Question

Hello,
First of all, thank you very much for all the lectures, the site, and the abundance of material — thank you very much!
Now, regarding the lecture series on the hermeneutical principles and the dispute between Maimonides and Nachmanides, I wanted to ask: you explained that Maimonides and Nachmanides disagree on the interpretive level. For Maimonides, the derashot are not specification but expansion, whereas for Nachmanides the derashot are specification.
My question is: why exactly is that? Do you think this is a localized disagreement, or a fundamental approach in hermeneutics?
That is, one could say that Maimonides simply did not see, in a specific case, how the derashah is specified out of the text, and therefore was forced to say that it is an expansion. And perhaps based on this one could say that this itself is the dispute between Rabbi Shimon HaAmsuni and Rabbi Akiva. Namely, Rabbi Shimon did not see how one could say that fear of Torah scholars is specified out of fear of the Holy One, blessed be He, whereas Rabbi Akiva introduced the idea that this is indeed not specification but rather expansion — perhaps the more reasonable one in this context. And then it may be that Rabbi Shimon would not agree, because in his view derashot are specification and nothing more.
Or one could say that, in general, Maimonides holds that a text has only one meaning. Specification is impossible. But if so, that itself requires explanation — why assume that? Is it connected to Ockham’s razor? Meaning, as long as it has not been proven otherwise, is it preferable to say that a text has only one meaning?
What do you think about this?
Again, thank you very much!