The Messiah of the Amidah: A Study in Comparative Messianism

Author(s): Reuven Kimelman

Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 116, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 313-320
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3266226
Accessed: 20/10/2010 07:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sbl.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org
JBL 116/2 (1997) 313-324

CRITICALNOTES

THE MESSIAH OF THE AMIDAH:

A STUDY IN COMPARATIVEMESSIANISM

In recent studies of ancient messianism the rabbinic "Eighteen Benedictions,"

now called the Amidah, are conspicuously absent.' This is surprisingin the light of the
vision of nationalredemption found in blessings 10-15.2 It is unlikely that this oversight
is due to the lateness of the text, for althoughthe Mishna and its two commentaries, the
PalestinianTalmud and the BabylonianTalmud, fail to provide a full text of the Amidah,
they do discuss its motifs, concluding perorations,structure,and sequence. Admittedly,
a full text becomes availableonly in the ninth century in the Order of Prayersby Amram
Gaon, known as the Babylonianversion, and that of the fragmentsof the Genizah of the
synagogue of Fostat, Cairo, built in 882, known as the Palestinianversion. (No sweeping
generalizationon which version came first is yet possible.) Nonetheless both versions, in
the main, hark back to the first centuries of the Common Era as their structure and
motifs pervade early liturgical poetry (piyyutim), whereas their angelology and Qed-
dushah/Sanctusare linked to Second Temple literature.3Moreover, as we shall see, the
vision of redemption of the Amidah corresponds to what is known from other sources
about the tannaiticperspective that emerged from 70 CE to 200 CE.
Blessings 10-15 commence with the great shofar'sblast of freedom, announcing
the ingathering of the exiles (10), and continue with the restoration of divine rule
through righteous leaders (11), the meting out of appropriatedeserts to the righteous
and the wicked (12 and 13), the rebuilding of Jerusalem (14), and the return of the
Davidic line (15).4 Since the motifs are all biblical, the distinctive contribution made by

1Neitherit nor"the is indexedinJudaismsandtheirMessiahsat the

EighteenBenedictions"
Turnof the ChristianEra (ed. J. Neusneret al.;Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,1987),
whereasin TheMessiah:Developments in EarliestJudaismandChristianity(ed.J. Charlesworth;
Minneapolis: Fortress,1992)it is indexedoncewithoutcomment.
2 For a
readingof the wholeAmidahas a redemptivetext,see ReuvenKimelman,'The Lit-
eraryStructureof the Amidahandthe Rhetoricof Redemption," in Echoesof ManyTexts:Reflec-
tionsonJewishand ChristianTraditions: Essaysin Honorof LouH. Silberman(ed.W. G. Dever
and E. J. Wright;BJS;Missoula, MT: ScholarsPress, 1977) 171-230.
3 See E. Fleischer,"Studies
in the Structural
Developmentof the Piyyutimha-me'orotve-
ha-'ahavah"(in Hebrew),in SimonHalkinJubileeVolume(Jerusalem, 1975)367-72;andR. Elior,
"FromEarthlyTempleto HeavenlyShrines:PrayerandSacredLiturgyin the HekhalotLiterature
andIts Relationto TempleTraditions" (in Hebrew)Tarbiz64 (1995)341-80.
4 Forthese themes,see Emil Schiirer,The
Historyof theJewishPeoplein the AgeofJesus
Christ(175B.C.-A.D.135) (ed. G.Vermeset al.;3 vols.;Edinburgh:Clark,1973-87)2.526-30.

313
314 Journal of Biblical Literature

this liturgy to the idea of national redemption lies in the particularlinguistic formula-
tion, in the sequence of events, and in the uncompromisingemphasis on divine involve-
ment, all of which converge to make the point that God alone is the redeemer as
opposed to any human redeemer.5
Linguistically,these blessings weave threads of verses from Isaiah, Micah, Zepha-
niah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Malachi, and Psalms into a liturgical tapestry. There is
hardly a word not pronounced by the prophets.6Therefore, it has been suggested that
by reformulatingtheir prophecies into requests, "it is as if the Deity were reminded of
his promise and asked to fulfill it."7The eschatologicalsequence of the Amidahdoes not
match any antecedent or contemporaryscenario.8It is not dictated by any single biblical
text9nor paralleledby any other extrabiblicalscenario,10or for that matter any other rab-
binic liturgicalformulationof eschatology.11A comparisonwith other ancient redemp-
tive scenarios will show how many staples of such scenarios are missing and will
underscore the distinctivenessof the Amidah.Unlike so many other extrabiblicalescha-
tological scenarios, the Amidah is free of apocalyptic elements, whether utopian or

