I listened to Mrs. Braunstein a"h's review classes on taharat hamishpacha. in which she emphasizes, repeatedly, the importance of asking questions of a rav. She said that preferring to be stringent rather than show a question is incorrect.

She said that she asked dozens of rabbonim, Chasidish and Litvish, and all agree that there is no basis not to show a question on a hefsek tahara to a rav, though some people have the idea that this is a good stringency.

However, someone challenged me on this and said that a respected rav told her that although a rav may say a bedika (or hefsek) is fine, it's important to know whether it's fine according to all, or whether he is being lenient. And if he's being lenient, it would be praiseworthy to do the hefsek tahara again. That this is a yiras shomayim issue and one which the couple has to decide. She also referred to not putting oneself in a "question situation" and asked whether I was truly advocating a "very bedieved hefsek tahara, 7 nekiim etc but as long as husband and wife are reunited its fine" and "what about hidur mitzva?"

This position of the rav goes counter to what I learned. I learned that it's better to have a bidieved hefsek and not postpone going to the mikva! That the ikar l'chatchile is to be matir isha l'baala (permit the couple to be reunited)!

She asked me for a source for this latter statement. I don't have one. Do you?

Do you have any sources for me, one way or the other?

Is it indeed an extra measure of hidur and yiras shomayim if, when my husband brings a bedika to a rav and gets the okay, that my husband then ask him whether his decision would be accepted by all outright or whether he was being lenient?

I also wonder what it means if a rav is lenient when he looks at a question. After all, kareis is involved here! Am I right in assuming that a reputable rav is very careful to permit only that which is truly permissible! Where would leniencies come in here?

I'd appreciate any sources you can provide, and look forward to your response.