Tu B'shvat ; The Tree In Me

(1) They are four days in the year that serve as the New Year, each for a different purpose: On the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings; it is from this date that the years of a king’s rule are counted. And the first of Nisan is also the New Year for the order of the Festivals, as it determines which is considered the first Festival of the year and which the last. On the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes; all the animals born prior to that date belong to the previous tithe year and are tithed as a single unit, whereas those born after that date belong to the next tithe year. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: The New Year for animal tithes is on the first of Tishrei. On the first of Tishrei is the New Year for counting years, as will be explained in the Gemara; for calculating Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years, i.e., from the first of Tishrei there is a biblical prohibition to work the land during these years; for planting, for determining the years of orla, the three-year period from when a tree has been planted during which time its fruit is forbidden; and for tithing vegetables, as vegetables picked prior to that date cannot be tithed together with vegetables picked after that date. On the first of Shevat is the New Year for the tree; the fruit of a tree that was formed prior to that date belong to the previous tithe year and cannot be tithed together with fruit that was formed after that date; this ruling is in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai. But Beit Hillel say: The New Year for trees is on the fifteenth of Shevat.

(7) ולנטיעה – if he planted a tree forty-five days prior to the first of Tishrei, which are two weeks for taking root, for the shoot/young tree takes root in two weeks, and thirty days after taking root is considered a year, for thirty days in a year are considered [to be] a year, which is forty-five days. And when the first of Tishrei arrives, we count it as the second year of the years of fruit of trees of the first three years, and the Tishrei of the next year, we count it as the third year, and after the third ear, when the first of Tishrei arrives of the fourth year, if this plant formed recognizable fruit, they are still prohibited [from being consumed] because of fruit of trees of the first three years/Orlah; and even though Tishrei is the Rosh Hahanah for planting, Tu Bishvat is the New Year for the tree and this has already become a tree. Therefore, its year does not become renewed to leave the status of Orlah/fruit of the first three years until Tu Bishvat. And from then on, if fruit form on it, it has the status of Fourth Year fruit which are to be consumed in Jerusalem. And on Tu Bishvat of the next year, they have left from the status of fourth year fruit when they form from here onwards.

(8) ולירקות – for the tithing of vegetables, for we do not donate for sacred purposes from vegetation that was harvested before Rosh Hashanah on the vegetation that was harvested after Rosh Hashanah.

(9) ראש השנה לאילן – for the matter of tithing of fruits, for we don’t tithe fruits of the tree that formed prior to Shevat on [fruit] that formed after Shevat, for with regard to a tree, we go after the formation of the fruit. Alternatively, we derive from it with regard to the third year of Shemitah/the seven-year cycle in which we observe the Poor Tithe, for those fruits which formed from Rosh Hashanah of third year until Shevat, we judge them like the fruit of the second year that passed and we practice on them First Tithe and Second Tithe, and from Shevat and onward, we practice tho them First Tithe and the Poor Tithe.

(1) FOR IS THE TREE OF THE FIELD MAN.

I have previously explained in the Sefer Ha-Yesod that it is possible in all languages to be brief and to apply an abbreviated style, as in “a donkey bread” A donkey bread is short for a donkey laden with bread. However, it is impossible to leave out the word lo (no, not), If one wants to employ an abbreviated style. for in this case the meaning would be reversed. Onkelos renders ki ha-adam etz ha-sadeh as if written ki ha-adam lo etz ha-sadeh (for the tree of the field is not a man). In other words, Onkelos claims that the word lo has been left out of the verse.

I.E. disagrees. Hence his comment. A great Spanish grammarian said that a heh has been omitted From the word ki in ki ha-adam etz ha-sadeh. Our clause should be interpreted as if written, hakhi adam etz ha-sadeh (for is the tree of the field man). Our verse reads, ki ha-adam etz ha-sadeh. The latter literally means for man is a tree of the field. Hence the unnamed grammarian’s interpretation. Now this interpretation does not appear correct to me. Why would Scripture say that you shall not destroy fruit trees, because, unlike a human being, they cannot run away from you? This is the meaning of our verse if we render ha-khi adam etz ha-sadeh as, for is the tree of the field man. I believe there is no need for all this. To interpret ki ha-adam etz ha-sadeh as if written ha-khi adam etz ha-sadeh. The following is the meaning of our clause. For thou may eat of them, but thou shalt not cut them down, for the tree of the field is man; that is, the life of man is supported by trees. In other words, ki ha-adam (for man) is short for ki chayye ha-adam (for the life of man). Compare, For he taketh a life to pledge (Deut. 24:6), which is short for, for he taketh that which sustains man’s life to pledge.

