Reply To: I Guess I’m Pulling for the “Chabad Media” Now?

Here are some examples of Philosopher invoking her “proof” by bringing a posuk to argue on rishonim, something that is not done in frum circles:

“Stop with your lies. I am saying that Rashi does NOT CONTRADICT any posuk in the Torah, period. Therefore, if it says in the Torah that the brothers of Yosef saw that their father DIED, Rashi who knew Torah better than you, did not mean to say what you are saying he is which is that his GUF was alive.”

“When you want to have a Talmudic discussion you can bring a rishon. But to say that the comment that Rashi is making on a pasuk contradicts another posuk in the Chumash is absolutely ridiculous and disgusting. Rashi did not contradict the Word of Hashem.”

“Neville, you are unwilling to say you are disagreeing with Rashi because never said that Yaacov’s guf is alive forever.
You are also disagreeing with a pasuk in the Torah.”

The consistent theme has been that she wants to make all meforshim shtem with her beliefs. If you look back, you can even see her say stuff like “I don’t disagree with any meforshim!” Well, if you have a machlokes and you’re choosing one side over the other, how does that work?

Again, to give some advice that she’ll throw back at me and start insulting me like a 6 year old: if you don’t want to overtly disagree with meforshim, just don’t share your own beliefs at all. They aren’t relevant. Do you think that every time a yeshiva learns a sugya in gemara, the shiur splits into groups based on which man d’amar they’re “siding with” in a machlokes? ARSo and I have consistently refused to assert our personal beliefs on this… that’s not weaseling out; it’s the proper thing to do. Some meforshim say one way, some they another. It’s irrelevant which ones make more sense to a random Joe Shmo posting on the CR in 2024. You need to just get over the fact that not all meforshim are going to make sense to you all the time.