5 For the biblical and extrabiblical

models, see Moshe Weinfeld, "MesopotamianEschato-
logical Prophecies"(in Hebrew), Shenaton,an Annualfor Biblicaland Ancient Near Eastern Stud-
ies 3 (1978) 263-76.
6 See Ze'ev Yawitz, Siddur Avodat ha-Levavot and Sefer Maqor ha-Berakhot (Jerusalem:
Qiryah Ne'emanah, 1966) 2.74-77; and Eliezer Levy, Torat ha-Tefillah (Tel Aviv:AbrahamZioni,
1962) 115-22. B. Meg.17b-18a and y. Ber. 2.4, 4d understandthe sequencing of the Amidah as a
function of verses from Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, and Psalms.
7 Louis Finkelstein, "The
Development of the Amidah,"in Contributions to the Scientific
Study of Jewish Liturgy (ed. J. Petuchowski;New York:Ktav, 1970) 104 (reprinted from JQR 16
[1925-26] 1-43,127-70).
8 This is not
totally surprising,since postbiblicalliteratureas a whole lacks "anyquotations of
the synagogal prayers transmitted by rabbinic traditions"(David Flusser, "Psalms, Hymns, and
Prayer,"in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period [ed. M. Stone; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1984] 576).
9 The use of Ezek 20:34ff. Ismar
by Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy:A ComprehensiveHistory (ed.
R. Scheindlin; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1993; translated from ha-Tefillah be-
Yisraelbe-Hitpathutha-Historit [ed. J. Heinemann et al.;Tel Aviv:Dvir, 1972]) 30 (Hebrew, p. 26)
to account for the sequence of blessings 10, 11, and 13 fails to correlatetheir sequences adequately.
A similarfailure obtains in the effort of Ben Zion Wachholder,Messianismand Mishnah:Timeand
Place in the Early Halakhah (Cincinnati:Hebrew Union College Press, 1978) 27-28.
10Be it that of Ben Sira,Jubilees, Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Psalms of Solomon, Tobit, the
Jewish Sibyllines,or the Dead Sea Scrolls;see the comprehensive surveyin Schiirer,History of the
Jewish People, vol. 2, chap. 29. The Hebrew Ben Sira 51:12ff. is inadequate to account for the
sequence, limited as it is to blessings 7, 10, 14, and 15. Moreover,its absence from the Greek and
Syriacversions casts doubt on whether the Hebrew version is priorto the Amidah;see ArthurMar-
morstein, "JesusSirach 51:12ff.,"ZAW 29 (1909) 287-93; and Solomon Zeitlin, '"TheTefillah, the
Shemoneh Esreh: A Historical Study of the First Canonization of the Hebrew Liturgy,"JQR 54
(1963-64) 208-49, 241. More important is the fact that no dependency can be established, since
too many of the expressions that parallel the Amidah are also paralleled in the Bible; see Patrick
Skehan and Alexander Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1986) 570.
11Joseph Heinemann, Studies in Jewish Liturgy (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981)
68-73.
 Critical Notes 315

catastrophic, symptomatic of which is the absence of any reference to the book of

Daniel. Its sobriety verges on the Maimonidean.12But even Maimonideshad to reverse
the order of the Amidah in order to come up with a Messiahwho can "restorethe king-
dom of David .. ., rebuild the Temple, and gather the dispersed of Israel."13
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 rebuildsJerusalem.
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, 0 Lord,who causes the horn of salvationto flourish.14
Note the absence of the term "Messiah,"'5and the minimal role of the "Sproutof

