Let us leave aside the many philosophical questions involved in making requests of God in prayer and focus on the content of these requests. Petition allows for varying degrees of specificity. One approach, simply asking “thy will be done” (to borrow a phrase from Christian scriptures), has several advantages. We do not brazenly tell God what to do or ask for things that might conflict with the divine plan. Instead, we only ask God to carry out his purpose. On the other hand, such a general prayer seems lacking and bland. Moreover, our amida apparently endorses more specific requests.

In Sefer Shoftim, the Jews pray to God during a military conflict with Amon. They say: “Do to us as is good in your eyes” but they immediately follow that with “but please save us today.” A concrete request follows the general petition for God to do as He sees fit. Furthermore, Malbim’s reading of the verse nullifies any parallel to “thy will be done.” According to Malbim, the Jews admit their sin and ask for God to chastise them Himself rather than leave them in human hands for punishment. They do not ask God to do his will; they want Him to replace the Amonites as the agent of punishment.

One Talmudic source might also tend in the direction of very general petition. The gemara in Brachot (29b) states that someone walking in a dangerous area should pray a shortened prayer. R. Eliezar offers the following text for this abridged service. “Do your will in heaven above, and grant contentment to those that fear you below, and do what is good in your eyes. Blessed are you God who hears prayer.” Yet here too the middle section of the prayer includes a specific request. Additionally, halacha only endorses this prayer for someone in need of a quick service due to danger. Arguably, it does not reflect our normal notion of proper prayer.

R. Yosef Albo discusses this question in his Sefer haIkarim (4:24). He begins by noting various reasons why God does not always answer our requests in the affirmative. We may not be worthy of receiving a particular good. An affirmative answer may infringe upon someone else’s good. Finally, the good we envision may actually be bad for us. Due to this last possibility, R. Albo exhibits some sympathy for the more general kind of request. If only God knows what is good for us, we should make requests from Him in a more general fashion.

Some philosophic conceptions of petition lead us in a different direction. Rav Soloveitchik famously contends that petitions help those praying realize their most authentic needs. Form that perspective, a general “thy will be done” would fail to generate the proper understanding. R. Soloveitchik also argues that those who do not pray to relieve their own suffering will ultimately grow indifferent to the sufferings of others (see “Redemption, Prayer, Talmud Torah,” Tradition Spring 1978). That line of reasoning also creates a need to explicitly articulate our requests for salvation.

Perhaps the petitions in our amida lie somewhere in the middle of the potential continuum. We itemize certain things we want and do not merely say “thy will be done.” On the other hand, we do so in a general fashion. We ask God for sustenance without telling Him which particular business deal should go through. In this way, we maintain some balance between our need to ask and humble acknowledgment of God’s governance.