DY: “I believe the OU is probably being meikil with some sort of tziruf, as R’ Moshe does. I will bl”n try to ask R’ Belsky”
go ahead and ask, but I posted what he wrote, and it is clearly NOT a Tziruf. He disputes any grounds for Chumra, and cites Reb Moshe as agreeing.
“You are making the m”S worse than the akum by attributing to the Sha”ch the possibility that he was menasech to A”Z. The Sha”ch, in fact was not reffering to a m”S at all so no inference can be made from his words”
NO, the Shach would have to say the same for an Akum; the possibility remains that he was menasech. He clearly defined Stam Yainam as requiring some possibility of Nisuch.
“He is unsure of what the Sha”ch held”
Where do you see that?