12See IsadoreTwersky,Introductionto the Codeof Maimonides(MishnehTorah)(New

Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 1980) 451 n. 231; and David Hartman,Crisisand Leadership:
Epistlesof Maimonides JewishPublication
(Philadelphia: Society,1985)171-86.
13MishnehTorah,Lawsof KingsandWars11.1;see JoelL. Kramer,"OnMaimonides' Mes-
sianicPosture,"in Studiesin MedievalJewishHistoryandLiterature(ed. I. Twersky;Cambridge,
MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1984)2.124-26.Froma Maimonidean perspective,the blessingon
the rebuildingof Jerusalemprecedingthatof the sproutof Davidis especiallyproblematic;see
DanielSperber,MinhageiYisrael(Jerusalem: MossadHaravKook,1995)4.16-17 n. 23.
14 Thesetwoblessingsareconflatedin the Genizahversion:
14. Have compassion,O Lord,our God, in Yourabundantmercy,on IsraelYour
People,andon JerusalemYourcity,andZion,the abodeof Yourglory,anduponthe
royalseed of David,Yourjustlyannointed.BlessedareYou,O Lord,Godof David,
Rebuilderof Jerusalem.
See nextnote.
15 In contrast to the
frequency of redemptive motifs in the liturgy,the term n'ri is compara-
tively rare;see Flusser, "The Reflection of Jewish Messianic Beliefs in Early Christianity,"113-14.
Although Menorat Ha-Maor, ed. H. Enelow, 2.133, refers to blessing 15 as rn'rn nrn,, Louis
Ginzberg argued for its post-talmudic provenance (A Commentaryon the Palestinian Talmud [in
Hebrew] [4 vols.; New York:Jewish Theological Seminary, 1941-61] 3.244). The expression n'~
1l7 p-r i 1P ("Messiah,son of David Yourservant")appearsin the holiday insertion to the Amidah,
ya'aleh ve-yavo (Seder Rav Amram Gaon [ed. D. Goldschmidt;Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook,
1971] 86), but is absent in another Genizah version (Ezra Fleischer, Prayer and Prayer Rituals As
Portrayed in the Geniza Documents [in Hebrew] [Jerusalem:Magnes, 1988] 96). The expression
:nR nsri ("MayHe causeHis salvationto flourishandbringnigh His messiah")
nrrnc :np', ':1
appearsalreadyin the Genizahversionof the Kaddish(ibid.,245).Blessing14of the Genizahver-
inn'r n' : mn:9("thekingshipof
sionof the Palestinianrescensionof the Amidahreads: pl jrt'
the houseof DavidYourtrulyannointed"), messianic.Suchis alsothe case
whichis notnecessarily
with regard to its presence in the Haftarah blessing and in the second blessing of the Grace after
meals, independent of their interpolationin their present context; see Finkelstein, "Development
of the Amidah,"135-36.
In the light of the minor role assigned to the Sprout of David in the Amidah, the absence of
the term rnrt is likely intentional unless the Amidahis simply hewing to the idiom of the Bible with
its lack of any eschatological meaning thereof; see Franz Hesse, "chrio,etc.," TDNT 9.501-5; and
Jacob Liver, n'rt, EnsiqlopediyahMiqra'it, 5.508ff. After all, the term itself is absent from most of
the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, from Philo, and from Josephus. It primarily appears in the
316 Journal of Biblical Literature

David," despite its pregnant biblical antecedents.16Of these antecedents, the closest is
that of Zech 3:8, which employs both the term "sprout"(nn:) 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 (Jer 23:5-6;
33:14-16), a function that is in line with its use as a royaltitle.17
In Qumran, the importance of "the sprout"is just as pronounced. Column 5 of
4QpGena expresses hope for a Davidic messiah based on the everlastingvalidity of the
Davidic covenant. It equates the Sproutof David with the Prince of the community and
the "just anointed one" to whom is given the "covenant of kingship." 4QSerek Ha-
Milhamah (4Q285) and 4QpIsaa assign him a militaryrole 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 savingIsrael in a
manner recalling God's role in Deut 20:2-4 and Num 10:9.184QFlorilegium 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 Qumrantexts attest to the
prominence of the epithet "sproutof David."19
As for the Amidah, "the Sprout of David Your servant"appearswithout any refer-
ence to name or to ruling function.20He does not teach, determine pedigrees, conduct
wars, resurrect the dead, judge, or markan age of travail.Appearingonly after God has
reassembled the dispersed (blessing 10),21restored divine rule through righteous lead-