(2) BUT THOU SHALT NOT CUT THEM DOWN. This is connected to "that it should he besieged of thee." In other words, you shall not cut down the fruit trees to use their wood to build siege works. Look, do not destroy a fruit tree, which is a source of sustenance for human life. Be that as it may, you are permitted to eat of it but you are prohibited from destroying it so that the city will be besieged because of you. The fact that Scripture then states thou mayest destroy and cut down,"The trees that do not produce fruit. that thou mayest build bulwarks (v. 20), is proof of this.

(1) To not destroy fruit trees: That we have been prevented from chopping down trees when we besiege a city to distress the people of the city and to sadden their hearts. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 20:19), “you may not destroy its tree, etc. and you shall not chop it down.” And likewise not to do any damage — such as burning or ripping a garment or breaking a vessel for no reason — entered under this negative commandment And in all of these matters and in all that is similar to them, they, may their memory be blessed, would always say in the Gemara (Kiddushin 32a), “But behold, he is transgressing on account of ‘do not destroy.’” And nonetheless we only administer lashes for one that cuts down a fruit tree, since it is explicit in Scripture. But with other destructions, we [only] give him lashes of rebellion. (See Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars 6:10.)

(2) The root of this commandment is well-known — it is in order to teach our souls to love good and benefit and to cling to it. And through this, good clings to us and we will distance [ourselves] from all bad and destructive things. And this is the way of the pious and people of [proper] action — they love peace and are happy for the good of the creatures and bring them close to Torah, and they do not destroy even a grain of mustard in the world. And they are distressed by all loss and destruction that they see; and if they can prevent it, they will prevent any destruction with all of their strength. But not so are the wicked — the brothers of the destructive spirits. They rejoice in the destruction of the world, and they destroy themselves — [since] in the way that a person measures, so is he measured; which is to say that he clings to it forever, as the matter that is written (Proverbs 17:5), “the one who rejoices in calamity, will not be cleared (of evil).” And the one who desires the good and rejoices in it, “his soul will dwell in the good” forever. This is known and famous.

(3) From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Kamma 91b) that the Torah only forbade cutting fruit trees when he cuts it down destructively. But it is certainly permitted to cut [them] if he finds a beneficial matter in it, such as the value of the wood became valuable and he wants to sell it; or to remove injury by cutting them, such as [if] it was damaging other trees better than it, or because it was damaging other fields. In all of these angles and in all that is similar to it, it is permissible. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Kamma 91b) that it is permitted to cut any non-fruit bearing tree — even when he does not need [its wood] — and [likewise] any fruit tree that is very old, to the point that it only gives a few fruit, for the sake of which it is not worthwhile to toil [on it]. And they, may their memory be blessed, said with an olive tree, it is permitted to cut anything that produces less than a fourth [of a kav]; and with a palm tree, less than a kav of dates.

(4) And in general, they, may their memory be blessed, forbade to do anything destructive. And they said about anyone who destroys anything out of rage (Shabbat 105a) that he is like one who worships idolatry, as so is the way of the evil impulse: Today it says to him, “Do this”; and if he trusts it, tomorrow, it will say to him, “Go and worship idolatry” — meaning to say that every person is obligated to rebuke his impulse and to conquer his desire to the point that he makes the intellectual soul dominate the desiring soul, until it becomes its maidservant and [the intellect] dominates it forever and ever. However, they brought in the Gemara (Shabbat 105a) stories of a few Sages that showed themselves to be “angry” and they would throw down some food or some thing from their hand, in order to discipline the members of their household and to spur them on [to proper behavior]. Nonetheless they would always supervise themselves, that they not throw down something that would be destroyed by this. And the rest of the details of the commandment are in the second chapter of Bava Batra. (See Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars 7.)

