sometimes] stringently”? [In the case of] a species [mixed] with a different kind of species.  The second rule is that when the two substances are of different kind, we sometimes rule leniently and sometimes strictly. This will be illustrated in subsequent mishnayot.
  How so? If leaven of wheat fell into dough of wheat and there is enough to cause fermentation, [then] whether there is enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, or there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, it is prohibited. If there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, [then] whether there is enough to cause fermentation, or there is not enough to cause fermentation, it is prohibited.  The mishnah now illustrates the principle in section one. If leaven of wheat falls into dough of wheat, we have a mixture of a like substance with another like substance. If the wheat leaven is terumah and there is enough leaven to ferment the entire mixture, then the mixture is prohibited no matter how small of an amount it is in relation to the mixture. If there is not enough wheat leaven to ferment the entire mixture, then the entire mixture can still be prohibited if there is not 100 parts hullin to one part terumah. In such a case the entire mixture is called “medumma,” doubtful terumah. It must be sold to a priest, with a reduction for the amount of terumah that actually fell in. However, if there are 100 parts hullin to one part terumah, then the mixture is not prohibited. The owner may take out one part, give it to a priest and the remainder of the mixture reverts to being hullin.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah illustrates the second principle in yesterday’s mishnah, that when there are different species mixed together, one permitted and one prohibited, sometimes we rule leniently and sometimes we rule stringently.
  [We rule sometimes] leniently and [sometimes] stringently, [in the case of] a species [mixed] with a different kind of species. How so?  This is the rule that was stated in yesterday’s mishnah.
  If crushed beans were boiled together with lentils, and there is enough of them [the crushed beans] to impart flavor, [then] whether there is enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, or there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, it is prohibited.  This section illustrates the stringency. Crushed beans and lentils are considered to be two different species. If crushed beans that are of terumah are boiled with hullin (non-sacred) lentils, and the crushed beans impart their flavor to the entire mixture, then it doesn’t matter how small a percentage of the entire mixture the crushed beans are, the entire mixture is prohibited.
  [But] if there is not enough to impart flavor, [then] whether there is enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, or there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, [the mixture] is permitted.  However, if the crushed beans do not impart their flavor, then it doesn’t matter if there is not the usually required 100-1 ratio, the mixture is permitted. To summarize, when it comes to unlike species, the one question we need to ask is if the forbidden species imparts flavor to the permitted species. If it does, the entire mixture is prohibited, no matter the percentage; if it does not, the entire mixture is permitted.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a situation in which two batches of leaven fall into dough one being hullin (non-sacred) and one being terumah or kilayim.
  If leaven of hullin has fallen into dough, and there was enough of it to cause fermentation, and after that leaven of terumah fell in or leaven of kilayim of the vineyard, and there is enough to cause fermentation, [the dough] is prohibited. In this case, the first piece of leaven to fall into the dough was enough to ferment the entire dough. When the next piece of leaven falls in, and that dough is terumah or kilayim (both would seemingly cause the dough to be prohibited), we might have thought that since the dough could be fermented even without the terumah or kilayim, the dough would be permitted. The mishnah rules that the dough is prohibited even though the prohibited leaven was not needed. The second batch of leaven, although not needed, still sped up the leavening process and therefore it causes the dough to be prohibited.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  In yesterday’s mishnah, the terumah leaven fell into already-leavened dough before the dough had begun to ferment, and therefore, since the terumah leaven may have sped up the fermenting process, the dough was prohibited. In today’s mishnah, the leaven falls in after the dough has already been fermented.
  If leaven of hullin has fallen into dough and caused it to ferment, and after that there fell in leaven of terumah or of kilayim of the vineyard, and there was enough to cause fermentation, [the dough] is prohibited.  According to the first opinion, it doesn’t matter that the terumah leaven fell into the dough after the dough had already been fermented. The forbidden leaven will still increase the fermentation of the dough and therefore, the entire dough becomes prohibited.
  But Rabbi Shimon permits it.  Rabbi Shimon, on the other hand, holds that the dough is permitted. One explanation for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion is that he holds that extra leaven will not improve the taste of the dough, but rather make it taste worse. Since this taste is undesirable, it does not cause the dough to be prohibited. In yesterday’s mishnah, the leaven terumah improved the taste of the dough because it had not yet been fermented, therefore, Rabbi Shimon would agree that the dough is prohibited.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with seasonings and when they prohibit a dish into which they fell.
