Adapted by Matzav.com from a Shiur delivered by Rabbi Avrohom Dovid Waxman, R”M at Yeshivas Mishkan HaTorah of Lakewood and mechaber seforim Minchas HaLevi
Li’iluy nishmas Yissochor Dov Berish zatza”l ben Rav Shlomo, Niftar BiAsra Kadisha Meiron
The Gemara in Shabbos (33b) describes Rav Shimon Bar Yochai’s escape from the Romans and their decree of death. This was through survival in a cave, where a spring miraculously sprung forth to provide water, and Hashem instantaneously supplied a charuv tree to provide food. On the occasion of Lag Ba’omer, the Yom Hillula of Rav Shimon Bar Yochai, we would like to discuss various issues relevant to the Rashbi’s survival in the cave, followed by a discussion of the simcha that Klal Yisroel is noheg upon his yahrtzeit.
The Arlah Question
As mentioned, Rav Shimon Bar Yochai survived by eating from the charuv tree that grew miraculously for the purpose of his survival. Since it was supplied through a nes, it would appear that the tree was less than three years old. If so, how did Rav Shimon sustain himself from this tree- the fruits of the tree should have been forbidden based on the issur of Arlah? This question is told over in the name of the Belzer Rebbe, Rav Yissochor Dov Zatza”l, and more recently, was asked by Rav Chaim Kanievsky in his sefer Derech Emunah (Hilchos Maaser Sheni 10:6).
Based on the dangerous Roman threat, it was pikuach nefesh for Rav Shimon Bar Yochai, which would allow him to eat regardless of the Arlah prohibition. But the Achronim give various reasons to explain that in fact, the tree did not have an issur of Arlah.
The Shu”t Daas Moshe (authored by Rav Moshe’le Boyaner Zatza”l) explains that since the tree was a product of a nes, and not natural growth, there was no issurim on the tree. This concept can be found in the Redak (Melachim 2, 4:7), who states that the shemen (oil) which was produced through Elisha’s nes was not mechuyav in maasros due to its status as shemen nes, and not natural shemen. Similarly, the Shelah to Parshas Vayeshev (brought by Pischei Teshuvah to Yoreh De’ah siman 62, s”k 2) writes that an animal which was created through nissim does not require shechitah. Based on this yesod, that maaseh nissim do not have the same status as natural creations, Rav Shimon Bar Yochai’s charuv would have an exemption from the issur arlah, as well.
Rav Lifshitz in Tiferes Yakov brings a raya from Noach, who drank from the vineyard that he planted. Rashi says that it grew and produced fruit in one day. Evidently no prohibition applied as it was a kerem of nes.
Additionally, since the charuvim were from Shamayim, perhaps another exemption would apply. The Tosefta (Arlah 1:4) and Talmud Yerushalmi (Arlah 1:3) teach us that if a person consecrates a tree to hekdesh, Arlah does not apply. The meforshim explain that Arlah requires “la’chem”- it must be personal ownership- which is not the case if the tree is hekdesh. This tree was literally heaven-sent, and did not meet the personal ownership qualification to have an issur Arlah.
Rav Meir Shapiro is quoted as answering this question based on a halacha found in the first perek of Yerushalmi Arlah, that fruits that grow on their own, outside the yishuv– i.e. not amongst civilization- are exempt from the issur Arlah.  The Yerushalmi states that a “makom she’ein chorshin– a place that is not capable of being plowed” is patur from arlah. that The Zohar Chadash (Parshas Ki Savo) states that the cave of Rav Shimon was in the midbar.  Accordingly, the tree which grew for him in this desert would have the exemption of “einah min hayishuv” and its fruits were completely fit for Rav Shimon to eat.
Rav Chaim Kanievsky explains that the tree and the ma’arah were in reshus harabim. Therefore, Arlah did not apply, as hefker is exempt from the issur. Rav Shimon was permitted to eat as long as he did not intend to be zoche in the tree, based on the petur of hefker.
Additionally, the Achronim point out that Rashi (Sotah 43b, D”H Kala) maintains that according to one shitah, the issur arlah and the issur kerem revay only apply to a field or orchard, and not to an individual tree. It is possible that this was the opinion of Rav Shimon Bar Yochai, as well, allowing him to eat without issur.
The Medrash Rabba (parshas Vayishlach, 79, as explained by Rashi), when bringing the details of Rav Shimon Bar Yochai’s survival, notes that the charuvim were of inferior quality. According to this, perhaps the charuvim were exempt from Arlah based on the Gemara in Brachos (36:) that fruits are only assur when they reach the time of boiser– ripening. Perhaps Rav Shimon’s charuvim were inferior in a way that this ripened stage was never reached.