(5) And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and destroys fruit trees has violated this negative commandment and is liable for lashes. And for other destruction on other things that are not explicit, we lash him [with] lashes of rebellion.

(1) The verse states,205Psalms 92:13 “The righteous (Tzaddik) shall flourish like a date-palm, he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon.” There are two kinds of Tzaddikim, both of whom are perfectly righteous. The difference between them is as follows: One is always in a state of adhesion to HaShem, blessed is He, and performs the service that is placed upon him. However, he is righteous for himself only and not for his fellow. In other words, he does not influence righteousness upon others. This type of Tzaddik is compared to a cedar, about which our sages, of blessed memory, stated, Talmud Bavli, Ta’anit 25b “it does not produce fruit.” That is, he is righteous unto himself, but does not produce fruits, meaning that he does not bring others to goodness so that the righteous will propagate in the world. Instead, he serves HaShem on his own. Nonetheless, “he shall grow” and his reward will be greatly increased.

(2) However, the second kind of Tzaddik produces fruit, as indicated by the words, “He flourishes like the date-palm.” In other words, “he brings an honorable person out from a glutton,”207Jeremiah 15:19 increasing goodness in the world and causing it to flourish. About this kind of Tzaddik our sages, of blessed memory, stated,208Talmud Bavli, Brachot 34b “In the place where penitents (Baalei Teshuvah) stand, even the perfectly righteous cannot stand.” In other words, this kind of Tzaddik is called a “Master of Repentance – Ba’al Teshuvah. The term master-Ba’al-בעל means that he has mastered repentance and returns the multitudes to goodness, distancing them from sin, and he thus brings about repentance in the world at large. Even though the first kind of Tzaddik receives great reward, the reward of this second kind of Tzaddik is doubled and quadrupled to a far greater degree.

(4) When a man studies the Torah and cleaves to it, he is strengthened in the Tree of Life, as it is written, "a Tree of Life..." (Mishlei 3:18). Come and behold, When a man is strengthened in the Tree of Life in this world, he is strengthened in it for the World to Come. And when the souls leave this world, grades are prepared for them in the World to Come.

(5) Come and behold, The Tree of Life is divided into several grades, but they are all unified into one. For in the Tree of Life there are grades upon grades - branches, leaves, husks, the trunk, and the roots. All of them are the tree. In the same manner, whoever strives to study the Torah is strengthened and improved by the Tree of Life.

(6) All those of the faith, Yisrael, are strengthened by the Tree of Life. They all hold onto the tree, but some of them hold on to the trunk, some to the branches, some to the leaves, and some to the roots. It seems, therefore, that they hold onto the Tree of Life. All of those who are occupied in the study of the Torah hold to the trunk of the tree, and for that reason, he who studies the Torah holds onto the whole tree. This has already been explained.

(4) The voices of five (objects of creation) go from one end of the world to the other, and their voices are inaudible. When people cut down the wood of the tree which yields fruit, its cry goes from one end of the world to the other, and the voice is inaudible. When the serpent sloughs off its skin, its cry goes from one end of the world to the other and its voice is not heard. When a woman is divorced from her husband, her voice goeth forth from one end of the world to the other, but the voice is inaudible. When the infant || comes forth from its mother's womb. When the soul departs from the body, the cry goes forth from one end of the world to the other, and the voice is not heard. The soul does not go out of the body until it beholds the Shekhinah, as it is said, "For man shall not see me and live" (Ex. 33:20).

(2) “All the shrubs [siacḥ] of the field” – all the trees converse [mesicḥin] with one another, as it were. The rustling of their leaves gives the appearance of conversation with one another. All the trees converse with people, as it were. By bearing fruit, it is as if they “call out” to man to plant them and profit. All the trees were created for the benefit of people. There was an incident involving an individual who harvested his vineyard, spent the night in it, and the wind came and harmed him. Grapes help to shield man from malevolent winds; once they have been cut off their protection ceases. All of people’s conversation [siacḥ] is about the land. [They say:] ‘Did the land produce? Did it not produce?’ Crops are of the utmost importance to man, and the subject dominates their conversation. All of people’s prayers Prayer is also called siaḥ (Bereshit Rabbah 60:14). are about the land: ‘Lord, may the land produce; Lord, may the land flourish.’ All of Israel’s prayers are only regarding the Temple: ‘Lord, may the Temple be built; Lord, when will the Temple be built?’ Siacḥ alludes to prayer, as above, and “field” alludes to the Temple (Bereshit Rabbah 22:7).

