Chidushim against Chazal

 Ohr HaChaim (Bereishis 1:1): You should know that we have permission to explain the implication of the verses after careful study - even though our conclusions differ from the explanation of our Sages. That is because there are 70 faces to Torah (Bamidbar Rabbah 13:16). There is no prohibition against differing from the words of our Sages except if it changes the Halacha. Similarly, we find that even though the Amoraim did not have the right to disagree with Tannaim in halachic matters - but we find that they offered alternative explanations to verses.

Ohr HaChaim (Bereishis 46:8): Don’t be bothered by the fact that our explanation is the opposite of what our Sages stated. We have already asserted that concerning the understanding of the non halachic verses of the Torah permission is given to the diligent student to innovate.

Ohr HaChaim (Devarim 32:1): Even though I am explaining this differently than our Sages but we know that there are 70 faces to Torah (Bamidbar Rabbah 13:16). Concerning Agada it is permitted to offer explanations even if they contradict those of our Sages as long as they don’t contradict the Halacha….

Ohr HaChaim (Vayikra 26:3): Vayikra Rabbah (22:1) states that Scripture, Mishna, Halacha, Talmud, Tosefta, Agada and even what a faithful student would say in the future - were all taught to Moshe on Sinai. It is clear from this medrash that permission has been granted for Torah scholars to explain and interpret in various ways and for the diligent students to provide new insights in expounding verses - to the degree that it can be justified with the verse. 

Ramban (Bereishis 8:4): The Ark came to rest in the 7th month on the 17th day of the month… - Rashi writes that we learn from this verse that the Ark was submerged in the water to a depth of 11 amos according the calculations that he wrote in his commentary. This is also stated in Bereishis Rabbah (33:7). However, since Rashi in various places minutely analyzes medrashim and toils to explain the plain meaning of the verses - he grants us the right to also do it. That is because there are 70 faces to the Torah and also many medrashim contain disagreements between the Sages. Therefore, I claim that this calculation is incompatible with the language of the verse.

Ramban (Shemos 12:40): Now the time that the Jews lived in Egypt was 430 years. … “When you calculate the 400 years from the birth of Yitzchok you will find that from the time they entered Egypt until the time they left was 210 years.” This is the view of Rashi and it is also the view of our Sages (Mechilta). However this view is not completely accurate. In fact it is clear from the verse (Bereishis 12:14) that Avraham was 75 years old when he left Charan and the Bris bein HaBesarim took place a long time after that. Therefore we need to explain events according to what has been taught in Sefer Olam…. 

Ksav V’HaKabbala (Shemos 12:40): … Ramban was not pleased with the approach of Seder Olam and he found a different way of understanding the 430 years. However anyone who reads realizes that his approach is quite forced. The Ramban has already criticized Ibn Ezra’s approach and the view of the Abarbanel is worthless. Most commentators give forced explanations to explain the five years which apparently were added to the 400 years that G d had talked about at the Bris ben HaBesarim. The Rosh (Baal Maasi HaShem) also did… His words have no basis…Consequently we have no explanation to rely on other than that of the Talmudic Sages. Furthermore the wording of the text fits in better with their explanation than the alternatives and there is no need for any additions.

Vayikra Rabbah (22:1). Torah, Mishna, Halacha, Talmud, Tosefta, Agada, and even what a faithful disciple would say in the future were taught to Moses on Sinai…