Psalms of Solomon, the Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and in the Qumran Dead Sea
Scrolls;see JamesH. Charlesworth,
"FromJewishMessianology Some
to ChristianChristology:
Caveats and Perspectives,"in Judaisms and Their Messiahsat the Turn of the Christian Era (ed. J.
Neusner,W. Green,andE. Frerichs;New York:CambridgeUniversityPress,1987)225-64, esp.
250.
16See Yawitz,Siddur,2:77; Levy, ToratHa-Tefillah,122;JayBaldwin,"$emah as a Technical
Term in the Prophets,"VT 14 (1964) 93-97; and David Flusser,Judaism and the Origins of Chris-
tianity (Jerusalem:Magnes, 1981) 149.
17 See Michael Fishbane, Biblical
Interpretationin Ancient Israel (Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press, 1985) 472 n. 36; and Moshe Weinfeld,Justice and Righteousnessin Israel and the Nations (in
Hebrew) (Jerusalem:Magnes, 1985) 35 n. 9.
18For a comprehensive discussion of this evidence, see Kenneth E. Pomykala,The Davidic
Dynasty Traditionin Early Judaism:Its History and Significancefor Messianism(Atlanta:Scholars
Press, 1995) 171-216; and Martin G. Abegg, Jr., "MessianicHope and 4Q285: A Reassessment,"
JBL 113 (1994) 81-91.
'9For an analysis of the Qumran material that maximizes its messianic significance, see
John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahsof the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient
Literature (New York:Doubleday, 1995) 56-68.
20 Even if "servant"serves as a
royal designation,it would still underscore the subsidiaryrole
of this scion of David. In any case, the term is missing from so many of the early versions that little
can be made of its presence; see Finkelstein, "Development of the Amidah,"165; and Yechezkel
Luger,'The Weekday 'AmidahBased on the Genizah" (Ph.D. thesis; 2 vols.; Bar Ilan University,
Ramat Can, 1992) 1.184.
21 Contrast Gen. Rab. 98:9:
"Whydoes the messianic king come? And what does he come to
do? It is to gather together the exiles of Israel";and the targumim (Tg. Isa 6:13; 42:1, 7). On the
other hand, SederEliahu Zuta (ed. M. Friedmann)38 n. 21, as the Amidah,locates the ingathering
 Critical Notes 317

ers (blessing 11),22meted out the appropriatedeserts to the righteous and the wicked
(blessings 12 and 13), and rebuilt Jerusalem (blessing 14),23it is clear that the appear-
ance of the Messiah marksthe culminationof 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 lQRule of the Blessings
(1QSb). There is a similarlack of any allusion to Daniel 7 in contrastto 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. 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 llQMelchi-
zedek (11Q13).24Clearly,the "Sproutof David"in the Amidahis neither a priestly mes-
siah, 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 restorationof political autonomy (blessing
11) or have been integrated into it. By coming four blessings later, the advent of the
Davidic scion is disjoined from the hope for political autonomy and restoration as if it
were a separate agendum. Even strangeris the paradoxof 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, appearsin the third stro-
phe of each blessing. In blessing 11 it goes as follows: (1) Restore ourjudges 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].25
And in blessing 15 it goes as follows: (1) Cause to flourishthe shoot of Yourservant
David. (2) May his horn be exalted by Your salvation.(3) For it is to Your salvationthat
we have hoped for every day.26In both cases, what is granted to the human role in the
first strophe is transferredto the divine role in the third.

of the dispersedpriorto the appearanceof the Messiah.Forthe generalthemeof the gatheringof

the dispersed,see Schiirer,HistoryoftheJewishPeople,2.530.
22The
precisemeaningor referenceof thisblessingis unclear;see Elbogen,JewishLiturgy,
29-30 (Hebrew, 25-26); Ginzberg, Commentaryon the Palestinian Talmud, 1.185-86, 3.325-27;
DavidFlusser,"Someof the Preceptsof the TorahfromQumran(4QMMT)andthe Benediction
Againstthe Heretics"(in Hebrew),Tarbiz61 (1992)333-74,367-68,withliteraturein notes;and
the comprehensivetreatmentof Luger,'"Weekday 'AmidahBasedon the Genizah,"1.135-48.
23 For these themes, see Schiirer,History of the
Jewish People, 2.526-29.
24See MichaelA. Knibb,"Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha
in the Lightof the Scrolls,"
DeadSeaDiscoveries2 (1995)169-74.
25FollowingMahzorVitry,R. Simhahben Samuel,ed. S. Horowitz(MekizeNirdamim,
1923;reprint,Jerusalem:Alef, 1963)67. Boththe PalestinianGenizahversionandthatof Mai-
monides(see E. D. Goldschmidt,OnJewishLiturgy[in Hebrew][Jerusalem:Magnes,1980]
p. 199, line 21) containthe words ::5 nnls,whereas '1: ';r
1rtn is missingfrom SiddurR.
SaadyaGaon(R.SaadyaGaon,ed. I. Davidson,S. Asaf,andB.Joel[Jerusalem: MekizeNirdamim,
1970]18),andfroma versionof SederRavAmramGaon,p. 25, butnotfromothers.
318 Journalof Biblical Literature

