Is "maximum position compliance" ever explicitly codified?

Question

In Haym Soloveitchik's seminal essay "Rupture and Reconstruction" (1994) he lays out the state of Orthodoxy in the 20th century. Primarily, how Orthodoxy changed in the 20th century in particular regarding reliance on books, rather than tradition, and what effect that has on how people practice.

He writes:

"Fundamentally, all the above — stringency, “maximum position compliance,” and the proliferation of complications and demands — simply reflect the essential change in the nature of religious performance that occurs in a text culture. Books cannot demonstrate conduct; they can only state its requirements. One then seeks to act in a way that meets those demands. Performance is no longer, as in a traditional society, replication of what one has seen, but implementation of what one knows. Seeking to mirror the norm, religious observance is subordinated to it. In a text culture, behavior becomes, inevitably, a function of the ideas it consciously seeks to realize."

I have sat in no shortage of halachic shiurim. In many different settings I have heard different versions of "maximum position compliance" essentially meaning that if there is more than one opinion we paskin according to the most stringent to 'comply with' the greatest number of positions.

Is the idea of "maximum position compliance" an unspoken consequence of the culture and circumstance of 20th century Jewry, as laid out in that essay? Often one reads that the lenient position can be used in a time of need or bediavad; I'm not asking about that.

I am looking for a source lays out this doctrine explicitly as a general rule i.e., something like "when there is more than one position, we take the machmir one".

---

Update: I had considered תפסת מרובה לא תפסת, תפסת מועט תפסת. However, the gemarot that refer to this seem to be talking about cases of doubt specifically (e.g., Rosh HaShana 4b, Yoma 80a).

Answer 1

Mesillat Yesharim ch. 14 defines this practice as an aspect of perishut (separation/asceticism). So while there is certainly no obligation to attempt to satisfy as many opinions as possible, it is a commendable practice (under the right circumstances).

והפרישות בדינים הוא להחמיר בהם תמיד, לחוש אפילו לדברי יחיד במחלוקת אם טעמו נראה, אפילו שאין הלכה כמותו ובתנאי שלא יהיה חומרו קולו. ולהחמיר בספיקות אפילו במקום שאפשר להקל בהם. וכבר ביארו לנו חכמינו ז"ל מאמר יחזקאל (חולין לז): "הנה נפשי לא מטומאה" שלא אכלתי מבהמה שהורה בה חכם, ולא אכלתי מבשר כוס כוס. והנה כל זה מותר הוא מן הדין ודאי, אלא איהו דאחמיר אנפשיה.‏

Separation in the laws is to always be stringent in them. To be concerned even for the view of the solitary opinion if its reason has grounds, despite that the Halacha does not follow this opinion. The condition, however, is that his stringency not become a leniency. Likewise, to be stringent in cases of doubt even in situations where one may be lenient. Our sages, of blessed memory, explained the statement of Yechezkel (Chulin 37b) "'behold my soul never became Tamei (spiritually unclean)' (Yechezkel 4:14) - for I never ate the flesh of an animal which a Sage was called to rule on nor did I ever eat the flesh of an animal about which one says "slaughter it, slaughter it [urgently]". Behold, all these things are certainly permitted according to the Halacha but he was stringent on himself and abstained.

Answer 2

(Not an answer, but I couldn't put in a comment).

I've never heard the phrase "maximum position compliance" before. I'm honestly surprised to hear that thrown out as a valid halachic position. What I've heard from my (very mainstream Orthodox) Rabbonim is much more along the lines of כחא דהיתרא עדיף (Sefaria source sheet neatly collecting the gemaros that use this term https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/140084?lang=bi)

I would be very surprised to hear there's an actual source for that idea, beyond (perhaps commendable) fear of violating an issur even according to a minority opinion.