philosopher to me: You are just arguing for the sake of arguing with me. Why are you doing that?
Because it annoys me the way someone who claims to fight for the purity of Torah keeps on rejecting Rishonim who don’t fit in with her desired belief.
The Ramban clearly says that Hashem does not have a guf. The Raavad does not argue with that, but he DOES say that there were people who he refers to as better and greater than the Ramban who (mis)understood pesukim to indicate that Hashem does have a guf.
So if you are interested in the purity of Torah – which includes the words of Rishonim kemal’achim – then you can’t say point blank that it’s obvious from the pesukim that Hashem has no guf, because the Raavad says that it is not obvious from the pesukim! I don’t care what supposed proofs you have – you just can’t say that something the Raavad claims is obviously incorrect.
And you do the same with the Rashi. You want to ‘believe’ that no Rishon says that Yaakov Avinu was buried alive, so you twist and turn to say that Rashi doesn’t say it based on an alleged contradiction of a passuk which the Ramban, and other meforshim, clearly explain in a way which does not contradict the Rashi.
Finally, in answer to why I am arguing with you about Torah sheb’al peh when I claim that women should not be dealing with Torah sheb’al peh: I’m not discussing Torah sheb’al peh with you as your claims are AGAINST Torah sheb’al peh as explained by the meforshim! Rather, I’m arguing with you about the way you misunderstand the concept of Torah sheb’al peh.