  Seasonings [consisting] of two or three categories of one species, or [consisting] of three species [of one category], are forbidden and combine.  If two or three categories of one type of seasoning, for instance pepper from terumah, kilayim and orlah, fall into a dish, they combine to forbid the dish if they impart taste. The same is true if there are three different species, for instance, pepper, onion and garlic of one category such as terumah. If together they impart flavor, then the dish is prohibited.
  Rabbi Shimon said: Two or three categories of one species, or two species of one category, do not combine.  Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that different categories of one species and different species of one category do not combine.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  Introduction
  Today’s mishnah discusses leaven of hullin and terumah that fall into dough and neither is sufficient to cause fermentation alone, but together they do cause fermentation.
  Leaven of hullin and of terumah fell into dough, and neither this was sufficient to cause fermentation nor was that sufficient to cause fermentation, but together they caused [the dough] to ferment:Rabbi Eliezer says: I go after the last.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, whatever is the last to fall in is determinative because that is the leaven that causes the dough to ferment. If terumah leaven falls in first, and then hullin leaven, the dough is permitted because the hullin leaven is what caused fermentation. If the terumah leaven fell in last, then the dough is prohibited because it was forbidden leaven that caused fermentation.
  But the sages say: whether the prohibited fell in first or last, it never causes the dough to become prohibited unless there is enough to cause fermentation.  The sages are more lenient, and rule that the dough is permitted unless the forbidden leaven is sufficient to cause fermentation alone. If fermentation depends on the hullin leaven, then the dough is permitted.
  
  Mishnah 12
  
  Yoezer, master of the temple (Ish Habirah), was one of the disciples of Bet Shammai and he said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel the elder as he was standing at the eastern gate [of the Temple], and he said: it never causes the dough to become prohibited unless there is enough to cause fermentation.In this mishnah, a man by the name of Yoezer provides testimony that Rabban Gamaliel the elder, a sage who lived while the Temple still stood, agreed with the sages’ opinion in yesterday’s mishnah, that forbidden leaven never causes dough to become prohibited unless there is enough forbidden leaven to cause fermentation.There are two descriptions of Yoezer provided in this mishnah. First of all, he is “Ish Habirah” which according to one opinion in the Talmud, means that he was “master of the Temple”, since Birah is a name of the entire Temple. Other commentators say that Birah is located near the Temple, but is not actually the Temple itself, while others say that it is a place within the Temple.The second fact is that Yoezer is a student of Bet Shammai. This is the second time in our chapter where a mishnah has stated that a student of Bet Shammai agrees with the sages of the previous mishnah, who can surely be identified with Bet Hillel. Accordingly, Rabbi Eliezer who argued with the sages in the previous mishnah, can be identified as holding a Shammaite position, albeit one that Yoezer seems to dispute. Thus, although we don’t get any new halakhic information in this mishnah, we do learn some valuable historical information about a halakhic battle going on within the House of Shammai. The Mishnah, which is a product of Bet Hillel, considers it worthwhile to let us know that sometimes those of the House of Shammai actually agree with Bet Hillel.The mishnah itself contains the same halakhah as that found in yesterday’s mishnah, so for more information, look there.
  
  Mishnah 13
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is not related to the chapter’s main topic, mixtures of forbidden and permitted produce. Rather the same phrase that appears in mishnah eleven, where Rabbi Eliezer says “I go after the first,” appears here.
  The mishnah deals with vessels, such as shoes or other leather clothes, which were oiled with unclean and then clean oil, or vice versa.
  Vessels which were oiled with unclean oil, and [later] he returned and oiled them with clean oil;  The vessels, which in this mishnah refers to clothing, were first oiled with unclean oil in order to soften them. When the unclean oil dried up, they were immersed in a mikveh in order to purify them. Then they were oiled again with clean oil.
  Or he [first] oiled them with clean oil, and [later] he returned [to them] and oiled them with unclean oil:  Alternatively, they were first oiled with clean oil and then with unclean oil.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: “I go after the first.”  Rabbi Eliezer says that the purity of the clothing goes after the first oiling. When the clothes expel the oil that they have soaked up, they will, according to Rabbi Eliezer, expel the first oil that they absorbed. So if the first oil was impure, then the clothes are impure.
  And the sages say: after the last.  The rabbis hold that the first oil is absorbed by the clothing and when used the objects will expel the last oil used.  Therefore, their purity goes after the first oiling.
