The entire rabbinic enterprise is built upon an assumption of the accuracy of transmitted oral traditions. Rabbis are bound to the wording of the traditions they receive. However, this does not stop the rabbis from interpreting texts in ways that seem to violate authorial intent. From a modern perspective this may seem problematic, but creative interpretation was understood as a legitimate mechanism for achieving a desired outcome. While this already may reflect a case of rewriting history, in this paper I treat an even more egregious set of examples marked by the phrases חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני and אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר – “the text is lacking and should be taught thus” and “if [this tradition] was stated, it was stated thus.”  Both of these phrases provide an alternative wording for an earlier rabbinic tradition in order to make it conform with a desired interpretation. I argue that these phrases violate the core rabbinic value of accuracy of transmission by acknowledging that the received wording of a statement cannot be contorted to fit a desired interpretation, and nevertheless rewriting it – even when there are other viable interpretations still under consideration. These cases shed light on how the rabbis thought about the key issues of history and truth.