A Mysterious Prayer for Salvation

R. Yaakov Bieler

Cholo Shel Moed Sukkot, 5765

 

          The most curious portion of the entire “Hoshanot” liturgy that is recited from the beginning of Sukkot through Hoshana Rabba, is the line inserted at the end of the first and second paragraphs, “Ani VEHO Hoshia Nah” (I ? please save). The word “VeHo” does not appear to have any grammatical significance, and therefore severely challenges commentators to account for its meaning.

 

          Although the “Hoshanot” prayers themselves are attributed to Eleazar Kallir, (1) the greatest and most prolific of the early liturgical poets known as “Paytanim”, the particular line in question is already mentioned in the Mishna, and therefore in order to investigate its meaning, attention will have to be paid to those concerned with explicating this particular Mishnaic passage. Discussing the practice of gathering long bunches of willow branches (apart from those used in connection with the fulfillment of the commandment of the four species—see VaYikra 23:40), Sukka 4:5 states

 

…Each day they walk a single circuit around the alter, and they say, (Tehillim 118:25) “Ana HaShem Hoshia Nah; Ana HaShem Hatzlicha Nah” (Please HaShem Save Now; Please HaShem Help Prosper Now.)

R. Yehuda says, “Ani VEHO Hoshia Nah”.

 

Both RaShI and Tosafot, in their commentaries on Sukka 45a, d.h. “Ani VeHo”, suggest a number of possible interpretations for the intriguing word “VeHo”. The first two of these explanations appear to be far more mystical than logical and rational, probably due specifically to the inscrutability of the word “VeHo”. On the one hand, RaShI and Tosafot note that the “Gematria” (numerical value of the letters) of “Ani VeHo” is identical to the words “Ana Hashem”, (2) the beginning of the verse in Tehillim 118. Yet, while this may be so, we are not told what the benefit of such a substitution on the part of R. Yehuda might be. Does he feel that explicitly mentioning the Name of HaShem, as one does when s/he says “Ana HASHEM”, is too holy, and therefore the more ambiguous numerical substitute is to be preferred? But if the verse is acceptable in its original form in Tehillim 118, and each of the elements of the verse are even repeated twice responsively in the recitation of the Hallel prayer, (3) it is difficult to understand why a change was necessary in order to desacrilize the expression.

 

RaShI and Tosafot’s “Gematria” explanation is followed by a far more complex and esoteric rationale based upon the view that the verses in Shemot 14:19-21 lend themselves to generating seventy-two three-letter Names of HaShem. Each of these verses contains seventy two letters, and when one starts with the first letter of 14:19, the last letter of 14:20, and then the first letter of 14:21, and subsequently continuing to create three-letter combinations following this pattern, each of the resulting seventy-two words is a Holy Name. With respect to R. Yehuda’s position as to what was actually recited in the Temple during the circling of the alter on Sukkot as part of the “Arava” (willow) ritual, the first of these three letter words is “V(av) H(eh) V(av)” (4) and the thirty-seventh such word is “A(leph) N(un) Y(ud)” (5).

 

In addition to the seeming arbitrariness of the system by which these Names are arrived at, even if we concede that the very first of the list of Names has particular significance as compared to the others, (6) what is the special importance of the thirty-seventh? Furthermore, why is the later Name (“Ani”) cited before the first Name (“VeHo”) in R. Yehuda’s formulation if these two Names are not generated in this order? Tosafot Yom Tov, among others, offers approaches to address both of these issues. As far as why the thirty-seventh Name, “Ani” should be of particular interest, he suggests that it constitutes the middle of the seventy-two Names, since were one to list the Names in two parallel columns, the second column would begin with “Ani”. And as for why these two Names are in reverse order, the commentator suggests that such an arrangement reflects the sentiment of Yeshayahu 44:6, “…I am the first, and I am the last, and beside Me there is no god.” (7) But one is still left with the impression that the acuity of the questions exceeds that of the answers.

