CLAL Rabbinic Community On Line

Initial questions for conversation:

1. How does the redemptive scenario of the Amidah compare with the popular scenarios current in the Jewish community today?

2. How can the Amidah be used to sustain the hope in redemption?

3. To what degree does the twentieth century saga of the founding of the State of Israel correspond to the redemptive scenario of the Amidah?

4. Can we be active redemptionists without being active messianists?

C. Blessing 10-16

Blessing 10-15 constitutes a scenario for national redemption. It commences with the great shofar's blast of freedom, announcing the ingathering of the exiles (10), and continues with the restoration of divine rule through righteous leaders (11), the meting out of appropriate deserts to the righteous and the wicked (12 and 13), the rebuilding of Jerusalem (14) and the return of the Davidic line (15). Since the motifs are all biblical, the distinctive contribution made by this liturgy to the idea of national redemption lies in the particular linguistic formulation, in the sequence of events, and in the uncompromising emphasis on divine involvement, all of which converge to make the point that God alone is the redeemer as opposed to any human redeemer.

Linguistically, these blessings weave threads of verses from Isaiah, Micah, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Malachi, and Psalms into a liturgical tapestry. There is hardly a word not pronounced by the prophets. Therefore, it has been suggested that by reformulating their prophecies into requests, "It is as if the Deity were reminded of his promise and asked to fulfill it."

The eschatological sequence of the Amidah does not match any antecedent or contemporary scenario. It is not dictated by any single biblical text nor paralleled by any other post biblical scenario or, for that matter, any other rabbinic liturgical formulation of eschatology. A comparison with other ancient redemptive scenarios will show how many staples of such scenarios are missing and will underscore the distinctiveness of the Amidah. Unlike so many other extrabiblical eschatological scenarios, the Amidah is free of apocalyptic elements, whether utopian or catastrophic, symptomatic of which is the absence of any reference to the book of Daniel. Its sobriety verges on the Maimonidean. But even Maimonides had to reverse the order of the Amidah in order to come up with a messiah who can "restore the kingdom of David ..., rebuild the Temple, and gather the dispersed of Israel.

"Blessings 14 and 15, which make mention of David, read as follows:

14. And to Jerusalem, Your city, return in mercy, and dwell in it as You have spoken; rebuild it forever soon in our days and speedily establish in it the throne of David. Blessed are You, O Lord, who rebuilds Jerusalem.

15. Speedily cause the sprout of Your servant, David, to flourish and let his horn be exalted by Your salvation, for we wait for Your salvation daily. Blessed are You, O Lord, who causes the horn of salvation to flourish.

Note the absence of the term "Messiah," and the minimal role of the "Sprout of David," despite its pregnant biblical antecedents. Of those antecedents, the closest is that of Zech. 3:8, which employs both the term "sprout" and the term "servant." Zechariah, however, prophesies that the "sprout" (6:12) will rebuild the Temple. Even Jeremiah has the "sprout" reigning and executing justice in the land, a function that is in line with its use as a royal title.

In Qumran, the importance of "the sprout" is just as pronounced. Column five of 4QpGena expresses hope for a Davidic messiah based on the everlasting validity of the Davidic covenant. It equates the sprout of David with the Prince of the community and the "just anointed one" to whom is given the "covenant of kingship." 4QSerek HaMilhamah (4Q285) and 4QpIsaa assign him a military role in the eschatological battle. Indeed the latter (4QpIsaa 8:21f.) depicts him ruling over all the nations and judging them with his sword, whereas 4QFlorilegium 1:13 (4Q174) depicts him saving Israel in a manner recalling God's role in Deut. 20:2-4 and Num. 10:9. 4QFlorlegium 1:11 also associates him with the expounder of Torah as does The Damascus Document (CD 7:18-21). Whatever their precise messianic overtones, these Qumran texts attest to the prominence of the epithet "sprout of David."

As for the Amidah, "the Sprout of David Your servant," appears without any reference to name or to ruling function. He does not teach, determine pedigrees, conduct wars, resurrect the dead, judge, or mark an age of travail. Appearing only after God has reassembled the dispersed (blessing 10), restored His rule through righteous leaders (blessing 11), meted out the appropriate deserts to the righteous and the wicked (blessing 12 and 13), and rebuilt Jerusalem (blessing 14), it is clear that the Messiah lacks a specific role in the events ushering in the rule of God. His appearance marks the culmination of the process, not its initiation.

