Shavua tov, came across an awesome illustration of this in Shul this morning, with all the bells and whistles! I was perusing R Yaakov Kamenetzky's Emes l'Yaakov (can't find online) on Mishpatim and noticed that he has a problem with one of the Targumim explaining a pasuk in a way that doesn't align with Chazal (in the halachic realm), ending with וצ"ע. Specifically this comment: https://mg.alhatorah.org/Dual/Targum_Yerushalmi_(Yonatan)/Shemot/22.9#m7e0n6, which doesn't accord with Chazal's reading of it as referring to a paid custodian. This jogged my memory, as I remembered that none other than Rashbam interprets it as this Targum did (according to peshat) https://mg.alhatorah.org/Dual/Rashbam/Shemot/22.6#m7e0n6 with additional elaboration. I got a kick out of the whole thing and ran it by the rabbi after davening. He was intrigued and opened artscroll's mikraot gedolot (also unavailable online) to check out the Targum. This is where it gets fun! I kid you not, artscroll placed the "offensive" words in parentheses! I told the rabbi that at least they left it in! All kidding aside this is a textbook case where Rashbam states clearly that this explanation is only for peshat purposes and not halachic, which doesn't cause a stir, whereas the Targum makes no such disclaimer, leaving Rabbi Kamenetzky and artscroll in a lurch.
Isn't that kind of the opposite? Answer #1 deals with cases where the Written Torah expresses the "true significance" of the act, and the Oral Torah comes to tell us what we really do. The example you mentioned is where the Written Torah says what we actually do, but these meforshim (e.g. Ramban) tell us what that action really signifies. To my mind, that's more of the standard approach to Torah commentary, whereas "lefi derech Eretz" is more radical.
Shavua tov, came across an awesome illustration of this in Shul this morning, with all the bells and whistles! I was perusing R Yaakov Kamenetzky's Emes l'Yaakov (can't find online) on Mishpatim and noticed that he has a problem with one of the Targumim explaining a pasuk in a way that doesn't align with Chazal (in the halachic realm), ending with וצ"ע. Specifically this comment: https://mg.alhatorah.org/Dual/Targum_Yerushalmi_(Yonatan)/Shemot/22.9#m7e0n6, which doesn't accord with Chazal's reading of it as referring to a paid custodian. This jogged my memory, as I remembered that none other than Rashbam interprets it as this Targum did (according to peshat) https://mg.alhatorah.org/Dual/Rashbam/Shemot/22.6#m7e0n6 with additional elaboration. I got a kick out of the whole thing and ran it by the rabbi after davening. He was intrigued and opened artscroll's mikraot gedolot (also unavailable online) to check out the Targum. This is where it gets fun! I kid you not, artscroll placed the "offensive" words in parentheses! I told the rabbi that at least they left it in! All kidding aside this is a textbook case where Rashbam states clearly that this explanation is only for peshat purposes and not halachic, which doesn't cause a stir, whereas the Targum makes no such disclaimer, leaving Rabbi Kamenetzky and artscroll in a lurch.
Answer #1 would also be similar to those rishonim who say that it would be fitting for the makriv to offer their life but instead ee bring a korban
Isn't that kind of the opposite? Answer #1 deals with cases where the Written Torah expresses the "true significance" of the act, and the Oral Torah comes to tell us what we really do. The example you mentioned is where the Written Torah says what we actually do, but these meforshim (e.g. Ramban) tell us what that action really signifies. To my mind, that's more of the standard approach to Torah commentary, whereas "lefi derech Eretz" is more radical.