"In order that all your generations should know that I caused the Children of Israel to dwell in booths when I took them out of Egypt" (Emor 23:43). In a well-known debate (Sukka 11b) R' Eliezer maintains that the booths refer to the Clouds of Glory. R' Akiva holds that they were actual huts set up at the various stops on the way to Eretz Yisrael. Surprisingly, Tur follows the position of R' Eliezer even though the halacha normally follows R' Akiva over R' Eliezer. Aruch LaNeir notes that in several places in the Midrashei Halacha the positions are presented switched where R' Akiva maintains that we commemorate the Clouds of Glory and R' Eliezer holds that we recall the actual booths. The Tur, then, does follow the accepted position of R' Akiva. Perhaps we can propose another approach based on other sources related to the celebration of Sukkos.
The lulav is waved not only at the time of the b'racha but also during the Hallel. All agree that it is waved not only during the recital of "hodu LaShem ki tov" but also at "ana Hashem" (Sukka 37b). Beis Shammai maintain that we wave at ana Hashem hatzlicha na. Beis Hillel hold that we only wave at ana Hashem hoshi'a na. The halacha follows this latter view. What is the root of their debate?
The two aforementioned verses beginning with "ana" both plead with Hashem for help but in two different ways. "Ana Hashem hoshi'a na" asks for a "y'shua", a salvation. This word is used when G-d saves in a situation where those He is saving are not actively participating in their salvation. A classic example is the splitting of the sea. Moshe tells B'nei Yisrael, "Hisyatz'vu ur'u es y'shuas Hashem - stand and observe the salvation of Hashem" (B'Shalach14:13). You are not able to save yourselves at all; G-d will miraculously do so[2]. If someone, chas v'shalom, is terminally ill and the doctors have given up hope of medical intervention, the family will oftentimes say, "He needs a yeshua", i.e. only Hashem can save him now; human beings cannot do anything.
"Ana Hashem hatzlicha na" requests "hatzlacha", success. Asking for success addresses a situation where the one praying is acting to bring about the result in a natural way, but, realizing that no human effort can succeed without Divine assistance, he prays for it. A classic example of this is Shlomo HaMelech's declaration "Im Hashem lo yivneh bayis, shav am'lu bonav bo - If G-d does not build a house, its builders have toiled in vain" (Tehillim 127:1). The builders are engaging in acts of building. Hashem created a natural order in which gathering building blocks and adhesives leads to the rising of an edifice. But, Shlomo teaches us, that this too needs the Divine blessing of "hatzlacha". When a person is about to take a test or engage in a new business we bless him: "have hatzlacha", not "have a yeshua" (unless he hasn't studied or has no business kup!)
These two ideas represent two different forms of Divine providence. Throughout our lives we actively engage in beneficial physical activities, such as producing food, construction, pursuit of a livelihood, or seeking a spouse. We also pursue spiritual activities such as praying, studying Torah, performing mitzvos, and engaging in chessed. Judaism teaches us generally to be active and not just passively await Divine salvation[3]. Sifrei (Re'eh 123:18) on the promised blessing of "[Hashem] will bless you in all of your handiwork" comments, "I would think one should be idle (and G-d will supernaturally bless you), therefore the verse states 'in all of your handiwork'". But we recognize that we always still need Divine blessing, otherwise, no activity can succeed. Therefore we pray for "hatzlacha".
But there is another form of Divine providence - "yeshua". At times, we have no choice but to rely on miracles[4]. Oftentimes there are situations where no human intervention or activity can, by natural means, bring about the desired salvation. At these times, knowing that nothing is impossible for G-d we plead, "Hoshi'a na!"
It would appear that the debate between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel revolves around the focus of the Sukkos holiday. Many have noted that the main theme of Sukkos is celebrating and inculcating into our religious mindset the concept of Divine providence and protection. (See Chag HaSukkot: The Festival of Divine Providence.) Divine providence expresses itself in two ways: within the natural order and transcending it. Most of the time, G-d operates in a hidden way seamlessly maneuvering within His natural system to bring about His desired result. Whether a person finds his or her spouse, gets the healing (s)he needs, connects with the right employer or the right Yeshiva, he is experiencing the first, "natural" type of providence. But sometimes Hashem intervenes in a way that defies the normal rules. Sometimes there are unexplainable medical miracles or unexpected and ultimately not understandable military victories. These belong to the second category of Divine providence. Which type of Divine providence is recalled, commemorated, and incorporated into our service of G-d? Beis Shammai, by focusing on hatzlacha, seem to view the first type as the primary one commemorated, perhaps since this is more common and hence more relevant. Beis Hillel seem to hold that the second, the supernatural, unexplainable, yeshua type of providence is being recalled and re-enacted. On a simple plain, this is because the miracles of the Exodus and subsequent stay in the desert were supernatural and hence this aspect should be highlighted. Below we will propose a different explanation of Beis Hillel's view.