Another answer is given by the Achronim, based on the nature of the nes: Perhaps the miraculous tree was not a new creation, but rather through a nes, Hashem brought an existing tree, which had already been growing for three years, to Rav Shimon’s cave to sustain him. According to this, the tree was in fact an existing, natural tree, thereby making the arlah question irrelevant. This explanation can also resolve another difficulty posed by the Achronim regarding Rav Shimon’s survival on the fruits of the charuv tree, as we will further explain.
The Ma’aseh Nissim Problem
The Chida (Sefer Midbar Kedeimos, 40, ois 3) asks, how was Rav Shimon Bar Yochai permitted to enjoy the fruits of the miraculous charuv tree, when the Gemara in Ta’anis (24) prohibits a person from being neheneh from ma’aseh nissim?
According to the previously mentioned explanation of the Achronim that the tree was not a new creation, but an existing tree that was miraculously uprooted and replanted at Rav Shimon’s location, perhaps this question, too, can be resolved. Although the Gemara prohibits enjoyment from the product of a nes, this may only apply to a new creation that comes about through a nes. Perhaps an existing tree does not come under this prohibition.
Even according to the other Achronim that the tree was a new creation supplied especially for Rav Shimon Bar Yochai’s survival, perhaps another differentiation can be made between this tree and the Gemara’s prohibition of ma’ase nisim in Taanis. The Tevuas Shor asks on the nusach of the Harachaman recited by those who forget Al Hanissim in Birchas Hamazon on Chanukah and Purim– Harachaman Hu Ya’aseh Lanu Nissim Kmo She’asah Bayamim Haheim Ba’zman Hazeh. This request for nissim to be performed for us seems to contradict the Gemara, which teaches that nissim deduct from a person’s zechusim and seemingly should not be asked for? The Yeshuas Yaakov answers that although the performance of a nes on an individual’s behalf should be avoided, as it is being matriach Hakadosh Boruch Hu to alternate from the rules of teva and takes away from the individual’s zechusim, this would not be a factor when the nes performed is done publicly. The resulting Kiddush Hashem for the tzibbur from the display of Hashem’s gadlus in this world makes the nes a positive phenomenon. Therefore, the nusach of the Harachaman, which requests a nes for the tzibbur like Chanukah and Purim, is a valid request, as the Gemara only refers to a nes for an individual which does not have the public Kiddush Shem Shomayim element.
Similarly, the ma’aseh nes of Rav Shimon Bar Yochai– the publicly recognized nes of the cheruv and spring- had the aspect of Kiddush Hashem. Therefore, there was no issur to benefit from the nes.
The Chida himself answers that the fruits had the status of the Man in the midbar, which was eaten despite the nes involved. This was for two reasons: Firstly, the Man was a nes specifically for the purpose of providing food, as the posuk clearly states. Additionally, it was for sustenance in a situation of pikuach nefesh. These reasons apply to Rav Shimon Bar Yochai’s charuv, as well.
The Kiddush Question
The Ben Ish Chai in Shu”t Rav Pealim (Yoreh De’ah, chelek 1, siman 55) and the Ba’al HaTanya (Sefer Likuttei Torah, Parshas Shemini) ask another interesting question on the circumstances of Rav Shimon Bar Yochai’s survival in the cave: How did Rav Shimon fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush on Shabbos?
The Shu”t Rav Pealim writes that indeed, as an oineis due to the sakanah, Rav Shimon was unable to fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush or Achilas Matzah. Nevertheless, in the Adra (Zohar), Rav Shimon Bar Yochai says that he was never mevatel the mitzvah of three seudos on Shabbos. This should be understood, based on the above, that since he was an oines, it is not called a “bittul,” although he was not mekayem the mitzvos. To be mevatel a mitzvah connotes some sort of neglect or mishap, which was not applicable to Rav Shimon’s situation.
However, others maintain that the Rav Shimon was able to fulfill the mitzvos, as the simple reading of the Zohar suggests. Rav Shabsi Lifshitz in Sefer HaEishel suggests that Eliyahu HaNavi, who visited twice daily, would bring bread and wine whenever necessary.
The Sifsei Tzadik (the Pilitzer Rav) explains that Rav Shimon Bar Yochai was a talmid of Rabi Akiva. The Mishnah in Brochos (perek 6, Mishnah 8), in regards to the dinim of when Birchas Hamazon is recited, brings shitas Rabi Akiva: “Afilu Achal Shalak V’hu Mexono, Mevarech Acharav Shalosh Berachos– Even if a person eats vegetables, if that is his meal, he must recite Birchas Hamazon.” Accordingly, if Rav Shimon held like his Rebbi’s psak, he would be able to make Kiddush on the charuv, similar to the halacha that Pas can substitute for wine, if necessary. Additionally, the Yaavetz (Pesachim 114a) clearly states that anything that constitutes as a meal, would have the halacha of pas, and can be used as Kiddush. Accordingly, the charuv was a means to fulfill Kiddush bimakom seudah.
