He came out with this (and more in the sources below), and it is not appropriate to say that he came out with this only in hindsight, in the sense of hindsight that God forbade him to act like this in the first place, it is not appropriate to say yes, since all of them are correct formulas from the first and were cited in the Shoah and the New Testament, but what is recommended is To behave regularly like the people of his community, and if he knows his father's custom in this, some say that it is preferable to behave according to his father's customs, and if he is a penitent, some say that he is not bound by his father's custom and can behave according to the custom of his sages in this way, and some of the judges mean that in their words, even a repentant person is better off acting according to his father's custom, and some of the judges who mentioned that it is not appropriate to mix formulas but to say everything in the same formula and not to combine them.
And the main point in all of this, as far as it pertains to Halacha, is that if there is something in which the original wording is known, it is appropriate to say the original wording, and in something that has several correct formulas, if he has a clear community to which he belongs, he will act according to the customs of that community, and the rest of the things mentioned are matters and recommendations on the part of leadership, and retrospective matter does not belong to them.
Sources: In the language of the scribes and the sources, I extended the Shu'at with Segulah, and in the Lichash, a prayer and in the language of the scribes that were cited in the book Gadoli Dorot on Mishmar Ashkenaz custom.
And in completing the things, it should be noted in the context of what the questioner is clarifying, does it belong retrospectively in a wording change, i.e. does it belong to say that it comes out only in retrospect, and the answer to this, Dahann, is that we accepted a wording change to Didan that is only in retrospect, as explained in the commentary to the halacha ss 12z and in other places and akmal, However, since there are several correct formulas here and all of the Mishnav C. 6 concerning another change between two formulas as far as God forbid delete one of them (since both are correct), this cannot be said to have been done retrospectively if he did it according to the Rambam instead of according to the Rabbi (i.e. in the above-mentioned Mishnav C. regarding the matter of the settlement if it opens, etc.), and despite the fact that the language mentioned in the Mishnav regarding the builder of Jerusalem, the latter does not hinder at all, i.e. according to the Rama's opinion that it should be said that he builds Jerusalem with his mercy is not Impeding if in retrospect he did not say, and also according to the Hagra that in the first place it should be said that he is building Jerusalem is not impeding if he said he is building Jerusalem in his mercy, but to Dan what is the angel Michael to me and what is to me the angel Gabriel 4. The formulas are correct to Dan, and what belongs in retrospect if he acted as a different method, but if he belongs Any community is subject to the discussion here of not congregating, and even though there is a B2D here in one city [i.e. Yavmot Yad], if one belongs to a certain community it must be discussed, and what the Hagam has allowed is not allowed to heal a community member A who acts in a certain way as members of another community in a way that is evidently not doing according to the custom of his community, this is because all those belonging to his community practice the same (such as A from Lithuania who practices in Parhasya B. Nakvim in his Talito).
And in body L of the above-mentioned Mishnav regarding the builder of Jerusalem, it should be noted that the model of the language in retrospect is a language that has degrees, and like what Damari' in the Gm' mitzvah regarding the obligation of permission to say to her, and the matter of everything, if he came to the king we would tell him to do so, Doing otherwise is considered backward, but something that if he came to the king we would say to him do this and if you wish do that is already another level of backwardness, and is not really backward like the above-mentioned first kind of backwardness, and in the Nidd, if he came to the king we would say to him bless As a certain opinion, and if you want to bless as a certain opinion, we find a model of what the Mishnav mentioned to a tongue in retrospect, perhaps not completely in retrospect, as it remains in hindsight in other places, and therefore the accuracy of the Mishnav in retrospect does not hinder at all.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 5142 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/5142
