Over Shabbos, I heard the same dvar Torah twice - basically, that which the Talmud says Yaakov went back for his small vessels that he had forgotten (Bereishis 32:25) was because he understood that everything he had was a gift from Hashem and he wanted to use everything for kedusha (spiritual matters).
It's a nice idea, and I myself used to think that was the p'shat (the simplest explanation of the verse). But the Gemara (Chulin 91a) that introduces this idea itself says a different explanation - that the righteous value their possessions because they do not steal. So it seems Yaakov went back for the small vessels because he either didn't want to come to ever be tempted to steal, or because he won't be able to make up for it by stealing if he loses these things. Or something else, but either way it has something to do with not stealing.
I don't want to get caught up on the example - my question is a general one, and that is, is there any validity or justification to giving a different explanation to a story/fact/mitzvah/halacha when the source of that story/fact/mitzvah/halacha itself reports the explanation?
The question seems to be confusing some people, so let me clarify what I am asking and what I am not asking.
My question was only in a situation like that which I mentioned - Quoting a Chazal, then giving an explanation to that Chazal which is different than how Chazal themselves explain it. It is neither of the following: a) quoting a chazal, then attributing an explanation to Chazal which they do not say b) not quoting a Chazal, and making up your own p'shat which may happen to coincide with a Chazal, and then making up your own explanation for your own p'shat.