[Mesorah] New Shtick

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 11:30:11PM +0000, R. Rich Wolpoe wrote:
: «Saying that revision isn't a bad thing doesn't mean there are no other issues on the table. Why are they revising? Is the new actually improved, or just the insertion of a mistake?»
: 
: I get it - it kinda reminds me of l'mashall
: 
: *I* like food
: *You*  overeat
: *He's*  a glutton <smile>
: 
: Similalry the Nimshal:
: 
: *I* restore the text
: *You* add questionable changes
: *He* introduces corruptions
: <Smile> 

Well, when "he" changes the diqduq because he assumes Tefillah was written
to conform to what he finds in Tanakh when instead it conforms to the
diqduq of Anshei Keneses haGedolah, Chazal and the Geonim, then yes, he
erred.

: So which revisions / restorations are good and which are bad?

Each would require an article in its own right. And even then there would
be multiple right answers depending on judgments calls (do I want to say
"the world which He created as He wanted" or "May He be great ... as He
desires") and the multiplicity of nusachos would continue.

Given that the halachic process, in retrospect, even tolerated the
birth of the Chassidic "Sfard" and Ari, one either has to reject what
was in practice accepted, or create a theory of valid nusach that is
broad enough to fit the data of what we blessed as valid.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha at aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507