229.See Igrot Moshe and Resp. Aderet Tiferet, supra, note 123; Mishne Halakhot, IX, sec. 262, and Mahadura Tinyana, II, Y.D., sec. 119; R. Solomon Sobel, Salma Hadasha, Mahadura Tinyana, Haftarat Toledot (cited in R. Jacob Yehizkiya Fisch, Titein Emet leYa’akov, sec. 5, no. 36); R. David Cohen, conversation with Aryeh A. Frimer and Dov I. Frimer, March 20, 1995; Rabbi Zelig Epstein, conversation with Aryeh A. Frimer and Noach Dear, March 8, 1996.
230.In discussing the prohibition to forbid that which is permitted (see infra, note 232), R. Shabtai haKohen, Siftei Kohen, Y.D., end of sec. 242, Kitsur beHanhagat Hora’ot Issur veHeter, no. 9, writes: “Therefore, if [a posek] must prohibit because he is in doubt or because of a stringency in a matter which is not clear as the sun, he must notify [the questioner] that the prohibition is not clear-cut, but that we must nevertheless be stringent.” Sedei Hemed, Aleph, kelal 214, “Asur la-asor et haMutar,” citing Shakh, states that the same is true if the prohibition is based on a “humra be-alma” (non-obligatory stringency), because otherwise the stringency may well lead to future error. See also R. Joseph Elijah Henkin, Teshuvot Ivra, sec. 52, no. 3 (in Kitvei haGri Henkin, II) and the discussion of R. Ephraim Meir Lasman, cited in Resp. Seridei Eish, I, sec. 6, subsect. a, s.v. “Kedei le-kayyeim.”
231.R. Yehuda Herzl Henkin, Resp. Benei Vanim, I, sec. 37, no. 12, strongly advises against upgrading a prohibition, since such misrepresentation most often results in gossip, hate, unlawful leniencies in other areas, hillul Hashem, and a total loss of trust in rabbinic authority should the truth become known. (This despite the fact that, as mentioned in the Addendum section of this paper, Parts 5 and 6, R. Y.H. Henkin maintains that when a posek upgrades a prohibition for just cause, there is no prohibition of either bal Tosif or lying). Similar views are expressed by Resp. Torah liShma, sec. 371; R. Moses Jehiel Weiss, Beit Yehezkel, p. 77; R. Abraham Isaac haKohen Kook, infra, note 232; R. Joseph Elijah Henkin, supra, note 230; R. Haim David Halevi, responsum to Aryeh A. Frimer, dated 7 Shevat 5756 – published in Resp. Mayyim Hayyim, III, sec.55; and R. David Feinstein, conversation with Aryeh A. Frimer and Dov I. Frimer, March 19, 1995. See also the commentary of Radbaz to M.T., Melakhim 6:3, where even normally permitted lying is forbidden lest it result in hillul Hashem should the truth be discovered. Similarly, in discussing Sanhedrin 29a and the cause of Adam and Eve’s sin (see the Addendum section of this paper, Part 5), R. Hanokh Zundel, Eits Yosef, ad loc., s.v. “Ma,” comments that one must be particularly careful how a stringency and its rationale are formulated,