Question

In the book To the Perplexed of the Generation, in your lecture the Rabbi argued that thought literature speaks about the subject, as opposed to Jewish law, which speaks about the object; and that only insofar as a given thought book speaks to me is there any point in studying it.
You also said that unlike halakhic literature (you gave as an example Ketzot HaChoshen), which deals with interpretation and with looking backward, the Maharal and those like him are not really commentators but rather add content of their own and anchor it in earlier midrashim.
A. In halakhic literature itself there are also many interpretations that it is unlikely the author of the earlier text actually intended; a prominent example is the pilpul-style analyses of Maimonides by later authorities. So if so, does that also have no value?
B. Even if we accept the assumption that the Maharal and those like him are not commentators but innovators, why is that not Torah? These are innovative ideas dealing with Judaism, and they seem worthy of study no less than Talmudic passages or medieval authorities, whose connection to practical Jewish law is remote. I am asking because I hear from you a motif of reducing the value of studying faith / thought, and I am trying to understand why, in your view, their value is less.