(1) “See the work of God, for who can mend what He has warped?” (Ecclesiastes 7:13)
“See the work of God, for who can mend what He has warped?” When the Holy One blessed be He created Adam the first man, He took him and showed him all the trees in the Garden of Eden, and He said to him: ‘See My creations, how beautiful and exemplary they are. Everything I created, I created for you. Make certain that you do not ruin and destroy My world, as if you destroy it, there will be no one to mend it after you. Moreover, you will cause death to that righteous one.’ namely, Moses. To what is the matter of [the death of] Moses our master analogous? [It is analogous] to a pregnant woman who was incarcerated in prison. She gave birth to a son, raised him, and she died there. Sometime later the king passed the entrance of the prison. As the king was passing, that son began screaming and he said: ‘My lord the king, I was born here, I grew up here; I do not know due to what sin am I placed here.’ [The king] said to him: ‘Due to your mother’s sin.’ So too regarding Moses, as it is written: “Behold, the man has become like one [of us]” (Genesis 3:22). And it is written: “Behold, your days are drawing near to die” (Deuteronomy 31:14). The verse in Genesis was stated by God in explaining His removal of Adam from the Garden of Eden following his sin. The verbal analogy to the verse in Deuteronomy, which relates to Moses’s death, indicates that Moses died only due to the fact that death was decreed upon all people following the sin of Adam.

(17) Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said: Where there is no Torah, there is no right conduct; where there is no right conduct, there is no Torah. Where there is no wisdom, there is no fear of God; where there is no fear of God, there is no wisdom. Where there is no understanding, there is no knowledge; where there is no knowledge, there is no understanding. Where there is no bread, there is no Torah; where there is no Torah, there is no bread. He used to say: one whose wisdom exceeds his deeds, to what may he be compared? To a tree whose branches are numerous but whose roots are few, so that when the wind comes, it uproots it and overturns it, as it is said, “He shall be like a bush in the desert, which does not sense the coming of good. It is set in the scorched places of the wilderness, in a barren land without inhabitant” (Jeremiah 17:6). But one whose deeds exceed his wisdom, to what may he be compared? To a tree whose branches are few but roots are many, so that even if all the winds in the world come and blow upon it, they cannot move it out of its place, as it is said, “He shall be like a tree planted by waters, sending forth its roots by a stream. It does not sense the coming of heat, its leaves are ever fresh. It has no care in a year of drought; it does not cease to yield fruit” (ibid, 17:8).

(7) Rabbi Elazar of Bartotha said: give to Him of that which is His, for you and that which is yours is His; and thus it says with regards to David: “for everything comes from You, and from Your own hand have we given you” (I Chronicles 29:14). Rabbi Jacob said: if one is studying while walking on the road and interrupts his study and says, “how fine is this tree!” [or] “how fine is this newly ploughed field!” scripture accounts it to him as if he was mortally guilty.