 

At this point, Tosafot diverges from simply quoting RaShI, and offers the following explanation for why these two Names out of the seventy-two, were chosen:

 

…It is because in Eicha Rabba (the Midrash Aggada on the book of Eicha) they interpret (Yechezkel 1:1) “…And I am in the midst of the exile”, as well as the verse (Yirmiyahu 40:1) “…And He was imprisoned in chains” as if these descriptions applied to Him Himself (HaShem). (8)

 

Although the RA”V, in his commentary on the Mishna, after mentioning the “seventy-two three-letter Names of God” hypothesis, appears to offer an alternate explanation, it seems to me that his final comment complements Tosafot’s last suggestion.

 

…“Peirush Acher” (another explanation): Addressing the One whereby I and He are in difficulty, in the spirit of (Tehillim 91:15) “…With him I (HaShem) am in difficulty”, Please Save!

 

Rabbinic thought has often depicted God’s Shechina (the Holy Presence) Going into exile with the Jewish people. Consequently, any request for the Jews to be saved directly, constitutes simultaneously a request that God be “Saved” indirectly. A means for understanding how God’s “Fate” is intertwined with that of the Jews, is to consider the traditional Christian and Moslem canards regarding the consequences that have befallen the Jews as a result of their not having accepted the cardinal principles of either Christian or Moslem theology. These other religions that derive from Judaism, claim that while the Jews once may have been God’s treasured Chosen People, (9) as a result of their sinfulness, they have been replaced, and their downtrodden, persecuted, impoverished, and stateless condition attests to their having fallen out of Divine Favor. Rabbinic thought recognized that in the eyes of the nations of the world, the Jewish version of monotheism is in as much decline as the Jewish people themselves, and this situation can only be alleviated when Jewish fortunes improve. Of all of the seventy-two names, the best pair of Holy Names to allude to such a concept are “Ani” and “VeHo”, the former conveying the double entendre of both a Name of HaShem as well as a reference to the one praying to Him, while the latter being able to be understood as “VeHuh” (and He), connoting that both the pray-er as well as HaShem are “in need” of salvation, a concept that is absent in the more standard phrase “Ana HaShem”. Furthermore, it is more appropriate to place “Ani” before “VeHo” since the initial salvation will focus upon the human being(s) in difficulty, and only as a result of their being redeemed, will HaShem also “gain in standing”.

 

          A more positive emphasis is given to this general approach by Tiferet Yisrael’s commentary on the Mishna in Sukka. The commentator refers to the following Midrash appearing in the Pesikta D’Rabbi Kahana (25:1):

 

R. Yuda ben Rav Simon in the name of R. Levi ben Prata—As long as Israel fulfills the Will of the Holy One, blessed be He, they add power to His Might, as it is said, (Tehillim 60:14) “On God’s Behalf we will do/add power”. And if not, it is in accordance with (Eicha 1:6) “...They will go without power (in this context, a “diminution” in HaShem’s Power) before the pursuer”. (10)

 

As opposed to working with the premise that God is somehow “suffering” when the Jewish people suffer, the Pesikta cited by Tiferet Yisrael stresses that the extent to which God can Work effectively within the world is to some degree dependent not so much on the condition of the Jewish people, but rather how they deport themselves which in turn contributes to determining how others will perceive them. But of course, it is easier to act in an exemplary fashion when conditions are good, rather than when people are barely surviving. Consequently, why should HaShem not only save us from evil and persecution, but also answer our prayers for success and happiness? So that He will benefit by having proper representatives of His Tora and the Lifestyle that He Desires for human beings. It would appear that the Hoshanot liturgy supports such a perspective not only in terms of an intriguing interpretation for the phrase “Ani VeHo”, but also with respect to the opening lines of each day’s Hoshanot prayers:

 

Hosha Nah LEMA’ANCHA, Elokeinu (FOR YOUR SAKE, our Lord) Hosha Nah.

Hosha Nah LEMA’ANCHA, Borainu (FOR YOUR SAKE, our Creator) Hosha Nah.

Hosha Nah LEMA’ANCHA, Go’alainu (FOR YOUR SAKE, our Redeemer) Hosha Nah.

Hosha Nah LEMA’ANCHA, DORSHAINU (FOR YOUR SAKE, He Who seeks out OUR BEST INTERESTS) Hosha Nah.

