Berakhot 086

5:
The explanation given in the Gemara [Berakhot 28a] (and reviewed by us in the previous shiur) as to why there are nineteen berakhot in the Weekday Amidah and not eighteen, as its name Shemonah-Esreh would imply, does not accord with the historical facts. It seems that the extra berakhah was added in by Babylonian Jewry and is the last berakhah but one of the middle section. It is the berakhah that prays for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty that (now) starts with the Hebrew words Et Tzemaĥ David. Ten years before Nebuchadrezzar's army destroyed the first Bet Mikdash in Jerusalem in the summer of 587 BCE, young King Yehoyakhin of Judah had tried valiantly to stave off the Babylonian onslaught. He came to power during the winter of 598/7 BCE after his father had died (possibly as a result of palace intrigue). His father had baited the Babylonian bear, who now had Jerusalem under siege. The eighteen year-old Yehoyakhin did a deal with Nebuchadrezzar: he and his family and administration would give themselves up as hostages to Babylon provided that Nebuchadrezzar agreed to place his (Yehoyakhin's) uncle on the throne of Judah and raise the siege. Nebuchadrezzar agreed and young Yehoyakhin was led off to a Babylonian cell from which he emerged only at the age of fifty-five! By that time his uncle had squandered the breathing space that Yehoyakhin's unselfish and patriotic action had afforded, had baited the Babylonian bear yet again – and this time the results were disastrous and absolute, as we all know. In Babylonian captivity with Yehoyakhin was his wife and children. After the restoration of some of the Judeans to Eretz-Israel Yehoyakhin's descendants remained in Babylon and eventually became the leaders of Babylonian Jewry with the title of Exilarch [Resh Galuta]. Babylonian Jewry was proud of the fact that the legitimate claimant to the Davidic throne was their secular leader – a situation which continued well into the Middle Ages! Thus it was they who instituted a special berakhah in the Amidah in honour of their leaders and in order to promote their claim to the Davidic throne – whenever it might be re-established.

To be continued.

Jack Edwin Lipinsky writes:

You note that the Shaliach Tzibbur [Cantor] repeats the Amidah at Shacharit, Minchah, and Mussaf on the assumption that there is a person who is unable to do so for themselves. This raises two questions. 1. If an entire kahal is literate, learned, and able to say Tefillah b'lachash for themselves (which evidently is the issue), why is Chazarat HaShatz [Cantor's Repetition] still compulsory? 2. I have heard it said that the original logic in Masechet [Tractate] Rosh Hashana for making the Chazrat HaShatz of Mussaf [on Rosh ha-Shanah] compulsory was because it was complex and unlikely to be well enough known (in those pre-Siddur days) for worshipers to say properly b'lachash. The fact that it was said only once added to the difficulty. One is reminded of the comment in Megillah that people pay attention to Megillah reading because it occurs but once per year. They would therefore listen carefully to the Shatz [Cantor], but wouldn't necessarily have the fluency to recite the Amidah themselves. Is this the case?

I respond:

The presence of a minyan requires a cantor who must repeat the Amidah (even if there is no need to do so). This is a rabbinic Takkanah [law] and its etiology is understandable: I wrote in Berakhot 080:

As far as Jack's second question is concerned: we have already noted [Berakhot 076] that this question is a maĥloket [difference of opinion] between Rabban Gamli'el and the sages. Certainly, Jack's reasoning is that of the sages in this maĥloket – and it is the "working hypothesis" of halakhah to this day.