I’ve read R’ Belsky’s ?????, (the original) and I don’t understand all of it (I would probably need a few weeks to learn the ?????? well enough to begin to understand) but I think I see his overall approach – that he finds it hard to accept that the ??? of the ??”? is not referring to the anisakis worm which is prevalent today. Based on this, he seems to reject every ????? in the ?????, who learn ????? ???? means it actualy originated in the flesh (whether originate is to be meant as spontaneous generation is a side point), and goes with ??”?, according to his understanding.
R’ Falk begins his ????? with this approach, that the ??? of the ??”? must apply today.
I feel that by insisting on this, they are forced to learn the ???? and ??????? in a way which is very much at odds with the normal way one would learn.
R’ Chatzkel Roth, I am told (I haven’t seen or heard of a ?????), also has this approach, but I don’t know if he even has presented a way of explaining the ????.
What we have here, in essence, is not so much a ?????? in the ???? and ??????, but in how literally to treat the words of the ??”?. The ?????? in the ???? and ?????? is merely a by-product.