 

Upon further reflection, it becomes clear that this central theme in Hoshanot is hardly a novel religious position for those offering supplications to God in the Jewish tradition to assume, in light of the conclusion of our daily Silent Devotions:

 

Aseh LeMa’an Shemecha (Your Name); Aseh LeMa’an Yeminecha (Your Right Hand); Aseh LeMa’an Kedushatecha (Your Holiness); Aseh LeMa’an Toratecha (Your Tora); Aseh LeMa’an Yeichaltzun Yedidecha (that Your beloved ones may be saved)…

 

i.e., just as God’s Answering our prayers is to our benefit (“Yeichaltzun Yedidecha”), it is also beneficial for God’s Own “Sake” (“Shemecha”, etc.)  

 

          Tiferet Yisrael’s citation of the Pesikta serves as an excellent segue for an interpretation (11) that links “Ani VeHo” of Hoshanot with a well-known Talmudic passage in Shabbat 133b. The same letters that comprise “Ani VeHo”, when read together, constitute an approximation of the word “VeAnveihu”, of the verse in Shemot 15:2, “…This is my God, AND I WILL GLORIFY/BEAUTIFY HIM…” A Baraita (a source dating from the Mishnaic period that was not included in the Mishna of R. Yehuda HaNasi) in the Talmud presents two possible strategies for practically carrying out the “beautification” of HaShem in light of his ineffableness and incorporeality. On the one hand, it is suggested that “One should strive to beautify him/herself before Him by way of Mitzva performance, i.e., make before Him a beautiful Sukka, take a beautiful set of the four species (on Sukkot), use a beautiful Shofar (on Rosh HaShana), read from a beautiful Sefer Tora that is written for His Sake, with beautiful ink, written with a beautiful pen, etc.”, i.e., if one cannot beautify HaShem directly, then at least one can beautify the manner in which He is served by human beings via Hidur Mitzva (the beautification of objects with which Tora commandments are performed). But more in keeping with the theme of the mutual interaction between the impression that Jews make upon general society and the manner in which people perceive the God that they believe in, Aba Shaul contends that the manner in which “VeAnveihu” is to be fulfilled is by Jews emulating God, i.e., just as He is merciful and compassionate, so too should we strive to be. (12) In effect, it is not the Sukka or the Lulav that are the “Cheftzaot Shel Mitzva” (the objects by which we fulfill God’s Commandments) but rather ourselves. The extent to which we can create an “identity” between ourselves and HaShem, on a microcosmic level, of course, will both glorify Him, but also elevate His “Standing” in the world by means of our serving as an “Ohr LaGoyim” (a light unto the nations) (13) when we live spiritually and ethically “beautiful” lives. (14)

 

May HaShem listen to all of our plays, including when we recite the Hoshanot, and may we merit not only helping in our own personal redemptions by reaching for ever higher spiritual levels, but also serving as beacons of ethics and morality to our families, communities and countries.

 

Moadim LeSimcha.

 

 

(1) Elie Munk, The World of Prayer, Vol. 2, Philip Feldheim, New York, 1963, p. 280.

(2) “Aleph” =1; “Nun” =50; “Yud” =10 =61;

     “Vav” =6; “Heh” =5; “Vav” =6 =                            17+61=78.

     “Aleph” =1; “Nun” =50; “Aleph” =1 =52

     “Yud” =10; “H-eh” =5; “Vav” =6; “H-eh” =5 =           26+52=78.

(3) “Ana HaShem Hoshia Nah, Ana HaShem Hoshia Nah. Ana HaShem Hatzlicha Nah, Ana HaShem Hatzlicha Nah.”

(4) The first word of 14:19 is “VaYisa” (and he journeyed) the first letter being a “Vav”; the last word of 14:20 is “HaLayla” (night), the last letter being a “Heh”; the first word of 14:21 is “VaYet” (and he stretched), the last letter being a “Vav” resulting in “VeHo”.

(5) The 37th letter from the beginning of 14:19 is the “Aleph” appearing in the word “MeiAchareihem” (from behind them); the 37th letter from the end of 14:20 is the letter “Nun” of “HeAnan” (the cloud); the 37th letter from the beginning of 14:19 is the letter “Yud” of “Kadim” (eastern), resulting in “Ani”.

