<html>
<body>
<font size=3>At 05:06 PM 10/14/2015, Micha Berger wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at
12:54:36PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:<br>
: And indeed this has been my question all along. Why did the
Jews<br>
: when they returned to EY adopt the "Golus" practice of
reading the<br>
: Torah yearly as was done in Bavel? Why didn't they go back to
the<br>
: original practice of EY?<br><br>
This is the line of reasoning of R' David Bar-Haim at Machon Shilo<br>
<<a href="http://machonshilo.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://machonshilo.org</a>>. He took it to the logical conclusion,
and<br>
reconstructed Nusach EY from the Cairo Geniza and hints in the
Yerushalmi.<br>
All contemporary nusachos, being derived from that of Rav Amram
Gaon,<br>
are deemed overly golah and inappropriate for EY.<br><br>
If you advocate roling back centuries of practice WRT leining, why<br>
not a millenium of nusach hetefilah? For that matter, in EY, why
don't<br>
they give priority to the pesaqim of the Yerushalmi and only use the<br>
Bavli's pesaqim when the Y-mi has no clear
masqanah?</font></blockquote><br>
There apparently was an established Nusach Ha Tefillah in EY as well as
for other things. It seems to me that this is what they should have
gone back to and not further.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=3>You're asking why
they didn't open a can of worms, in which the kelalei<br>
pesaq would be vastly different than the actual norms (outside of<br>
Machon Shilo).<br>
</blockquote><br>
I do not see this as opening a can of worms, but rather
returning to the mesorah of EY. I must admit that I do not
understand what you mean by "the kelalei pesaq (pesak, I
presume.). <br><br>
Why weren't they concerned about the mesorah of EY. Is it possible
that they did not know what it was? It was certainly easier to
transplant European Chassidic and GRA minhagim than to go back to what
was done before the Jews left EY.<br><br>
YL</font></body>
<br>
</html>