The berater declares that Friedmann's perspective is irrelevant because it is academic, whereas Avraham is following the methodology of the 'Yeshiva world'. Academics concern themselves with variants and with determining the original text, while Yeshiva adherents are enamoured of the received text that has been sanctified by generations of learning. I've heard that claim before, and I find it silly, but if it's followed consistently, at least it doesn't purport to more than it achieves. However, as Friedmann points out in his rejoinder, this new edition is not a reproduction of the standard printed text, since the editor did in fact make use of manuscripts and presents this as one of the main advantages of his edition. In this light, the berater's position seems to be that the Yeshiva world insists on its right to use critical tools haphazardly. Ignoring them would bespeak ignorance, but using them carefully and consistently would apparently betray the values of the Yeshiva world. So a happy compromise is found in mediocrity.
The number of scholars within the "Yeshiva world" who are studying Talmudic philology and other branches of critical Jewish studies, and applying them carefully and successfully to traditional texts and traditional questions is growing. This issue of Ha-Ma'ayan includes a few interesting examples. But the tension is still there. Looking at other articles in the issue, one can find an attempt to resolve a Halakhic question with grave implications for the rule of law in Israel through comparison of manuscripts. On the other hand, in Rav Yoel Katan's regular column which surveys new books in the field, he criticizes the author of Derekh ha-Melekh for citing too many academic sources in a Halakhic context. Of course, there is a big difference between the application of thought to textual criticism and privileging any article published in an academic journal over traditional sources. But the allure of academic Jewish studies is quite bright.
The argument over Sefer ha-Terumah upsets me, partly because I know R Yoel Friedmann, but mostly because the study of medieval Halakhah is one field where the distance between academics and traditional learners is fairly small, and the opportunities for working symbiotically are great.