The Medrash Talpiyos brings down that Rav Shimon Bar Yochai’s charuvim tree switched into a temarim (dates) tree every Erev Shabbos. Similarly the Medrash Rabbah (Esther 3:7) states that they ate charuvim and temarim in the cave. This special nes that occurred on each Erev Shabbos can be explained in light of this discussion. The Gemara in Berachos (12a) teaches us that Birchas Hamazon can be recited on temarim, since they satiate a person. This halacha is brought in Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 208:17). The Pri Megadim (siman 273) suggests that according to the psak of the Shulchan Aruch requiring Birchas Hamazon after eating temarim, temarim is a viable way to fulfill Kiddush bi’makom seudah, as well.  Perhaps this can be an explanation for the weekly Erev Shabbos nes, and a resolution for how Rav Shimon fulfilled this mitzvah.
The Reason for Simcha on Rav Shimon Bar Yochai’s Yahrtzeit
Many are familiar with Rema (Orach Chayim siman 493:2) who instructs that we increase slightly in our simcha on Lag Ba’omer. The Zohar refers to Lag Ba’omer as Yoma Hillula D’Rav Shimon, as Lag Ba’omer is his yahrtzeit. The increased simcha requires explanation, in light of words of Chazal that typically, the day of the petirah of a tzaddik is a means for the opposite of simcha. This is evident from the Gemara’s presentation of a case of that a neder was vowed to refrain from eating meat on the day of their Rebbe’s petirah. Moreover, we find that the seventh day of Adar, which is the day of the petirah of our greatest leader, Moshe Rabeinu, is brought in Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim, siman 580:2) to be a day of ta’anis. Why is the day of Rav Shimon Bar Yochai’s yahrtzeit considered a day of simcha, whereas even Moshe Rabeinu’s yahrtzeit is not commemorated with simcha? The Chasam Sofer (Toras Moshe, parshas Emor) and others address this question.
Rav Chaim Rapaport in Shu”t Mayim Chayim (chelek 1, Orach Chayim siman 22, ois 13) explains that the Medrash (Eicha Rabba 1:39) teaches us that the loss of a tzaddik is more difficult before Hashem than the churban of the Beis HaMikdash. He explains that this is because the tzaddik’s generation is left bereft from their leader. Although Chazal teach us that upon the petirah of a tzaddik, another tzaddik is born that will replace the tzaddik that was niftar, a void is left until the coming generation. In the case of Rav Shimon Bar Yochai, however, his son remained alive to fill the void. Rav Elazar Ben Rav Shimon is described in the Gemara (Sukkah 45b) as being an equal to Rav Shimon. This allows for simcha specifically in the situation of Rav Shimon Bar Yochai, as the sadness of the loss was not felt by his generation, while Rav Shimon’s tzidkus is omedes la’ad.
The Minchas Elazar (in sefer Sha’ar Yissoschor) differentiates between Moshe Rabeinu’s petirah, where the Gemara (Temurah 17b) describes that thousands of halachos were forgotten in the subsequent days, and Rav Shimon Bar Yochai’s petirah, where many secrets of the Torah where revealed upon his petirah. This is a cause for simcha specifically on Lag Ba’omer.
The Klausenberger Rebbe (Shu”t Divrei Yatziv, chelek 7, siman 64), quoting the Divrei Chaim of Sanz, explains that Moshe Rabeinu was limited in fulfilling his complete potential on this world, due to the sins of his generation. At the time of his petirah, there was sadness that Moshe Rabeinu had not been zoche to enter Eretz Yisroel and be mekayeim mitzvos ha’aretz. Therefore, his yahrtzeit has an element of sadness due to the missing fulfillment of Moshe Rabeinu’s mission that our sins caused. Rav Shimon Bar Yochai, however, was zoche to accomplish all that he needed, and there was simcha at the time of his petirah. This is the reason we are noheg simcha on Lag Ba’omer.
The Shu”t Sheim Aryeh (Orach Chayim, siman 14) and Sdei Chemed (chelek 6, amud 70) answer that the unique simcha on Rav Shimon Bar Yochai’s yahrtzeit is actually the commemoration of the nes of his salvation from the hands of the Romans. Although the miracle took place over many years, the completion and climax was at the time of his petirah– when he was niftar through Shamayim’s hands, and not at the hands of the murderous Romans, as they had threatened. Therefore, it is understood that typically the day of a tzaddik’s yahrtzeit is not a reason for simcha, and Moshe Rabeinu’s yahrtzeit is a yom ta’anis.  Only due to celebration of the nes that Rav Shimon was not murdered is there simcha on Lag Ba’omer, his yahrtzeit.