AAQ: What’s your point? I wasn’t being anti-sefaria, I was being anti a purposeful mistranslation of Tanach that uses modern, leftist gender theory. I think this got brought up because someone said that translation is on sefaria, but otherwise this part of the discussion has no connection to sefaria at all.
ZSK: Obviously I know that leftist, non-Orthodox Jews exist. My point was, there is no group that wants a leftist version of the Tanach. The only reason the leftists are learning Tanach is to make fun of it and/or claim that it’s outdated, bigoted, etc. The last thing they want is a whitewashed translation that makes it sound more palatable to them.
Philosopher: People always get touchy about this, and I’m not sure why either. I couldn’t give you to location because I just remember hearing it in a shiur, but Reb Moshe addresses the question of using a siddur that was printed with chillul shabbos. It’s not so clear cut that “it’s just a siddur so who cares how it was made and who made it.” I’m not sure why people are so much more willing to take this lenient approach with Sefaria.
I do think Sefaria is mutar, but it’s not simple. Given who designed it, it’s almost certain some chillul shabbos was involved. People would not be crazy to worry that it’s mitzvah habaah b’aveira, but I don’t think it actually is, nor is it so pashut that that would even make it assur.