Question

Almost every week, when reading the weekly Torah portion, I run into questions that basically converge on the same issue, just expressed through different examples. Almost every time there is a story in the Torah (and in the Hebrew Bible generally, but in the Torah it bothers me more that this exists), it contains either missing details or extra details, and it is not clear why they are there; sometimes the whole story is unclear. The midrashim and the medieval authorities (Rishonim) reconcile these things in various ways, which raises the following question: if it was really important to the Torah that we understand this message or know the story in full, why didn’t it simply write it explicitly, but instead express it through some hint that requires a lot of effort to extract the solution from? This question is much harder for me in places where there are many different solutions to the same difficulty—what is the logic in the Torah expressing itself in a way that makes it very hard for us to understand what it wants from us?
On the other hand, in places where the solution to the difficulty is not all that important to us, but only a kind of superficial bridge, why did the Torah bother mentioning the unnecessary detail or omitting it in the first place? (An example of this in our portion is 13:8, “And the Canaanite and the Perizzite then dwelt in the land,” and Rashi there. It is a nice bridge, but why would the Torah bother to mention it at all?)