By highlighting near the beginning of the eschatological scenario God's exclusive

rule (blessing 11), the appearanceof 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 alone27despite the presence
of biblical-typerulers as in Isa 1:26, so blessing 15 underscores our hope in divine salva-
tion despite the presence of the scion of David. It is thus less a messianic liturgy28than a
divinely orchestratedredemptive dramaon the order of the exodus.
This minimizing of the Davidic role in the Amidah is reminiscent of the minimiz-
ing the Mosaic role in the Passover Haggadah. By minimizingthe role of the human
of
redeemer, both tannaitic-basednarrativesof 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
majorRule books subject the Davidic Messiah to priestly authority.9With regardto the
Mishna, there is not even a mention of a Davidic messiah.30The Tosepta, for its part,
denies the blessing of David a distinct status by incorporatingit into the blessing on the
building of Jerusalem (t. Ber. 3.25). Thus, the Palestinian rescension of the Amidah
lacked, at one time, a separate blessing on David,31whereas one of its versions of the
Havinenu abridgment makes no mention of David at all either in conjunction with the
rebuilding of Jerusalem or with the restoration of the Temple (y. Ta'an. 2:4, 75c).
Indeed, a Palestinian amora says explicitly that the Temple will be rebuilt before the
appearance of the Davidic monarchy(R. Aha, y. Ma'as. 9. 5.2, 56a), while the explana-
tion for the sequence of blessings 14 and 15 simply states: "Once Jerusalem is built,

26Thisstropheis missingfromthe Genizahversion,Maimonides,

andthe printedversionof
SederRavAmramGaon, butis presentin manuscript versions.
27The same emphasis appears in the eschatological vision of the Testamentof Moses: "For
God Most High will surge forth, the Eternal One alone. In full view will He come to work
vengeance on the nations"(10:7). The observationof Charlesworththat the emphasis on "the Eter-
nal One alone, is conceivably an antimessianic pronouncement" ("From Jewish Messianology to
ChristianChristology,"251) applies as well to the Amidah'sformulation,especially in view of the
absence of a supportingbiblicalverse for this strophe.
28 Cf. Steven S.
Schwarzchild,"The Messianic Doctrine in ContemporaryJewish Thought,"
in Great Jewish Ideas (ed. A. Millgram;Washington, DC: B'nai B'rith, 1964) 237-59, 246-47;
idem, "On Jewish Eschatology," in The Human Condition in Jewish and Christian Traditions
(Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1986) 171-211, 197 n. 7; and Ismar Elbogen, "Die Messianische Idee in den
alten jiidischen Gebeten," in Festschriftzu Herman Cohens siebzigsten Geburtstage(Berlin, 1912)
669-79.
29 As noted
by John J. Collins, "'He Shall Judge by What His Eyes See': Messianic Authority
in the Dead Sea Scrolls,"Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995) 157-60. Compare Schiirer, History of the
Jewish People, 2.517-25.
30 See
Jacob Neusner, "Mishnahand Messiah,"in Judaismsand Their Messiahs at the Turn
of the Christian Era, 267; and Lawrence Schiffman, "Neusner's Messiah in Context,"JQR 77
(1987) 240-43. With regard to Neusner's position in general, see Craig A. Evans, "Mishna and
Messiah 'In Context':Some Comments on Jacob Neusner's Proposals,"JBL112 (1993) 267-89.
31 See Shraga Abramson, Inyyanot Be-Sifrut Ha-Geonim (Jerusalem:Mossad Harav Kook,
1974) 150-55; Flusser, "Someof the Precepts of the Torahfrom Qumran(4QMMT) and the Bene-
diction Against the Heretics," 369 n. 144; and Luger, "Weekday'AmidahBased on the Genizah,"
1.182-84.
 Critical Notes 319

