u-be-Et ha-Hadashah, Emanuel Etkes and Yosef Salmon, eds. (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980), 273-286; Jacob Katz, The Unhealed Breach: The Secession of Orthodox Jewry from the General Community in Hungary and Germany (Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1994 – see especially Chapter 8.
R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes, Darkei Hora’a, siman 6, first footnote, argues that it is forbidden to call a rabbinic edict a biblical prohibition because it violates not only bal tosif (see Addendum, Part 5) but also “mi-dvar sheker tirhak”—“From untruthfulness, distance thyself” (Exodus 23:7). Similarly, R. Chayim Hirschensohn. Resp. Malki baKodesh, II, sec. 4, p. 13, charges those rabbis who forbid women to become involved in politics with violating both bal tosif and lying. R. Chaim Soloveitchik of Brisk, cited in Nefesh haRav, p.178, maintains that even Ra’avad (note 227 and Addendum, Part 5) agrees that “mi-dvar sheker tirhak” forbids the rabbis to claim that a rabbinic injunction is biblical. Accordingly, Rambam and Ra’avad disagree only whether it is permitted to be as stringent when dealing with a custom or rabbinic injunction as one would be were the prohibition biblical. R. Jacob Israel Kanievsky, Keraina deIggarta, letter 203, pp. 219-220, refuting the suggestion that it is forbidden to take part in elections in the secular State of Israel, writes: “. . . And your Honor should know that even to be zealous, it is forbidden to teach Torah not according to the halakha (Avot V:8), and that which is not true will not succeed at all.” (Regarding the citation from Avot V:8, see note 232.) In an a responsum to Aryeh A. Frimer, dated 7 Shevat 5756 and published in Resp. Mayyim Hayyim, III, sec. 55, Rabbi Haim David Halevi prohibits a posek from misrepresenting halakha and/or giving an erroneous reason for a prohibition for two basic reasons: (1) the biblical prohibition of “mi-dvar sheker tirhak” and (2) a total loss of trust in rabbinic authority would result should the truth become known (see note 231). See also the related opinions of Rabbis Ehrenberg, Rogeler and Sobel cited below.
Several posekim dissent, arguing, on various grounds, that “mi-dvar sheker tirhak” is not applicable to cases where halakha is misrepresented so as to prevent future violations of Jewish law. Some argue that the dispensation to modify the truth in order to maintain peace (me-shanim mi-penei ha-shalom, Yevamot 65b) also applies to misrepresenting halakha in order to maintain peace between kelal Yisrael and the Almighty (cf. end of Addendum, Part 5 and note 231). See R. Solomon Ephraim, Keli Yakar, Deut. 17:11, s.v. “Lo tasur” at end; R. Samuel Kalai, Resp. Mishpetei Shemuel, sec. 120, p. 157—cited by R. Hayyim Palagi, HeHafeits Hayyim, sec. 19, no. 30; R. Barukh Frankel Te’omim, Resp. Ateret Hakhamim, E.H. sec. 29; Resp. Torah liShma, sec. 371; R. Isaac Rudnick, Sefer Sede Yitshak, Responsa,