  
  Mishnah 14
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with leaven of terumah and leaven of kilayim which fell into dough. Neither piece of leaven is sufficient to cause fermentation, but together they cause fermentation. According to the rabbis’ opinion found in mishnah ten, the dough is not prohibited to everyone because of the kilayim, since the kilayim leaven was not in and of itself sufficient to cause fermentation. The question asked in our mishnah is: what about the terumah leaven? Does it join with the kilayim leaven to cause the dough to be forbidden to priests?
  Leaven of terumah and of kilayim of the vineyard which fell into dough, this one is not sufficient to cause fermentation, nor is that one sufficient to cause fermentation, but together they cause fermentation:It [the dough] is prohibited to non-priests and permitted to priests.  The rabbis in mishnah twelve hold that two forbidden substances join together to create a prohibition. Since both terumah and kilayim are prohibited to non-priests, the dough is prohibited to non-priests. However, the dough is not prohibited to priests because priests can eat terumah and the kilayim leaven was not sufficient to cause fermentation on its own.
  Rabbi Shimon permits it to both to non-priests and to priests.  Rabbi Shimon is consistent with his own opinion in mishnah ten, that substances of different categories do not combine. The leaven of terumah and the leaven of kilayim do not combine and since neither is sufficient to cause fermentation, the dough is permitted to everyone.
  
  Mishnah 15
  
  Seasonings of terumah and of kilayim of the vineyard that fell into a dish, and there is not enough of one to season, nor is there of the other to season, but together they seasoned:It [the dish] is prohibited to non-priests but permitted to priests.Rabbi Shimon declares it permitted to non-priests and to priests.This mishnah contains the same debate that was found in yesterday’s mishnah, except yesterday the mishnah dealt with leaven and fermentation, and today the mishnah deals with seasonings. Again the majority view holds that the two forbidden substances, terumah and kilayim, combine to cause the dish to be prohibited to non-priests, whereas Rabbi Shimon holds that the substances do not join together and the dish is permitted even to priests.Since the mishnah is basically exactly the same as yesterday’s mishnah, there is new commentary below just look at yesterday’s commentary.
  
  Mishnah 16
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah contains yet another dispute between the sages and Rabbi Shimon over whether prohibited substances can join together to create a prohibition.
  A piece of [meat from] one of the most holy [sacrifices] and [a piece] of [meat which is] piggul, or remnant, which were cooked with other pieces, it [the non-sacred meat] is prohibited to non-priests but permitted to priests.  There are three categories of meat in this section: 1) most holy sacrifices; 2) piggul, which is a sacrifice that was offered by a priest with the intent to eat it in either the wrong place or the wrong time; 3) remnant a sacrifice left over beyond the time frame in which it can be eaten. The first category can be eaten by priests but not non-priests, whereas the second and third categories are prohibited to all. In the situation described here a small piece of each of these categories of meat was cooked in a dish with hullin (non-sacred) meat. The hullin meat would be sufficient in quantity to nullify each piece of meat individually, but not if all three combine together. According to the first opinion, the three categories of prohibited meat combine together to forbid the hullin to non-priests, who can’t eat any of them. They do not combine to prohibit the dish to priests because priests can eat the sacrificial meat.
  Rabbi Shimon declares it permitted to non-priests and to priests.  Rabbi Shimon is consistent with his opinion in the previous mishnayot where he said that different categories of forbidden food to not combine together to render hullin prohibited. This dish would be permitted to both priests and non-priests.
  
  Mishnah 17
  
  Introduction
  The final mishnah of this rather long chapter deals with sacrifices that were cooked together with ordinary meat.