Symptomatic of this subdued role for the Sprout of David is the absence of any allusion to Isa 11:1-5 as opposed to the Psalms of Solomon 17 with its emphasis on the son of David who will "rule over Israel... destroy the unrighteous rulers, purge Jerusalem... gather a holy people... judge the tribes... not tolerate unrighteousness... and distribute them upon the land... and judge the nations," and as opposed to an apparent fragment of the Qumran War Scroll, 4Q285, or 1QRule of the Blessings (IQSb). There is a similar lack of any allusion to Daniel 7 in contrast to 1 Enoch 51-53, which has the son of man/elect one sitting on the throne of God's glory, judging the wicked, and worshiped by the kings and mighty as well as, apparently, all those who dwell upon the dry ground. Similarly, the Messiah of the Amidah is neither a destroyer or judge of other nations nor associated with the resurrection or any cataclysmic events such as found in 2 Baruch and elsewhere. Above all, there is no effort to present him as a divine being, clothed in biblical expressions of God, as do 4 Ezra 13 and the Qumran 11Q Melchizedek (11Q13). Clearly, the "Sprout of David," in the Amidah, is neither a priestly messiah, a prophetic messiah, nor a heavenly messiah.

Stranger still is the location of the blessing for the Davidic line. It should have immediately succeeded the blessing for the restoration of political autonomy (blessing 11) or have been integrated into it. By coming four blessings later, the advent of the Davidic scion is so disjoined from the hope for political autonomy and restoration as if it were a separate agendum. Even stranger is the paradox of some versions that have both blessings speak of human agency only to have such agency undermined by a subsequent reference to divine agency. This counterstatement, as it were, appears in the third strophe of each blessing. In blessing 11 it goes as follows:

1. Restore our judges as in former times and our counselors as in the beginning.

2. Remove from us sorrow and anguish

3. Reign over us You alone [O Lord]

And in blessing 15 it goes as follows:

1. Cause to flourish the shoot of your servant David

2. May his horn be exalted by Your salvation

3. For it is to Your salvation that we have hoped for every day.

In both cases, what is granted to the human role in the first strophe is transferred to the divine role in the third. However rulership and salvation may be mediated through human agency, they remain divine prerogatives.

By highlighting near the beginning of the eschatological scenario God's exclusive rule (blessing 11), the appearance of the Davidic scion (blessing 15) at the end turns out to be more a manifestation of divine power than an expression of acute messianism. Indeed, as blessing 11 underscores our hope for divine rule alone despite the presence of biblical-type rulers as in Isa. 1:26 ("I will restore your judges as in former times and your counselors as in the beginning"), so blessing 15 underscores our hope in divine salvation despite the presence of the scion of David. It is thus less a messianic liturgy than a divinely orchestrated redemptive drama on the order of the Exodus.

The minimizing of the Davidic role in the Amidah is reminiscent of the minimizing of the Mosaic role in the Passover Haggadah. By minimizing the role of the human redeemer, both tannaitic-based narratives of redemption highlight that of the divine.

The Amidah thus corresponds to a tendency of rabbinic literature as well as of Qumran literature of downplaying the significance of Davidic rule. In Qumran the major Rule books subject the Davidic Messiah to priestly authority. With regard to the Mishnah, there is not even a mention of a Davidic messiah. TheTosefta, for its part, denies the blessing of David a distinct status by incorporating it into the blessing on the building of Jerusalem. As such, the Palestinian rescension of the Amidah lacked a separate blessing on David, whereas two of the three versions of blessing 14 and one of the Havinenu abridgements make no mention of David at all either in conjunction with the rebuilding of Jerusalem or with the restoration of the Temple. Indeed, a Palestinian amora says explicitly that the Temple will be rebuilt before the appearance of the Davidic monarchy, while the talmudic explanation for the sequence between blessing 14 and 15 simply states: "Once Jerusalem is built, David comes." None of these sources grant the Davidic house any role in precipitating the redemption.

The key player, indeed virtually the only player, is God. The motif of God as redeemer as opposed to a human redeemer appears in the Midrash to underscore the permanence of divine redemption as opposed to the temporary nature of human redemption. The redemptions by temporal beings are temporary.

