The cited verse found not in chapter 18, but in Lev 19, verse 18.
So I was wrong, it looks like she did answer, and the answer was hidden within, interestingly in a manner similar to how your own reply contained clarity of answer, regardless of her own complaint to the contrary (among another's also need I add?).
The juxtaposition of the passages, both those you gave, and the above is interesting also, particularly in light of how Christ spoke of the above verse, adding that latter portion (the only part which could logically include us, from a Jewish perspective?) it to the 1st commandment. All of which leaves me needing withdraw my own "No response" comment.
I am still left wondering how, in regards to the type of expansionary breaking loose of the law (from applying narrowly to the children of Israel) being extended now towards those not born Jewish, this expansion of rightful application of law we see otherwise given in revelation to Peter, later written and expounded upon thoroughly by the Apostle Paul, which applications of would be needed to make Lev 19:18 in this instance apply here as she used it; not indicate that Jesus was/is Hashem?
Without the above [paragraph] we would be left with the fuller understanding & application of the Levitical law about "love" being much left to interpretation. Leaving us still with one being able to quite literally, work both ends of that law "Do not take vengeance"...and..."but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" against the middle, restricting rightful application both required and due, to only "the children of thy people", the children of Israel.
But then He did also say as in Matthew 15:24
I find this to be rampant in many circles of Christianity today.
I find a LOT of churches that claim "Saved by Grace", and then impose so much stuff on their members as to twist it into "Kept by Works".