Moses, Kant, Hegel, Gra, Israel Salanter, Rav Shach, Tosphot, Rambam.

To build up a good  approach it would be required to provide and intellectual basis. Leftism was a kind of trampling of Biblical Values. Or subverting Biblical values to serve its purpose by means of useful idiots.  However the  Right has just as much claim to intellectual virtue through a different array of patron saints. 

That is-- the left had a list of patron saints. Freud, Marx, Russeou.  Some people were absorbed into the Left like  Nietzsche, though he was not a leftist at all.

My suggestion is to emphasize a whole different set of patron saints. Moses, Hegel, Kant, Gra, Israel Salanter, Rav Shach, Tosphot, Rambam, the Ari (Isaac Luria). [The Rambam, the Ari and Hegel are very Neo-Platonic so it is easy to fit them into one system.]



As for the last three the basic idea is that there is no reason to think that one could be put into a room with the Oral and Written Law of Moses and come up on my own the basic approach of Torah. If I understand the importance of learning Torah as a value in itself and of working to attain good character traits and if learning Torah in depth, then I owe a debt of gratitude to these individual who worked this out and showed the way. 

What you need from each of the above thinkers is this: The Gra for learning Torah; Rav Shach and Tosphot for showing the depth of Torah; Kant for the limitation of reason and knowledge that is known but not through  physical senses nor through reason. [One could have  used the Rambam for that also.]
The Rambam for Torah Law, and learning Physics and Metaphysics. The Ari and Hegel for Metaphysics. John Locke for freedom and private property. The last one you could have gotten from the Two Talmuds but for some reason most people miss the message there. They think the welfare state and Socialism which is organized theft is kosher. Reb Israel Salanter one needs for good character plus fear of God.  


The Gra has a whole school of disciples  that are worthwhile to learn:  the commentaries on the page of the Yerushalim Talmud, the Nefeh HaChaim, the Netziv, etc. The Nefesh HaChaim is important  from many angles. One of the points he brings out is that intention to unite one's soul to the soul of a tzadik righteous person is idolatry.
[Rav Kook the founder or religious Zionism already incorporated Hegel into his ideas as is well known. ]

Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, Physics and Mathematics is the truth and the light. The path the Rambam specifically held is the path of Torah.

The Torah [Five Books of Moses] is the inspired Word of God. The Torah declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So the Torah  most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. This is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against un-Torah, extra-Torah and/or anti-Torah doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Law of God תורת משה. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that The Law of God is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

For example in Leviticus 18 it says these are the commandments that God commanded by which one may do them and live. So we know the Law of God gives life and the good. So there is no room to nullify the law of God. It is for all who want life and the good to come and learn and keep.
So if there are traditions that are anti Torah or contradict the Torah we must not listen to them. 

Traditions are valid only when they are based on the Law of God and are in full agreement with the Five Books of Moses. Traditions that contradict the the Five Books of Moses are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the  faith. Torah alone is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Five Books of Moses.

Torah alone does not nullify the concept of  traditions. Rather, Torah alone gives us a solid foundation on which to base  traditions. There are many practices, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Law of God. It is good, and even necessary to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Torah. The problem  is that many base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Torah. That is why we must always go back to Torah alone, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.

This is the reason the Gemara is always measuring itself against the verses of the Torah to make sure it does not contradict the Torah. 
Thus: learning the Oral and Written Law
Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, Physics and Mathematics  is the truth and the light. That is the Oral and Written Law with מעשה בראשית מעשה מרכבה.
The path the Rambam specifically held is the path of Torah.



If the Gemara is always right is not the issue. Rather the issue is if it is not better to try to understand what work on Shabat is, rather than throw out the whole concept? Which approach would you say is more in accord with the Law of Moses,-to try to understand what work on Shabat is even at the risk of making mistakes or saying that one no longer has to listen to the word of God because someone already listened to the word of God once? Does the Torah say do not work on Shabat until someone comes along and does no work on Shabat. After that, you can then work on Shabat.  Similarly the Torah leaves no room for many other practices.
The only path that I know of that is in accord with this idea is the Litvish [Lithuanian] Yeshiva based on the approach of the Gra and the Rambam. 

This may sound like a critique on Christians but it is not. Rather I mean to exclude all groups that clock themselves in  mantle and clothing pretending to keep Torah while doing idolatry.

Talmud Shavuot 43b , Tosphot,

Conclusion

Mainly the idea is that the תוספות was asking a question in רבינו חננאל that seems to apply to רש''י just as well. But for some odd reason תוספות does not seem to want to ask it on רש''י. Then the מהרש''א gives and answer why תוספות asked on רבינו חננאל specifically.  I asked that the idea of the מהרש''א does not seem to help anything. He uses the idea that a jump two steps is too much. I asked, but you have the same two steps to רש''י?
The answer. There in fact there is a third case.  That is this each one רש''י and רבינו חננאל deal with a case someone, we do not know who, said the משכון is for the amount of the הלוואה. The difference of opinion is who said it. The idea I am trying to present is that to each one there is a third case. That is to רש''י we have the two cases when the מלווה spoke and when the מלווה did not speak. The third case is when the borrower spoke. And we can see easily that this will be different from the first two cases to רבי אליעזר .
But to רבינו חננאל we have two cases that the לווה spoke and he did not speak. But what happens in his opinion if the מלווה spoke. Then it would be the same as when the לווה did not speak. Thus the skipping the middle step applies to him and thus רש''י comes out better.

I do not have any kind of opinion that Tosphot can not be wrong. Rather. It is simply not possible that he did not think through something thoroughly.


מסקנה, בעיקר הרעיון הוא כי התוספות שואלים שאלה על רבינו חננאל שנראתה שחל על רש''י באותה מידה. אבל מסיבה כלשהי תוספות לא  רוצים לשאול אותה על רש''י. ואז מהרש''א נותן תשובה לענות מדוע תוספות שואלים על רבינו חננאל במיוחד. שאלתי שהרעיון של המהרש''א לא נראה שתעזור כלום. הוא מנצל את הרעיון של קפיצה שני צעדים היא יותר מדי. שאלתי, אבל יש לך את אותם שני צעדים רש''י? התשובה. יש למעשה קיים מקרה שלישי. כלומר כל אחד, רש''י ורבינו חננאל עסקים עם  מקרה שמישהו, אנחנו לא יודעים מי, אמר שהמשכון הוא בגין הסכום של ההלוואה. הבדל דעות מי אמר את זה. הרעיון שאני מנסה להציג הוא כי לכל אחד יש מקרה שלישי. הווה רש''י יש לנו שני מקרים כאשר המלווה דיבר וכאשר שמלווה לא דבר. המקרה השלישי הוא כאשר הלווה דיבר. ואנחנו יכולים לראות בקלות כי זה יהיה שונה משני המקרים הראשונים לרבי אליעזר. אבל לרבינו חננאל יש לנו שני מקרים,  הלווה דיבר, והוא לא דיבר. אבל מה קורה לדעתו אם המלווה דיבר. אז זה יהיה זהה כאשר הלווה לא דיבר. כך דילוג על שלב הביניים חל עליו, ולכן הוא רש''י יוצא טוב יותר.