R. Natan Slifkin wrongly accuses Rashi of being a Corporealist-He wasn't!

[edu]

To read the article in depth see: http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%209%20Zucker.pdf
For those who don't have the patience to read the whole article I will just quote the conclusion:

Conclusion
We have seen that the entire argument that Slifkin presented regarding
Rashi’s corporealism rests upon premises each of which is factually
untrue or logically invalid as evidence. In discussing those premises,
we saw indications from Rashi’s own writings that point toward
incorporealism. We then saw Rashi’s comments on bnei Yisrael’s seeing
no image at Sinai and then being called upon to testify about that
to the world, which unequivocally reflect Rashi’s incorporealism. We
also saw Rashi’s revised, rhetorical question about God’s “right and
left” and his comments about the biblical phrase “God walks,” which
clearly demonstrate his incorporealism. In addition, we saw evidence
from eight or nine rishonim that attests to Rashi’s incorporealism. A
critical evaluation of Rashi’s view concerning corporealism, when
subjected to the rigors of careful examination for factual accuracy
and to logical analysis, thus yields a definitive conclusion103—Rashi
was clearly an incorporealist.
One final note: with this paper, the highly problematic assertion
that “Rashi said it, but we cannot”104 is now moot; indeed, Rashi
never “said it.”

Footnotes
103 It is therefore somewhat ironic that at the end of the discussion on his
website, after leaving a number of challenges to his theory unanswered,
Slifkin declared that most devout Orthodox Jews are likely to be biased
about this entire issue and therefore are likely to be unable to evaluate it
properly. See the website thread “My Latest Mistake,” main post, and
the thread “Arguing With Creationists and Other Biases” August 18,
2009, 7:22 pm.
104 Slifkin, p. 105.