In contrast to the transient redemptions of human beings, blessing 14 states that God's rebuilding of Jerusalem will last forever (`olam). The point is made explicit in the Midrash: "In the future, I will rebuild her and not destroy her forever (le`olam)." This contrasts starkly with the biblical and sometimes postbiblical ideal of Davidic rule forever. Such a contrast is made all the more poignant by positioning blessing 14 on Jerusalem immediately before blessing 15 on the Sprout of David. It is clear, therefore, that God alone is the redeemer and the restorer of Israel's fortunes. In the same vein, R.Hillel's statement, "Israel has no Messiah," was taken by Rashi to mean: "The Holy One, blessed be He, will reign by Himself and redeem them on His own."

In this emphasis upon exclusive divine redemption the vision of the Amidah harks back to that of the prophets Nahum, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Joel, Malachi, as well as Daniel, and conforms to that of the Mishnah. Like the Mishnah, the Amidah presents redemption as a restorative enterprise. Blessing 10 seeks the return of the dispersed, blessing 11 the restoration of leadership models of yore, blessing 14 the return of God to Jerusalem, and blessing 15 the restoration of the Davidic line (as blessing 17 seeks the restoration of the cult to the Temple and the return of the divine presence to Zion).

In sum, the Amidah, like the Mishnah and the Haggadah, reflects a tannaitic view on redemption that draws upon both prophetic language and perspective in order to present a restorative vision that minimizes human agency while maximizing divine agency.

The eschatological scenario of blessings (10-15) is followed by blessing 16, a blessing on the acceptance of prayer. A blessing for the acceptance of prayer is so much in order that it need not fit any redemptive scheme. Nonetheless, there is a form of blessing 16 that rings with a redemptive chime, and that is its epitome in the Havinenu abridgement of the Amidah. It appears in the form of the following verse -- "Before we call, You will answer; while they are still speaking, I will respond" (Isa. 65:24). This verse of Isaiah marks the advent of redemption. The last part of that chapter presents Isaiah's vision of the eschaton or end. It begins, "Behold I am creating a new heaven and a new earth "and ends with "the wolf and the lamb shall graze together." The citation of such a verse on the acceptance of prayer at the end of an eschatological scenario has the capacity of turning a standard request for prayer to be answered into the finale of the redemptive program of the intermediate blessings. In fact, blessing 16 of The Persian Jewish Prayer Book alludes to Isa. 65:24, saying: "Before we call, You will answer us," and then goes on to cite that hallmark of eschatological hopes: "To You all flesh shall come (Ps.65:3)."

This understanding of the intermediate blessings as a grammar of redemption is confirmed in an ancient Midrash. The Midrash claims that the Eighteen Benedictions are predicated on biblical models of prayers which open with praise of God before turning to the needs of Israel. It states:

A. Thus it begins: "Blessed are You, O Lord our God and God of our fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob."

B. And for the second, it says: "Resurrection of the dead."

C. And for the third, it says: "Sanctification of the Name."

D. Afterwards it says: "Redeem us, O Lord our God, a complete redemption from(before) You.

E. And at the end, it says: "And now we worship [modim] You."

Since A, B, C, and E correspond to blessings 1, 2, 3, and 18, respectively, of the Amidah (see next installment), the request for redemption in D serves to sum up the intermediate set from blessing 4 to 16. Had only one of those blessings been intended, its number would have been mentioned as in the case of the first three, rather than just saying "afterwards." As it is, the "needs of Israel," as the intermediate blessings are called, are epitomized in the request for redemption. The reference to "eighteen benedictions" precludes this epitome from functioning as a single blessing such as the middle blessing of the seven-blessing, Sabbath Amidah. According to this epitome of the Amidah, the central motif is redemption.

In sum, grasping the intermediate blessings as a redemptive scenario leads to grouping them in three units, namely, blessings 4-7, blessings 8-9, and blessings 10-15/16. This sequence of ideas, or clustering of motifs, has a partial parallel in its replacement in the non-daily version of the Amidah.

It reads as follows:

A. Sanctify us by Your commandments,

B. and grant our portion in Your Torah;

C. satisfy us with Your goodness,

D. and cause us to rejoice in Your salvation,

E. and purify our hearts to serve You in truth.