This is the back and forth, ubiquitin: “I dont think i am saying anything that crazy. Here it is in short. We practice the way our parents practiced we dont introduce new innovations even if they seem correct.”
To which I answered, “You simply miss the point. This issue is not innovation.”
And then you answered, “That is one issue. there are others.”
I think that this just demonstrates that you are a moving target.
ubiquitin: “Yes obviously. Do you think I meant the chazon Ish would have held if a munuscript says not to do avodah zarah, we should all start? I meant the Chazon Ish didnt support uprooting existing practice based on manuscripts.”
Just to quote someone, “Then it was abit dishonest for you to leave it out.” In any case, this issue has nothing to do with manuscripts.
I wrote, “This should never be said over in his name. This statement reflects extremely poor on him.”
To which you answered, “you are without question entitled o your opinion. I (and r’ Yoshe ber) disagree”
Right, the Rambam manuscript from that same genizah is also from the garbage. This just demonstrates that when a Brisker makes an argument, the facts are irrelevant. The entire premise that genizah is a garbage can, is ridiculous, and simply not true.