Michtav M’Eliyahu (4:353): 5) It is important however to distinguish between those explanations which are basically interpretation of the verses and those of our Sages which are the actual meaning of the verses. Given this clear distinction it is puzzling why many Rishonim strive to follow a different understanding than the true explanation given by our Sages? We find such tendencies in the commentary of the Rashbam, Ibn Ezra and other Rishonim. What is the purpose of offering explanations which differ from the definitive true ones? I think that they offer these alternative explanations for the sake of confused people. In other words, these Rishonim want to show that there are many different aspects even in the simple understanding of the verses and that it is permissible for a person to create new interpretations according to what makes sense to him. (Of course, any alternative explanations which contradict foundation principles of faith are prohibited.) This is consistent with our understanding of R’ Shmuel HaNagid. This advice is very critical in order to save the souls of the confused people. Such an approach is similar to that of the Rambam who wrote so much for the confused. We see this from the fact that many difficulties that exist in what he wrote could have been explained in a much clearer fashion. However, since he was addressing confused people he provided alternative explanations which they could accept - as long as it didn’t contradict the Halacha. Using this approach, I have been able to understand the difficult comments of the Radak who was a very holy person and one of the great members of the period of the Rishonim. In particular, it justifies his comments concerning the disparity of the text of the Torah and how it is to be read in a number of places (kri v’kesiv)….

Yaavetz (1:108): I am upset with Rishonim such as the Radak and other pursuers of the simple meaning of the text (rodfei hapshat) whose lust for the surface understanding causes them to swallow it without proper preparation and without proper cooking. Many times, we see that they have arrogantly rejected the views of our Sages for their own understanding based on the simple meaning of the text. Here also in this case they don’t accept the traditions of our Sages in understanding the nature of the altar of the Temple…

Rambam (Teshuva 3:5):… There are three types of deniers of the Torah. 1) One who says that the Torah is not from G d. Even if he says even one verse or word was written by Moshe on his own – he is a denier of the Torah. 2) And similarly if he denies the explanation i.e., the Oral Torah or he contradicts the transmitters of the Oral Torah such as Tzadok and Boesus did. 3) If he says that G d substituted one mitzvah for another or that some aspect of Torah has been abrogated even though he acknowledges the Torah is from G¬ d such as the Hagarites. 

Rambam (Introduction to Mishna Torah):… We are obligated to accept and observe all that which is found in the Babylonian Talmud and each city and land can force its residents to conduct themselves in according with the practices as well as the decrees of the Talmudic sages. That is because they have been fully accepted by the Jewish people. Furthermore these sages who made decrees or prohibition or practices or decided laws or learned the meaning of the Torah – constituted all of the sages of Israel or most of them at the time. They are the ones who heard the Tradition of the essence of the entire Torah – generation after generation – all the way back to Moshe.

Maharal (Shemos 12:40.68):… The fact is that the Bris bein HaBesarim was before according to our Sages. I have gone into great length in this matter because there are those who think they are smarter than our Sages and reject their views and raise questions against them and say that the decree was 5 years before leaving Charan. However the words of our Sages are correct and we should accept their understanding. If you look into the matter you will find that their view is one solidly based on the truth and there is no need to belabor the point. However I am astounded by the Ramban because he is bothered by the 30 additional years here and he doesn’t want to say the decree was 5 years before…The basic point is that we should not deviate from the views of our Sages because their views are substantive and they are correct and there is no doubt about this to those who investigate and understand the words of the Sages.

Bava Basra (75a): And I will make your gates from gemstones (Yeshaya 54:12). R’ Yochonan explained this verse to mean that in the future G d will bring precious stones and pearls which are 30 cubits by thirty cubits  and will carve opening in them of 10 by 29 cubits and will set them up at the gates of Yerushalyim. A certain student ridiculed him: We don’t even have jewels the size of dove eggs so how could there possibly just large jewels? At a later time he was traveling on a ship and saw angels cutting precious stones and pearls which were thirty by thirty cubits and were carving out openings in them of 10 by 20 cubits. He asked the angels what the purpose of their work was. They answered that G d would use these gems at a future time for the gates of Jerusalem. When the student returned, he told Rabbi Yochanon that the interpretation that he had ridiculed was in fact fine - since he had seen the large gems with his own eyes. Rabbi Yochanon replied, “You fool! If you had not seen it you would not have believed it. You are someone who ridicules the words of our Sages.” He set his eyes on the student and he became a pile of bones.