16 Jan SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTATION ON TREES

In their first three
years, trees produce
fruit that are orlah,
which we are
forbidden to eat or
derive any benefit
from them. We exhibit
the important trait of
patience in order to give the tree time to
grow and strengthen, delaying our own
gratification until after the tree is ready
and we have thanked God properly for
the fruit. While we may not eat or derive
any benefit from orlah, can we learn
from it?
The definition of a “benefit” here is key.
In order to determine where and how
to plant trees in the most effective way,
agricultural scientists examine fruit in
a lab environment. They measure and
weigh the fruit, slice it and examine it
under a microscope. With the information
learned from these examinations,
scientists can help farmers maximize
the use of land in order to produce fruit.
Having to wait over three years to learn
about the relative effectiveness of tree
planting strategies can delay successful
food production and incur significant

costs that might prove prohibitive. Rav
Ya’akov Ariel (cont., Israel) discusses
this question in a responsum (Be-Ohalah
Shel Torah, vol. 4, no. 35).
I. Abnormal Enjoying
There is a general rule that you are
only punished for deriving benefit from
something forbidden if you do so in
the usual manner, derekh hana’asan
(Pesachim 24a). The Gemara explicitly
applies that to orlah fruit, saying that you
are only punished if you enjoy the fruit
in the normal way. The usual manner to
benefit from fruit is eating it. Scientific
experimentation constitutes benefit in an
unusual manner.
However, Rishonim debate whether
such benefit is permissible or merely
forbidden but unpunished. Rav Moshe
Isserles (Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah
155:3) rules that when something is
forbidden to benefit (assur be-hana’ah), it
is only permissible to derive benefit from
it in an unusual manner for someone who
is mildly sick. Otherwise, such benefit
remains forbidden. Shakh (ad loc., 13)
states this explicitly. Therefore, while
there is a need to conduct scientific
experimentation on orlah fruits, it cannot

be permitted merely because the
benefit is in an unusual manner.
II. Seeing Is Not Enjoying
Another avenue to explore
is whether examining a fruit
constitutes benefit at all. The
Gemara (Pesachim 26a) says that
artisans who were sent into the
Holy of Holies in the Temple,
the Kodesh Kodashim, would be
sent into the area within enclosed
containers so they would only focus
on their specific renovation work
and not look around and enjoy the sight
of the holy space. The Gemara challenges
this with a saying that “sound, sight and
smell are not violations of me’ilah,” i.e.
do not constitute forbidden benefit. The
Gemara answers that this is the general
rule but we are stricter when it comes to
the Holy of Holies. The implication of
this passage is that sight, just looking at
an orlah fruit or any consecrated object,
is permissible.
However, another Gemara (Rosh
Hashanah 28a) initially forbids blowing
a shofar from an animal consecrated to
a sacrifice. The Gemara concludes that
it is permissible because mitzvos are
not intended for benefit. Otherwise,
blowing a consecrated shofar would
be forbidden. This seems to contradict
the previous passage which says that
sound, sight and smell are not forbidden
benefits.
Rav Moshe Ibn Chabib (17th cen.,
Israel; Yom Teru’ah 28b s.v. hadar amar
Rava) distinguishes between an active
and passive benefit. If you merely look
at, hear or smell something whose
benefit is forbidden, you have not done
anything. That does not constitute
benefit. However, if you take a shofar
and blow it, you have actively heard
the forbidden item and that itself is
forbidden. Rav Ariel applies this to the
case of scientific experimentation. The
scientists do not merely look at an orlah
fruit. They weigh it, measure it and
subject it to other tests. This active way
of seeing the fruit is forbidden.
III. Fruit Autopsies
Rav Ariel quotes Rav Tzvi Pesach
Frank (20th cen., Israel) who was
asked whether a doctor can learn from
a corpse that had undergone an autopsy
(Responsa Har Tzvi, Yoreh De’ah,
no. 278 and addendum). On the one
hand, it is forbidden to conduct an
autopsy in most circumstances and,
more generally, it is forbidden to derive

benefit from a corpse. On the other hand,
Rav Frank argues, learning information
from observation does not constitute
deriving a benefit. He quotes Ritva
(Sukkah 32b s.v. ve-ha’amar Rava) who
says that only benefit from the actual
substance of the item is forbidden. He
explains that this is why it is permissible
to perform mitzvos with an item from
which it is forbidden to derive benefit
even though you obtain divine reward
from those mitzvos. The divine reward is
a benefit but it does not come from the
actual substance of the item. Similarly,
a brother of a deceased husband may
perform the chalitzah ceremony with a
sandal from which benefit is forbidden
even though the ceremony permits the
wife to remarry. That benefit is not from
the actual substance of the sandal and
therefore is allowed.
Rav Frank argues that examining
body parts from an autopsy also does
not constitute deriving benefit from
the substance of the forbidden item.
Therefore, it is allowed. Similarly, Rav
Ariel argues that deriving scientific
information from an orlah does not
constitute a forbidden benefit. Even
though the scientific experiment
involves active use of the forbidden
fruit, the benefit does not come from
the fruit’s substance but rather from the
information.
In fact, the scientists themselves do not
really benefit from the experimentation.
Those who grow the fruits also do not see
a benefit. The benefit really arises once
the results from multiple experiments
are combined to reach a conclusion and
new trees are planted in the optimal
way. That benefit could be years in the
future through knowledge gained in
multiple ways from different sources.
Therefore, concludes Rav Ariel, with a
bit of discussion about combined results
(zeh ve-zeh gorem), it is permissible
to conduct these types of scientific
experiments on orlah fruit.