  Meat of most holy [sacrifices] and meat of less holy [sacrifices] were cooked together with ordinary meat: [the dish] is prohibited to the unclean, but permitted to the clean. Meat of most holy sacrifices (such a sin-offering or a guilt-offering) is permitted only to priests. Meat of less holy sacrifices (such as a thanksgiving offering, or a peace offering) is permitted to non-priests. All sacrifices, no matter their level of holiness, can only be eaten by a person who is ritually clean. These two types of meat were then cooked together with ordinary, non-sacrificial meat, and as in yesterday’s mishnah, the quantity of the hullin meat is sufficient to nullify each type of sacrifice individually but not if we combined them together. This meat is prohibited to the unclean but permitted to the clean. Rabbi Shimon agrees that it is prohibited to the unclean because the category of prohibition of most holy sacrifices and less holy sacrifices is the same both are prohibited to the unclean. In previous mishnayot, the categories were different. The other sages agree that such meat is permitted to the clean because there is not enough of the most holy sacrifice to render the other meat prohibited. In the other cases, all three categories of meat were prohibited to non-priests, therefore they joined together to make the hullin prohibited to non-priests. Here, there is simply not enough meat that is prohibited to non-priests to render the entire dish prohibited. Structurally, we can note that the editors of the Mishnah first bring all of the cases in which the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree. In this way we can tell that in the final case, the two parties agree. Had they first related this mishnah and then the disagreements, we might have thought that Rabbi Shimon would disagree here as well.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  The prohibition of orlah extends not only to eating fruit from an orlah tree, but to deriving any benefit from such fruit, or even from the peel of the fruit. The next several mishnayot deal with various objects that can become prohibited by making use of orlah.
  A garment dyed with peels of orlah [fruit] must be burned.  Dyes would occasionally be made from the peels of pomegranates or from the shells of various types of nuts. If a garment was dyed using dye made from orlah peels, the garment must be burned because it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it.
  If it became mixed up with other [garments], all of them shall be burned, the words of Rabbi Meir.  If a garment that had been dyed with peels of orlah fruit or shells from orlah nuts becomes mixed up with other garments that had been dyed with permitted dyes, then Rabbi Meir holds that all of the garments must be burned. As we shall see below in mishnah seven, Rabbi Meir holds that important objects are not nullified, as are food items which are nullified in ratios of 100-1 or 200-1, depending upon the prohibition. Since the garment is not nullified, it doesn’t matter how many garments got mixed up with it, they all are prohibited.
  But the sages say: it becomes neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.  The other rabbis hold that the same ratio that nullifies orlah fruit can also serve to nullify garments dyed with orlah dyes. Thus if there are 200 non-orlah garments, the orlah garment is nullified and they are all permitted.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If one dyed a thread the whole [length] of a sit with orlah peels, and wove it into a garment, and it is not known which [thread] it is:Rabbi Meir says: the garment must be burned;But the sages say: it becomes neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.Our mishnah deals with a single thread that was dyed with orlah dye and then woven into a garment. The length of this thread is the length of a sit which is explained by some to mean the distance between one’s thumb and forefinger, while others explain it to be the distance between one’s forefinger and middle finger when they are as spread apart as possible.According to Rabbi Meir, if one thread dyed with shells or peels of orlah becomes woven into a garment and it is not known which thread it was, the entire garment must be burned, even if there is a 200-1 ratio of permitted to prohibited threads. To Rabbi Meir even such a small thread is still considered an “important item” and therefore it doesn’t become nullified in any ratio.The sages say that the prohibited thread is nullified in a ratio of 200-1, as they said with regard to an entire garment dyed with orlah thread in yesterday’s mishnah.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with threads that come from various prohibited sources and the consequences of their being woven into garments.
  If one wove thread the whole [length] of a sit from [the wool of a] first-born animal into a garment, the garment must be burned.  It is forbidden to shear wool from a first-born goat or sheep (see Deuteronomy 15:19), and it is forbidden to derive any benefit from wool that was shorn from such an animal. Any garment that has even a thread from a first-born animal must be burned.
  [If from] the hair of a nazirite or of the first-born of a donkey into sack-cloth, the sack-cloth must be burned.  Similarly, it is forbidden to derive benefit from the hair of a person who took a nazirite vow. At the end of the term of naziriteship the nazirite is supposed to shave his/her hair and then burn it (see Numbers 6:18). The first-born of a donkey must be redeemed with a sheep (Exodus 13:13) and until this donkey has been redeemed it is prohibited to derive any benefit from it. Hence, if one wove sack-cloth with a sit’s length of the hair of a nazirite or of a first-born donkey that had not yet been redeemed, the sack-cloth must be burned.
  And if even the smallest amount [from wool or hair of] consecrated [animals], that which it is woven into] is consecrated.  The law regarding wool that comes from consecrated animals, such as animals that have been dedicated to the Temple or set aside to be sacrifices, is stricter. Even if the smallest amount of such wool is used in a garment, the entire garment must be treated as if it was consecrated. This garment cannot be used at all, however, it can be redeemed and therefore it does not necessarily have to be burned.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a cooked dish that was heated up by burning shells from orlah nuts or peels from orlah fruit.
