Avira, one does not need to accept any droshos in order to be a ????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????. Techiyas hameisim is ????? in ??? ?????; one who believes in that does not need to accept any of the other droshos in that sugya. (Rashi uses the term ????? for all the Scriptural inferences in that sugya, but the reading of the ???? in ????? can hardly be considered a ????!) Anyway, belief in ????? ????? is an exception, because ??”? have told us it is an article of our faith to believe that ????? ????? is ?? ?????. Chazal said no such thing with regard to all other non-Halachic ?????.
It’s very nice you quote the ???”? about ????? ??????; it’s just a shame you didn’t carry on reading a few more words: the ???”? continues “???? ???? ???????.” Needless to say, ???? ??????? did not just deny Chazal’s non-Halachic ?????, so that ???? too goes out the window.
The Radak is happy to say that a non-Halachic interpretation of ??”? is ????? ?? ???? (Shmuel II, 23, 16.) There is a ?????? ??????? in Zevochim 113 about whether the ???? also flooded ??? ?????. Here is a quote from Rabbeinu Saadiah Gaon’s ????? ?? ????? where he discusses this ??????:
???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????
??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? etc.
This is how Rabbeinu Saadiah Gaon speaks about Rebbi Yochanan!
Next you quote from the Abarbanel. Is this the same Abarbanel, I wonder, who says in his ????? to Melochim I 10 22 that Ezra may have made a geographical error when writing a ???? in ?”??
I proved from the words of Rav Shmuel bar Chofni Gaon that we don’t have to accept Chaza’s non-Halachic ?????; your rebuttal fails to address this.
And whatever makes you think I have left the koslei beis hamedrash? (For your information, I haven’t.)