Technically, they are off topic, but since you were the originator of the 1st question, others will give you more 'latitude'. But what if someone with a "1" reputation asks them? Will you be as equally magnanimous?
The Real Question is: Where do you draw the line, and how do you 'define' the line you draw?
You have a definite vision for this site, and you use your 'mod' power to reign in us unruly scoundrels and keep us in line. You do go to extreme lengths to explain it, but at the end of the day, you have to 'enforce' it-how much ambiguity do you want to allow before individuals cry "Foul!" and challenge your leadership and direction?
I've learned w/teenagers that simple, well articulated, enforceable rules are better than ones replete w/exceptions. If you can articulate it, and the boundaries of it, then by all means do, but if someone says,"Wait a minute-you gave a pass to that person who asked this, but when I asked the same thing, the hammer came down", "I told you so" is one of the most useless phrases in the English Language.
Consider our tax code, and I'm sure you'll make the right choice.; > )
As an addendum to my answer: I believe if one 'evaluates' a body of work(Alfred Edersheim et al) as conclusive evidence, either supporting or refuting it as it relates to a particular textual concern(ie: use Edersheim's work because he addresses issue "X" where other scholars avoid or inadequately address) then it is entirely on topic, since one's main concern is the text; the author may be the 'benchmark' by which certain texual issues are addressed.(Consider Rashi, Darby, and a host of other commentaries).