(6) Parallels in Jewish tradition where the first element in a listing of multiple possibilities is viewed as of extra importance include: the first born, first fruits, the first of the year, the first of the month, and the first “Aliya” of those called to the Tora.

(7) While Biblical commentators interpret the verse as indicating that HaShem Existed before anything else came into existence, and that He will continue to Exist after everything else no longer is in existence, the Talmudic commentators attempting to account for R. Yehuda’s reversal of these three-letter Names, are contending that since God is so Inscrutable, even the Names that we have for Him cannot be listed in any particular order of preference or importance. The only exception would be the primary unique Name, i.e., the Tetragrammaton. All other Names that are given the status of “Kinnuyim” (secondary Names) would come under the rubric of the explanation based upon Yeshayahu 44:6.

(8)  Whenever there are prophecies and the prophet conveys a message originally Given to him by God, it is difficult to distinguish what part of the message and its context is a reflection of the human condition of the prophet who is speaking, and what part is a reflection of the “sentiments” and even “situation” of God, to the extent that we can perceive and understand them.

(9) See e.g., Shemot 19:5; Devarim 7:6; 14:2; 26:18.

(10) A parallel interpretation found in the same Midrash cites the verses in BaMidbar 14:17 “And now let the Power of HaShem be expanded...”, suggesting that this is something at least partially within the purview of man, and Devarim 32:18, “The Rock, those whom You have given birth to, have caused You weakness...”.

(11) This interpretation is attributed to “RaShI’s Commentary from Manuscript accompanied by Comments”, in Siddur Otzar HaTefillot, Nussach Sfarad, Vol. 2, Nehora D’Oraita, Yerushalayim, 5720, p. 10 (of the section containing the Hoshanot prayers).

(12) See Sota 14a for additional applications of the principle of imitateo dei.

(13) See Yeshayahu 42:6; 49:6.

(14) Aba Shaul’s association of beauty with people’s ethical and spiritual traits, as opposed to their physical characteristics, calls to mind the catch phrase in common parlance, “beautiful people”. Christine Ammer (The Facts on File Dictionary of Clichés, Checkmark Books, New York, 2001, p. 22) defines the term as connoting “The fashionable social set, individuals who are in vogue and widely emulated and envied.” The phrase even appears in a 1967 song by the Beatles, entitled “Baby You’re a Rich Man”. Much has been made of the recent admission by Abercrombie and Fitch that they choose employees primarily for their appearance, assuming that if the sales people in a store look a certain way, everyone will want to shop there. Ron Kaufman, in an essay entitled, “The Beautiful People Syndrome” (http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/commentary/syndrome.html) blames television for advancing the sensibility that all that matters about another person is his/her physical appearance. The author quotes the late NYU professor and critic of contemporary culture and education, Neil Postman’s book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, with regard to even our political process:

It is implausible to imagine that anyone like our 27th President, the multi-chinned, three-hundred pound William Howard Taft, could be put forward as a presidential candidate in today’s world. The shape of a man’s body is largely irrelevant to the shape of his ideas when he is addressing a public in writing or on the radio…but it is quite relevant on television. The grossness of a three-hundred pound image, even a talking one, would easily overwhelm any logical or spiritual subtleties conveyed by speech.”

The controversy regarding the temperature setting of the studio in which the recent Bush-Kerry debate took place, with one side wishing the other debater sweat, and therefore appear less desirable is a case in point. Some contend that Richard Nixon’s lack of television savvy vis-à-vis his appearance may have contributed significantly to his loss to John F. Kennedy in 1960.  

          While Judaism does take notice of physical appearances in terms of attractiveness—consider the external appearance requirements for Kohanim working in the Temple, as well as Beraishit 29:17; 39:6; Devarim 21:11; Shmuel Aleph 25:3; Melachim Aleph 1:6 (keeping in mind that in many of these contexts, it is physical beauty that leads to arrogance or illicit attractions—see Avoda Zora 20 a-b for a powerful expression of the ambivalence that being attracted to another person, independent of his/her inner qualities, can cause)—the definition of a “Shainer Yid” (Yiddish for a beautiful Jew) has more to do with Middot (personal characteristics) than physical beauty.