Question

Hello Rabbi,
In the first lecture of the series “Innovation, Conservatism, and Tradition,” you presented two apparent advantages of the “plain-meaning conservatives,” and rejected them:
(1)
They preserve the existing instructions.
The rejection: if the instructions are interpreted the way the “midrashic conservatives” interpret them, then the plain-meaning conservatives do not preserve the instructions

(2)
They are less suspect, since their approach is less convenient, less lazy.
The rejection: their approach is more intellectually lazy.
 
So at this point it’s a 2-2 tie, or more accurately 0-0, because the arguments basically canceled each other out.
 
Beyond that, to paraphrase, the midrashic camp has the advantage of plausibility.
1-0 for the midrashic camp.
 
I thought of another advantage of the plain-meaning camp:
Suppose, in your parable, that there had been an explicit instruction from the founders of the group in these words: “Always wear swimsuits.” True, one can interpret the instruction and say: “This is what they really meant: always wear what suits the weather, such as swimsuits in our climate.”
But then the plain-meaning camp can say: “Granted, your understanding is more plausible, but if that was the founders’ intention, why didn’t they phrase the instruction more clearly? Why not say, ‘Always wear what suits the weather,’ instead of ‘Always wear swimsuits’?”
 
Haven’t we then reached some kind of 1-1 tie? Meaning that from this point on one has to use judgment, weighing the plausibility of the rationale against the implausibility of changing the wording, in order to decide whether the midrashic camp is right or not?