Upon reflection, we can perhaps suggest that this debate is rooted in different approaches that the progenitors of these two great yeshivos followed. The Talmud (Beitza 16a) teaches us that Shammai would "live Shabbos" all week. Every time he found a choice delicacy he would put it away for Shabbos. If he found an even better one, he would consume the first and put away the second. This way, Shabbos was always on his mind, in fulfillment of the simple meaning of "Zachor es yom haShabbos l'kad'sho". But Hillel is described as, "midda acheres hay'sa bo - he had a different characteristic". He followed the thrust of the verse "Baruch Hashem yom, yom - praise Hashem every day for its blessings". Therefore, he would immediately partake of whatever came his way, trusting that the One who provided it for him that day would provide an even nicer item for Shabbos. The Gemara then records that their respective schools taught in accordance with their Rosh HaYeshiva. What is the root of this debate? The poskim rule in this debate in accordance with Shammai[5] and explain that this is not a classic debate which would apply to all people. As the Talmud states concerning Hillel, "midda acheres hay'sa bo". Everyone in their life blends together the two middos of hishtad'lus, physical effort at achieving a goal, with bitachon, trust in G-d recognizing that ultimately all efforts are futile without Divine blessing. For Shammai, since he prepared for other aspects of his life as well, he had to do so for Shabbos. To rely solely on Hashem to provide for Shabbos would be a slight to kavod Shabbos by not actively preparing for it. Hillel apparently operated with less effort and more reliance on Providence in his other efforts as well and therefore, consistent with this attitude, was able to rely totally on Hashem to provide for Shabbos as well.[6] In essence, then, Shammai puts more emphasis on human histad'lus creating the "utensil" for the Divine blessing to occur. Put differently, he trusted that Hashem would cause him to be "matzliach" - give success to his endeavors. Hillel put his trust in G-d that he would somehow bring about what he needed without any effort on his behalf, i.e. that He would send a "yeshua". It seems apparent that Shammai had greatly developed his midda of bitachon as well, but his bitachon expressed itself in the hatzlacha rather than the yeshua model. Their conduct the whole year then is consistent with their view concerning where the lulav is waved in the Hallel.
Based on the above, perhaps we can answer why the Tur followed R' Eliezer's view. Since the halacha follows Beis Hillel that we wave the lulav at "hoshi'a na" this indicates that the main emphasis of Sukkos is the second type of hashgacha p'ratis, the yeshua model, even if year-round we generally follow the hatzlacha model. To create a consistency between the theme of lulav and sukka, the Tur ruled that the Sukkas commemorate the ananei hakavod, clearly an open miracle, a yeshua[7].
At first glance, the view of Hillel and his yeshiva is only relevant to the supernatural, historical event of the midbar experience or the select few who are granted that level of Divine providence. But perhaps the message of the emphasis on yeshua on Sukkos is that even hatzlacha assumes yeshua as well. Every human endeavor, thought, or action is itself based on a reoccurring Divine will. It is only G-d that creates and recreates "nature" constantly allowing it to function. Ideas themselves often are implanted within our minds by G-d without our even knowing it (see Targum Onkelos to Eikev 8:18). Hence, according to Beis Hillel, the holiday celebrating Divine providence highlights that ultimately everything in the world comes from Divine salvation.
May our fulfillment of the mitzvos of sukka and lulav help us live our lives fully cognizant of, and in a manner consistent with, our realization of the pervasive role of Hashem's guidance in our individual and communal lives.
[1] The core of the ideas outlined here concerning the debate between R' Eliezer and R' Akiva is based on concepts delivered by my esteemed father-in-law, Rabbi Yitzchak Handel shlita at the bris of his first child, now my brother-in-law. Here the ideas are presented with expansions.
[2]True, the Jews were commanded to enter the Sea, but this was a demonstration of faith in G-d that he would save them, the merit of which caused the salvation. It was clearly not an act that would naturally cause the Sea to split.
[3] Much has been written and said on the appropriate blend of histadlus and bitachon and how active one should be in pursuing parnassa, especially for those engaged in full-time Torah study. See the debate in B'rachos (35b) between R' Shimon bar Yochai and R' Yishmael and the insightful series on yutorah.org by Rabbi Daniel Stein on Emunah and Bitachon. Here, we are discussing regular situations.
[4] Even Ben Gurion, the former Prime Minister of Israel, not coming from a Torah-observant perspective of belief, famously stated concerning events revolving around the State of Israel, "In Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles."
[5] See Mishnah Berurah to 250:2 and SS"K 42:4.
[6] In the language of Rav Soloveitchik zt"l (as heard from Mori v'Rabi Rav Schachter shlita) "We are all 'Shammai-niks'. We all buy insurance!" Also see Mishnah Berurah referenced in previous footnote who has a somewhat different formulation.
[7]It would be anomalous though that R' Eliezer who was a member of Beis Shammai would break this pattern. Perhaps this is a further proof to the version of the Midrashei Halacha quoted above which switches the positions.