The law of one who is strict with himself and does not eat what is annulled by the majority

Between the Delilah and the Bloody Megilla, life and peace to the great genius of the Grammada shone forth and appeared.

In what way did Mr. Debdik discuss in his last lesson the issue of a law that is strict on itself and does not accept what has been overturned by a majority?

Here is my understanding of the books and I found that Rabbi Teshuvot and HaNagatot brought Mr. Madin's proof of 'something that is permissible,' and again rejected this evidence.
And the content of his words is that one should not be strict in annulment because it is permissible from the outset. And what they have made strict in the law of the Prophet is for the reason they found in it (so that they will not learn to be lenient and annul from the outset), and not because of any prohibitions in it.

(Z"l Rabbi M. Sternbuch: Question: A prohibition that is abrogated if it is permissible to eat it initially

In the opening verses of Teshuvah (Sus"i 116), he cites a dispute among the poskim about whether it is permissible to be strict about something that was abrogated by sixty, since the Sages permitted it as heresy, since the Lord and the "Torah of Hashem" disagreed on this, and apparently there is clear evidence from the principle of the law that something that is permissible is not abrogated, and Rashi interpreted in Bitza (3b): "Whatever you eat with prohibition, you eat with permission," meaning that it is not advisable to eat something that was abrogated by a majority.

And in my opinion, it seems to be no evidence at all, even though something that has been annulled is permissible to eat for the first time, that is, since the Sages permitted it, we cannot be more wise than them, (the Gemara does not mention that there is a reason to be stricter, and the MDA taught this from the Torah of "the majority" or according to their acceptance, which does not give a reason here), but since the MMA does not annul a prohibition for the first time, and it is proven from the definition that the prohibition remains and only the law that it was permitted to eat, and in fact it was forbidden to allow the prohibition, but if it has already been annulled, the Sages said that the prohibition is allowed, and therefore in "a thing that has a permit" that without the law of annulment, the prohibition will expire after a time, the Sages forbade using the permission of annulment, so that they would not come to allow annulment for the first time, and Rashi's intention, "until you eat it with permission," meaning with the permission of the prohibition, "you eat it with permission," meaning without the permission of the prohibition, and the reason for this is that it does not seem that annulment is a complete permission that it is permissible to do annulment for the first time, and in PZ7 Rashi does not interpret the reason only as the written law, but the Ahn says that in a place where they permitted after it was abrogated by a rabbi and not by a rabbi, there is no longer any reason for it, lest there is no longer any prohibition, and even though there is no Hasidic doctrine to make it stricter, and even though the words of Chazal are true that "the prohibition was permitted," MM in dry in dry or in dry in its essence, since the prohibition remained in its meaning, even though it was permitted by a majority or by a sixty, there is room for making it stricter, but in the abrogation of a rabbi and not by a rabbi, which completely nullifies the prohibition, it must be said that there is no room for making it stricter, and especially this law (see Darkat, ibid., Teshuvot ve HaNhagat, vol. 2, sec. 10).

And God has another point, regarding the aggravation of something that is permitted by law.

Mr. S.L. Apparently there is no disadvantage in the actual aggravation, but there is no point in it, since the one who is exempt from the matter and does it is called a layman. Therefore, whatever there is in a matter that is reasonable to aggravate, even though the matter has been decided explicitly according to all the jurists to be permissible, there is room to aggravate it and prohibit it.

Not so, I think. It seems to me from the language of the poskim that they feared various concerns even in the 23rd. According to the article "All who are exempt from the matter and do it" in the Talmudic Encyclopedia, some saw it as an insult to the Torah that would make a person more strict than he was, or they feared that others would learn from it and believe that it is forbidden by law, and other concerns.

And from the author of the Maharsham (Barzan) Ka Atina, it is written that if a person eats a fourth meal on Shabbat, according to Rabbi Hidka, there is a concern about the possibility of a miscarriage, since it was ruled in the Gamma that it should not be burned.

Ultimately, it seems to me that the recent jurists feared the wisdom of the laymen, and forbade excessive independence, because of the seriousness that would eventually come to Kula, etc., etc.

But our Rabbi Kashi, who in every place where there is no s"l-"t

What I didn't write, I said on the 'Atharia Demer' website, because for technical reasons I can't write there, even though I eagerly read everything that is published.

And I will seal it with a double and multiplied blessing.