  A dish which one cooked with shells of orlah must be burned.  Just as the garment that was dyed with orlah dye must be burned (mishnah one), so too must the dish that was heated up and cooked with orlah kindling. Although this prohibited benefit did not get into the dish, since the dish was cooked with it, it is forbidden.
  If [the dish] became mixed up with other [dishes], it becomes neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.  If the dish became mixed up with other dishes, then if there are 200 dishes not cooked using orlah kindling for every one cooked using orlah kindling, then the orlah is neutralized. If there is less than such a ratio, then all of the dishes must be burned. Note that in this case, unlike that in mishnah one concerning the garment dyed with orlah dyes, Rabbi Meir agrees that the orlah can be neutralized. This is because a cooked dish or a loaf of bread (see mishnah five below) are not important items, whereas the garment was. Important items cannot, according to Rabbi Meir, be neutralized.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  An oven that was lit with shells of orlah, and then one baked bread in it, the bread must be burned.If it became mixed up with other [loaves] it becomes neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.This mishnah is nearly identical to mishnah four, except it deals with bread baked in an oven lit with shells of orlah nuts (or peels of orlah fruit). Like the cooked dish in mishnah four, this bread cannot be eaten and must be burned. If it becomes mixed up with other permitted loaves of bread, it can be neutralized in a 200-1 ratio.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  In this mishnah we see another case in which Rabbi Meir says that when one prohibited item becomes mixed in with other items they all must be burned, whereas the other rabbis say that the prohibited item is neutralized in a ratio of 200-1.
  If one has bundles of fenugreek of kilayim of the vineyard, they must be burned.  If one grows fenugreek in a vineyard it is prohibited to derive any benefit from the fenugreek because this is a case of “kilayim” (mixed seeds) in a vineyard. The bundle of fenugreek must be burned.
  If they became mixed up with others, all of them must be burned, the words of Rabbi Meir.  If the bundle of kilayim fenugreek becomes mixed up with bundles of permitted fenugreek, Rabbi Meir says that they are all prohibited. According to Rabbi Meir, the fenugreek is considered an “important item” and therefore, no matter what the ratio of permitted fenugreek to prohibited fenugreek, they are all prohibited and they all must be burned.
  But the sages say they become neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.  The other rabbis again hold that the prohibited fenugreek is neutralized in a ratio of 200-1.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  In this mishnah we finally hear the basis for the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the other sages.
  For Rabbi Meir used to say: anything that is normally [sold] by counting causes [a mixture] to become consecrated [in even the smallest amount].  According to Rabbi Meir anything that is sold by being counted out at the marketplace (as opposed to being sold by weight or volume) is an important item and therefore it prohibits a mixture no matter how little of the prohibited item is in the mixture. This would explain why bundles of orlah fenugreek cause a mixture to be prohibited no matter how small the ratio of prohibited fenugreek to permitted fenugreek. The word “consecrated” in this mishnah is used synonymously with “prohibit” because oftentimes things that are “consecrated” become prohibited from use. This was the same verb used in mishnah three.
  But the sages say only six things consecrate [a mixture in even the smallest amount], and Rabbi Akiba says seven [things].  The sages agree that some items cause mixtures to be prohibited in even the smallest ratios. However, they limit this to only six items, to which Rabbi Akiva adds a seventh. These items seem to have been more valuable than general items that are sold by count, such as bundles of fenugreek. Since these items are of great significance, the laws are stricter with regard to them.
  And these are they: Nuts with soft shells; badan pomegranates; stopped-up casks; beet shoots; cabbage-heads; Greek pumpkins.  This is a list of the six items. The stopped up casks contain orlah wine.
  Rabbi Akiba says: also loaves [baked by] a householder.  Rabbi Akiva adds in bread baked by a householder which is more valuable than bread baked by a professional baker.
  To those to which orlah applies [they prohibit the mixture] as orlah, [to those of which] kilayim of the vineyard apply [they prohibit the mixture as] kilayim of the vineyard.  Orlah applies to only some of the above items, namely pomegranates, nuts, and wine. So if the mixture contains even the smallest amount of one of these items and it is orlah, the whole mixture is prohibited. Kilayim in the vineyard applies to the other items in the list, so if one of them is kilayim and it becomes mixed in with other permitted items it prohibits the mixture even if it is only a very small amount.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah provides an exception to the rule in yesterday’s mishnah.
