לע"נ סבי ר' שמואל פנחס בן ר' יעקב צבי
The Ramban writes:
Explains the Ramban that the idea of Orlah is that we want to honor Hashem by giving Him our first fruits. For the first three years the fruit is not worthy of being brought before Hashem and have a poor taste and smell and also most trees don't produce fruits until the fourth year, so we wait until the four year and then bring all the fruits to Yerushalayim and eat them in front of Hashem. This mitzva is similar to Bikkurim.
This is also the explanation of the Chinuch [רמ"ז]. See also Raavad [Maachalos Asuros 10-14], Shulchan Aruch Yo"d 294-17 and in the Tshuvos Chasam Sofer Yo"d 285 he discusses the inferior nature of Orlah fruit.
But we have to understand! Since the Ramban wrote that the mitzva is similar to Bikkurim, why does the mitzva of Bikkurim require one to bring only ONE fruit to Yerushalayim while Orlah requires that one bring ALL of the fruits [in the fourth year]? What is the difference?
So we have to say that since Bikkurim is a mitzva on the first FRUITS, one fruit [per species] is enough, while the requirement of Orlah devolves on the first produce of the TREE and therefore one needs to bring ALL of the first produce of the tree. Indeed, we see that the pasuk relates to the tree:
"ונטעתם כל עץ מאכל וערלתם ערלתו וכו'".
And in the the first mishna in Orlah it says:
"הנוטע לסייג ולקורות פטור מן הערלה".
If one plants a tree as a fence or for beams it is not obligated in Orlah.
The Yerushalmi there derives this law from the pasuk "עץ מאכל" that only a tree that is designated for eating is obligated in Orlah [see there]. The question is that these are the same fruits he could have planted for eating which would be obligated, so how could they be פטור?? This proves our point: That the halacha relates not to the fruit but to the TREE, that if it is fruit TREE, all of the fruits go to Hashem ["יהיה כל פריו קודש הילולים לי-ה-ו-ה"]. But if it is not a fruit tree, since it was planted as a fence etc. there is no din that the fruits go to Hashem.
According to this, the words "וערלתם ערלתו" mean that indeed as far as the tree itself is concerned, the fruits are "closed off" and "distanced" since they have not yet been brought to Hashem and they may not be brought to Hashem until the 4th year as the Ramban we cited explained the rationale [its inferior quality]. However this is just a rationale and סברא, but we have not yet been told that there is an obligation and biblical prohibition on benefiting from it since the first produce has not yet been brought to Hashem [the Rambam compared Bikkurim with Orlah and when it comes to Bikkurim the fruits are NOT forbidden before the first fruits are brought]. So the pasuk continues and tells us that there is a commandment and prohibition to close off and distance those fruits that are forbidden by dint of logic [inferior quality - the Ramban]. That is the meaning of the continuation of the pasuk "שלש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים לא יאכל". An absolute prohibition. This is through "וערלתם ערלתו את פריו", meaning that even though the law relates to the tree [as we said], this has nothing to do with not using the trees and branches of the tree [which anyway don't go to Hashem]. Rather it is through "וערלתם את פריו" - that the law of the tree is fulfilled through the fruits by not eating them before the first fruits are brought to Hashem. That explains the לשון יחיד - relating to the singular tree and not to the multiple fruits.
[עפ"י דברי מו"ר הגאון הגדול רבי ד"י מן זצ"ל]
