Interpretation and prejudice

Following on from your words in the article and in the lesson I heard, I came across a letter from the Chazo’a to Rabbi Eliezer Paltsinsky related to the laws of Eruvin (a hanging partition and a branching partition) in the commentary on Rashi’s words, Eruvin 16: i.e. a hanging partition.
After a fundamental debate on the laws of a hanging partition between the aforementioned rabbis, Rabbi Palczynski brought up the aforementioned language of Rashi, which means as he says and the Chazo wrote about it (cited in the Chiddushei Chazo on the page Eruvin, page 16: D”h Mashak) and the late Mashak of the Shlita, which is against the plain meaning of Rashi, although according to the opinion of the Meachat there is a possibility of interpreting … so yes, the eloquence of the plain meaning, but if it is implied … there is no tendency here from the plain meaning of the Darshai. Therefore.
In simple terms, “You think it’s possible to say such a thing, so you read Rashi in this way, but I think it’s the simplest, so I read Rashi in a different way.”
And the Chazo’s view regarding a simple interpretation is very close to what you said (especially since the Chazo’s view completely distorts Rashi’s words and then reiterates that it cannot be interpreted that way).
There is an interpretive tendency that places the grammar of the language in a lower place than the probability of explanation.
It is worth seeing the letter of the Chazo’a in the newly published Shalom Yehuda book, which is followed by a collection of the letters in their original form.
In Hebrew I found a different language from the old edition.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20631&st=&pgnum=101
With joy and happiness
Reuven