Davidcomes"(b. Meg.17b).None of thesesourcesgrantthe Davidichouseanyrolein

precipitatingthe redemption.32
The key player,indeed virtuallythe only player,is God. The motif of God as
redeemeras opposedto a humanredeemerappearsin the Midrashto underscorethe
permanenceof divine redemptionas opposed to the temporarynature of human
redemption.33 The redemptionsof temporalbeingsaretemporary.
In contrastto the transientredemptionsof humanbeings,blessing14 statesthat
God'srebuildingof Jerusalemwill lastforever('oldm).34 The pointis madeexplicitin
the Midrash:"Inthe future,I willrebuildher andnot destroyher forever(l'coldm)."35
Thiscontrastsstarklywiththe biblicalandsometimespostbiblicalidealof Davidicrule
forever.36Sucha contrastis madeall the morepoignantby positioningblessing14 on
Jerusalemimmediatelybeforeblessing15 on the Sproutof David.It is clear,therefore,
thatGodaloneis the redeemerandthe restorerof Israel'sfortunes.In the samevein,R.
Hillel'sstatement"Israelhas no Messiah" wastakenby Rashito mean:"TheHolyOne,
blessedbe He, willreignby Himselfandredeemthemon His own"(b. Sanh.99a).37In
this emphasison exclusivedivineredemption,the visionof the Amidahharksbackto
thatof the prophetsNahum,Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Joel,Malachi,aswellas Daniel,and
conformsto that of the Mishna.38 Likethe Mishna, Amidahpresentsredemptionas
the
a restorativeenterprise.Blessing10 seeksthe returnof the dispersed,blessing11 the
restorationof leadershipmodelsof yore,blessing14the returnof Godto Jerusalem,and
blessing15 the restoration of the Davidicline (asblessing17 seeksthe restorationof the
cultto the Templeandthe returnof the divinepresenceto Zion).

32The followingoverreading of the Davidicrolein the Amidahis thussurprising:

"[1]Hope
forthe restoration of Jerusalemis heretiedto the hopethatthe Davidicdynastywillbe revived.[2]
Themessianickingwillrulefromthe capitalof the renewedIsrael;[3]he willbringsalvationto his
peopleby deliveringthemfromtheirenemies,theirRomanoverlords" (GeorgeNickelsburgand
MichaelStone,Faithand Pietyin EarlyJudaism:Textsand Documents[Philadelphia: Fortress,
1983]197).The firstassertionreversesthe orderof events;the secondis not madeexplicitly;and
the thirdis erroneous.
33See Pesiq.RabKah.21.3,ed. B. Mandelbaum, p. 320 andparallels,alongwithMek.,Be-
Shalah,Shir[a]ta1, ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 118.
34 As
opposedto its absencein parallelprayers;see JosephHeinemann,Prayerin the Period
of Tanna'imandAmora'im(in Hebrew)(Jerusalem:
the Magnes,1964)48-51. Theuse of Coldmin
Isa35:10is takenthe samewaybyPesiq.R.37, ed. M. Friedmann, p. 164;andPesiq.RabKah.,ed.
B. Mandelbaum, 2.470.The emphasison the eternityof divineruleas opposedto humanruleis
reflectedalsoin Dan7:27.
35 Midr.Tanhuma, Noah11;ibid.,ed. S. Buber,17.Jer17:25alreadyholdsout the promise
of the eternityof Jerusalem.
36As documented
by JonathanGoldstein,I Maccabees(AB41A;GardenCity,NY:Double-
day, 1983) 240-41.
37
Accordingto Ginzberg (Commentaryon the Palestinian Talmud,4.183), it is precisely this
emphasison Godas redeemerthatexplainsthe absenceof the expression"bringsa redeemer"in
the firstblessingof the Palestinian
version.
38 As in otherareas,the claimof a distinctivemishnaicpositionso often turnsout to be a
reflectionof its biblicalprecedent(see JacobMilgrom,Leviticus1-16 [AB3; New York:Double-
day,1991]485-87, 1004-9).
320 Journal of Biblical Literature

In sum, the Amidah,like the Mishnaand the Haggadah, reflects a tannaiticview of

redemption that draws upon both prophetic language and perspective in order to pre-
sent a restorativevision that minimizeshuman agency while maximizingdivine agency.39
Reuven Kimelman
BrandeisUniversity,Waltham, MA 02254-9110

39In the
lightof the commonbiblicalandQumranicmaterial,we shouldresistthe tempta-
tionto "explain" as a reflexof the BarKokhbadebacle.
the formulation