philosopher, please answer this. question clearly: Does the Ramban ask the same question you asked based on the passuk about Yaakov Avniu’s sons seeing that their father had died?
If no, then you have not been paying attention. End of discussion. If yes, then next question: Does he answer it in one of two ways, the second being that they mistakenly thought he was dead?
If no, then you are either lying or not translating correctly. If yes, then why do you incessantly quote the passuk as a proof that NO ONE holds that Yaakov Avinu did not die, when the Ramban resolves that issue?
The only conclusion I can come up with is that you have an agenda and that that agenda is not allowing you to see straight. (I too have an agenda against Lubavich, even without their messianic claims, but that does not affect the way I have been taught to understand Rishonim and Acharonim!) And, unfortunately, when your agenda leads you to “disagree” with Rashi, it makes you close to an apikorus.
As to your “demand” that I ask some Rabbi (who you will undoubtedly disqualify; after all, if the Ramban, the Rif and the Or Hachayim are disqualified, what makes mine any better?) I’m not going to do it, and I already told you why on the other thread. Do you, or have you ever, used Artscroll? They say it in the name of Rashi. If that’s not good enough for you, your agenda has completely blinded you.
Listen, I KNOW that the Lubavicher rebbe died, and I KNOW the he is not Mashiach. So clearly my understanding of Rashi et al has nothing to do with Lubavich and their crooked beliefs. Would you agree that that is true? Seems obvious. So stop thinking that anyone who says that according to Rashi et al Yaakov literally did not die must have a Lubavich agenda!