  If the nuts cracked, or if the pomegranates burst open, or the casks became unstopped, or the pumpkins were cut, or the loaves were broken up, they become neutralized in two-hundred-and-one. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that certain items can not be neutralized in a mixture of two hundred. Here we learn that this is true only if they are whole. This is because they are “important items” only when they are whole. If they are in some way broken up, then they lose their importance and they will be neutralized in a mixture of 200 and one, as is the usual rule when it comes to orlah and kilayim.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  The final mishnah in tractate Orlah is concerned with the status of doubtful orlah and kilayim in the land of Israel and outside of it.
  Doubtful orlah: in the land of Israel is prohibited, in Syria is permitted, and outside the land one may go down and purchase [from a non-Israelite] as long as he has not seen him gathering it.  If one has some produce and doesn’t know whether it is orlah or not, inside the land of Israel, where the prohibition of orlah is from the Torah (deoraita) the produce is prohibited. In Syria, where some of the agricultural laws apply and some don’t (see Demai 6:11; Sheviit 6:2) the produce is permitted. Outside the land of Israel, meaning outside Syria, the law is even more lenient. One may go into the field of a non-Jew and purchase from him produce that may be orlah, as long as the Jew does not see the non-Jew actually pluck the orlah fruit from the orlah tree. In such a case this would not be “doubtful orlah” but rather “certain orlah” which is prohibited derabanan even outside the land of Israel.
  A vineyard planted with vegetables [which are kilayim], and they [the vegetables] are sold outside of it: in the land of Israel these are prohibited, and in Syria they are permitted; outside the land one may go down and purchase them as long as he does not gather [them] with [one’s own] hand.  The rules for kilayim are similar. The vegetables that are described here were possibly grown in a vineyard, because we know that the non-Jew has grown vegetables in his vineyard. However, they are not certain kilayim because they are being sold outside of the vineyard. Inside the land of Israel they are prohibited, because the prohibition of kilayim within Israel is deoraita and therefore we are strict even with doubtful kilayim. In Syria these vegetables are permitted. Outside of Israel one can go down to a vineyard and even see the non-Jew harvest these vegetables as long as he doesn’t gather them with his own hands. This law is even more lenient than the law concerning doubtful orlah, for here one can even see the non-Jew harvest the kilayim. Perhaps the reason that the law is more lenient is that the prohibition of kilayim outside of Israel is only an “enactment of the scribes” as we shall learn in section five.
  New [produce] is prohibited by the Torah in all places.  The end of this mishnah gives three different levels concerning the status of various prohibitions outside of the land of Israel. It is prohibited to eat new produce until the Omer (barley harvest) has begun to be offered on the second day of Pesah (see Hallah 1:1). This prohibition is “deoraita” even outside the land of Israel. This is indeed explicitly stated in Leviticus 23:13.
  And orlah is a halachah.  The prohibition of orlah is a “halakhah”. There are two opinions in the Talmud as to what this means. Some interpret it to mean “the halakhah/law of the land.” This would give it the status of a custom. Others interpret it to mean a “halakhah to Moses at Sinai.” This would give it the status of ancient oral law.
  And kilayim are an enactment of the scribes.  Finally, kilayim are prohibited outside the land of Israel by an enactment of the sages. This refers only to mixed seeds in the vineyard, from which it is even prohibited to derive benefit in the land of Israel. The law regarding different types of seeds that were planted together is more lenient in the land of Israel (one can eat such seeds, just not plant them) and therefore the law outside of Israel is more lenient as well. Yoking together two different types of animals (such as a donkey and an ox) and cross-breeding animals and trees is prohibited by the Torah in all places. For more information concerning kilayim look at my introduction to tractate Kilayim. Congratulations! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learn the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearn it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. One of the aspects of Orlah that I found interesting was the chapter on forbidden mixtures. Many of our laws of kashrut stem from sources in this chapter and other places in Zeraim. Interestingly, there is far more information in tannaitic sources concerning prohibited agricultural produce such as orlah, kilayim and terumah then there is about prohibited animals and the prohibition of the mixture of milk and meat. When later rabbis (in the Talmudic and post-Talmudic periods) came to codify when something is not kosher (meaning it is either a mixture of milk and meat or stems from a prohibited animal) they often were forced to rely on sources that are from Seder Zeraim, and many from tractate Orlah. Thus this tractate is actually quite practical. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Bikkurim, the last tractate in Seder Zeraim.