(1) THOU SHALT NOT PLANT THEE AN ASHEIRAH. Any tree planted at the entrance of a house of G-d is called asheirah. Possibly because it ordereth the way aright, Psalms 59:23. — That the meaning definitely is not an idolatrous place of worship, may be gathered from the reading here in the Tur, where Ramban’s language is quoted as follows: “Any tree planted at the entrance of a house of your G-d is called etc.” Ramban’s further language about the prohibition of planting a tree near the altar of G-d, clearly shows that he is speaking here of a House of G-d. directing people’s “steps” [to worship], it is called [asheirah] from the word ‘ashurai’ (my steps) have held fast to Thy paths. Ibid., 17:5. Scripture thus admonishes not to plant a tree beside the altar of G-d for beauty and to think that it is an honor and glory to G-d’s altar. He prohibited it because it was a custom of the idolaters to plant trees at the entrances of their idol’s temples, as it is written, further, and throw down the altar of Baal that belongs to thy father, and cut down the asheirah that is by it. Judges 6:25.
Now Rashi wrote: “Thou shalt not plant thee an asheirah. This is intended to make one liable [to punishment] from the very moment of planting; and even if he does not worship it, he transgresses a negative commandment for planting it. And thou shalt not plant any kind of tree beside the altar of the Eternal thy G-d. This is an admonition against planting [trees] or building a [wooden] house on the Temple mount.” If so, Scripture is stating: “thou shalt not plant thee an asheirah ‘nor’ The Ramban’s point is as follows: According to Rashi’s interpretation it is as if there is a vav missing in the word kol (any) which should be v’kol (nor any). Thus, Rashi interprets the verse: we may not plant a tree for an idolatrous purpose anywhere, “nor any” tree, even for beauty’s sake, beside the altar of G-d. Ramban agrees to all that. However, Rashi adds that “building a [wooden] house on the Temple mount” is likewise prohibited; Ramban points out that this is forbidden only by law of the Rabbis. any kind of tree beside the altar of the Eternal.” But building a [wooden] house on the Temple mount is [prohibited by] Rabbinic ordinance based on Scriptural support, for Scripture prohibited only the “planting” — “thou shalt not plant thee an asheirah [prohibiting the planting anywhere of trees intended for idol-worship], nor shalt thou plant thee any tree [for whatever purpose] beside the altar of the Eternal thy G-d.”

(13) A person who sees beautiful and well-formed creations or pleasant-looking trees should recite the blessing:
[Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe,] whose world is like this.
A person who goes out to the fields or gardens in the month of Nisan and sees flowering trees sprouting branches should recite the blessing:
Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who did not leave anything lacking in His world and created within it fine creations and beautiful and fine trees so that they would give pleasure to men.

After the ashes were cleared to the middle of the altar, the priests began raising logs onto the altar in order to assemble the arrangement of wood on which the offerings were burned. The tanna asks: And is wood from all the trees fit for the arrangement? The tanna replies: Wood from all the trees is fit for the arrangement, except for wood from the vine and from the olive tree, but the priests were accustomed to assemble the arrangement with wood from these trees: With young branches of the fig tree, of the nut tree, and of pinewood.

Laws of Precedence of Brachot ...

(1) If there are various in front of you, if there brachot are equivalent, and you have in front of you a species from the seven species, that takes precedence even if it is not as valuable as a different food. And if one of the seven species is not present, the one which is most valuable takes precedence. And if there brachot are not equivalent, even if there were one of the seven species present, say for example a radish and olives, then which ever one he desires more takes precedence, even if it's not valuable. While others say that even in this case, which ever one is more valuable takes precedence. A desirable species is defined as such when it is typically valuable (beloved - sought out after), even if currently a different species is sought out after.

(2) And according to the Rambam, if a food is more valuable to him, whether there brachot are equivalent or not, whether or not there are one of the seven species present, the one which is most valuable to him in that moment takes precedence. And if he has not drive for one over the other, if there is one of the seven species present, he would then make the bracha on that.

(3) If something which is a borei prei ha'etz and something which bracha is shehakol, the borei prei ha'etz takes precedence since it is more important since it only exempts one category of brachot. Similarly, if the is a borei prei ha'adamah and a shehakol present, then the borei prei ha'adamah takes precedence. And if borei prei ha'etz and borei prei ha'adamah are present which ever one he wants takes precedence, while others say the borei prei ha'etz takes precedence.

(4) Which ever take precedence in the verse, a land of wheat and barley, take precedence. After that, which ever is next to the second mention of the word "land," that take precedence for the second mention is more important than the first. Therefore, Date honey take precendce to grapes, for date honey are two words after the second "land" while grapes are third after the first. (Rema) This is specifically if one is eating grapes, but wine which has its own bracha established for it of borei prei ha'gafen being that it's important and therefore takes precedence. Yet, a grain dish takes precedence to wine for grain is one and two step closer to the first "land."

(6) If someone has in front of him a grain dish from spelt, oats, or rye, and wine, figs, and pomegranets, since he needs to make borei minei mezonot a on his dish, the grain dish takes precedence even though it's not from one of the seven species, because from this grains bread can be made and the bracha of hamoztei and birkat hamazon it therefore takes precedence even though it is not currently bread.

Dealing with when the primary food exempts its Secondary

(1) Whenever there is a primary and secondary food (Rema: ...), we bless over the primary food and this exempts the secondary food both from the blessing before and after; this is needless to say if the primary food and secondary foods are mixed, but even if the foods are both separate. Even bread, which is more important than other foods, if it is secondary - for example someone who eats salted fish and bread with it in order to not injure his throat - he blesses on the fish and this exempts the bread, because it it is secondary. (Rema: There are those who say that if the secondary dish is dear to him, he blesses on it first and afterwards blesses on the primary food [agur in the name of zarua]; he blesses on the primary food first and is exepmt from the secondary when they are eaten together and if the primary is eaten first, but if he eats the secondary food first, for example he wants to drink and he wants to eat first so that he wont drink on an empty stomach, or he eats [seeds?] in order to sweeten the drink, he blesses on the food first even though it is secondary to the drink. We do not only bless shehakol on it because it is secondary to another thing.)

(2) If one makes a mistake and blesses the fruit of the tree by saing borei prei ha'adamah, he has fulfilled his obligation, for a tree also grows from the ground and his bracha is not false. But if he makes a mistake and makes a borei prei ha'etz on soemthing which is borei prei ha'adamah, then he has not fulfilled his obligation for fruits of the ground do not grow from trees adn he therefore did not say a befitting bracha and he must return and properly say borei prei ha'adamah. Therefore, anytime one is in doubt whether to make a ha'etz or ha'adamah, one should say ha'adamah.

(3) A tree has a trunk that lives for many years, which grows branches that bear fruit. And even if it is short and is commonly called a bush - since its trunk lives on from one year to the next - it is considered a tree. For example, we recite the blessing of, "haetz (the tree)," on blueberries, since they grow on bushes the trunk and branches of which live for several years. So it is [correspondingly] clear that we recite the blessing of, "haadamah (the ground)," over the fruits of a plant that needs to be sown or planted each year.

(4) A question arose about a plants that live several years, like bananas and pineapples. On the one hand, their trunks wither completely at the end of each year, like fruits of the ground; on the other hand, there is no need to sow them each year, since they grow anew from their roots, and they [also] rise to a height of four meters like big trees. According to the opinion of the Rosh, since its roots live from one year to the other, their blessing is "haetz." But according to the opinion of the Geonim, since its trunk does not live [more than a year], their blessing is "haadamah"; and the law been has been determined like that (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 203:2-3). And a question even came up about papayas. As even though the trunk of the papaya lives many years, it is hollow like a type of thick stalk; and it also already gives off fruit in its first year, like a vegetable. So since there is a question about it, we recite the blessing of "haadamah" upon the papaya as well. And we also recite the blessing of "haadamah" upon raspberries and blackberries, since they sprout new branches from the ground each year, which give off fruit in the second year and then wilt. And that is why they also do not have a prohibition of orlah (consuming fruit of a tree in its first three years). Berakhot 40b: "Where, when you take the fruit, the gevoza does not remain and again produce [fruit], we do not recite the blessing, 'Who creates fruit of the tree'; but rather, 'Who creates the fruit of the ground.'" In Peninei Halacha, Kashrut 2:8 (pp. 12-13 in the print edition), it is brought down that there are however those who reason that the early commentators disagreed about the definition of gevoza. According to them, it follows that there is a disagreement concerning orlah and the correct blessing for several species. Nevertheless, regarding the law and the correct practice, it appears that all agree that a tree is a plant that that has a trunk and roots that survive and grow stronger from one year to the next, and that this is what gives them the power to have more fruit each year. And that is why we recite the blessing of, "haetz," on capers - even though their branches sometimes all wilt form one year to the next - since its trunk grows stronger from year to year. And in the opposite way, it is understood why we recite the blessing of "haadamah" on bananas, eggplant, peppers, papayas and passion fruit. And they accordingly do not have the law of orlah, since their trunk does not get stronger from year to year, but is either regenerated or weakens. Many have erred [about this] concerning raspberries or blackberries, however it is clear that it is a specie that [only] grows for two years at the most. And that is why its law is like fruit of the ground.