I Guess I’m Pulling for the “Chabad Media” Now?

@ Arso

You wrote:

“the Ramban starts by explaining Rashi, which he understands literally as we men do. Then he offers an alternative pshat.”

Then you also wrote

“As I, a physically-bound human, cannot understand what it means to be alive and buried, I don’t want to choose as to what is the exact explanation.”

I just can’t figure out how to make your 2 posts that I quoted above shtim.

PS Please look up the mfarshei Rashi that i cited (Divrei Dovid, Maskil L’Dovid, and Maharal) and see how they understand Rashi. You seem to be taking a very firm position that:

The Maharsha, by the way, does exactly the same. He explains Rashi literally, then disagrees respectfully. Only you and your the rabbis and talmudei (sic) chachamim that you allegedly ask hold differently. And I declare without reservation, if they say that Rashi does not mean it literally, not only are they not talmidei chachamim but they are not even talmudei chachamim.

@ Menachem

“Rashi on Taanis however is simply understood to mean that Yaakov is physically alive”

The way the Rif and Maharsha are explaining Rashi is that Yaacov was not subject to a misas haguf. Meaning, that unlike others who die, Yaacov’s Koach HaNefesh stayed in his body and did not separate from the body (the double lashon is from the Rif) so that there was no need to embalm him to protect him from worms since the Nefesh will protect him just like the Nefesh of the living protects his flesh from getting buggy and their also no need to bury him since the purpose of burial is for the flesh to decompose.

The above proposition is that the conditions of physical death did not apply to Yaacov. Are you understanding that this also means that all conditions of physical life did / do apply? Please clarify.

Neville, you are such a liar. Now i see why querty uses the language that he does because you and others here do not a problem writing lies constantly. Or maybe you are just too dumb to follow and comprehend the conversations.

I said to Arso that “To say that God had a guf before the universe was created is so incredibly dumb” because Arso said that maybe Hashem had a guf before the creation of the universe. Neville the liar said i said it about the Ravaad who said no such thing ever.

Yes, it’s a very, very dumb thing to say that maybe Hashem had physical a guf before the creation of matter.

I forgot to include the names of the people i addressed my last comment to which was meant for Neville and Arso.

Arso and Neville are now arguing with me about the belief that God supposedly has a body because the Ravaad is saying that some mistakenly thought that God has a body.

The Ravaad is not saying that Hashem has a body but that others mistakenly arrived at that conclusion. Because of that Ravaad, Arso and Neville say you can arrive at the same conclusion as the others did. If that’s the conclusion they arrived as well they can take solace that the Ravaad doesn’t consider them min although the Rambam certainly does…

@ Neville

I wrote re: ARso’s post: “I just can’t figure out how to make your 2 posts that I quoted above shtim.”

You erote: Simple, the first time he said “men” it was a slight towards Philosopher for being a woman. The second time, he meant it in the sense of being mortal.

I guess you missed that his post is internally contradictory.

Next

I Actually showed in my posts above that not a single Mefaresh under discussion understands Rashi to be saying that Yaacov is physically / literally alive the way you, ARso, and Menachem Shemei seem to want to understand Rashi.

Non Political: Actually showed in my posts above that not a single Mefaresh under discussion understands Rashi to be saying that Yaacov is physically / literally alive the way you, ARso, and Menachem Shemei seem to want to understand Rashi.

The Or Hachayim, although not a classical mefaresh of Rashi, clearly says that according to Rashi, Yaakov is physically alive. So does the Rif on Ein Yaakov. Others may not, but that doesn’t mean that there is “not a single” one who says that Rashi holds that.

Just to correct a typo in my earlier post, it should say לפי מה שראו במקראות.

One condition of physical life is that of the nefesh animates the body. Even in the case of a comatose or paralyzed person the nefesh animates the body’s internal functions. There are other gedarim regarding how one who is physically alive interacts with the world but this should suffice for out purposes. None of the mefarshim cited (including the Rif and OrHaChaim make such a claim about Yaacov.

Neville, whoever wants can read what i wrote and decide for themselves what I’m saying. You did not look into any mefoiresh and have no clue about anything so stop miscontruing what I wrote and arguing about what I mean.

The only thing that you know is that you were taught that “Yaacov lo meis” means that Rashi said that Yaacov Avinu is physically alive. That’s all you know.

I wrote that Rashi is saying he’s alive in a spiritual sense , he does not mention a guf so in no way do we HAVE to INTERPRET that Rashi is saying that Yaacov is physically alive and the pasuk said he died and no one can contradict a posuk in the Torah. Furthermore, all other meforshim I’ve gone through say that he is alive in a spiritual sense.

Thats it. Thats all im saying. If someone has any issues with what i wrote they can argue with ME about it. You do not have a right to argue about my beliefs when you are misconstruing what I said and arguing over nothing.

Stop arguing about my position. If you have an issue about what someone else believes in then you can argue with that person.

philosopher, I don’t enjoy arguing with you at all. In fact, it frustrates me no end. You keep on interpreting my (and others’) statements incorrectly, it seems unintentionally although I can’t be sure, and you also keep on ignoring sources that don’t suit you.

First, in relation to Yaakov Avinu, you write once again in no way do we HAVE to INTERPRET that Rashi is saying that Yaacov is physically alive and the pasuk said he died and no one can contradict a posuk in the Torah.

The Ramban tells us how according to Rashi the passuk is NOT contradictory even though Rashi holds that Yaakov Avinu did not die! How many times are you going to argue that Rashi can’t mean that Yaakov is alive because it contradicts a passuk. Again, am I meant to take your word for the way to learn, or will you give me permission to rely on the Ramban.

Furthermore, all other meforshim I’ve gone through say that he is alive in a spiritual sense.

The Or Hachayim, in explaining Rashi, says that Yaakov was buried while alive PHYSICALLY. So does the Rif on the Ein Yaakov. And again again, do I have to take your word, or can I rely on my reading and translating of those mefarshim?

Now re the Raavad:

Hashem cannot have had a guf if He existed before matter was created, period.

This makes no sense. Perhaps Hashem had a guf (no, I don’t believe He does/did, but I am addressing your assertion) and then created other matter.

He cannot have a guf if He has no form, period.

How do you know FROM PESUIM IN THE TORAH that He has no form? All I remember is the passuk saying that Bnei Yisrael did not see a form. Does it say EXPLICITLY IN THE TORAH that he has no form? Perhaps it does, but I can’t think offhand where. So please provide a source.

He cannot have a guf and exist forever, period.

Why? Your assertion has no basis other than your assertion, period.

He cannot have a guf and be in the upper worlds and lower worlds simultaneously, period.

Why? Again, you are basing your assertion on your assertion, period.

The Ravaad is not saying that we cannot conclude from the Torah that Hashem has no guf and not that there were great people who thought Hashem has a guf. What the Ravaad is actually saying, according to the Piaseczner Rebbe, Rabbi Shapira zt”l, was that while God is unquestionably incorporeal, if someone has a need to visualize some sort of image…

From what you’re saying, the Piasecner Rebbe – I’d like to see a source, as this is interesting – is explaining why the Raavad says that someone who believes that Hashem has a guf is not a min. He is not saying, according to what you have written, that the Raavad agrees with your statement that it is obvious from the pesukim that Hashem has no guf.

As I said, I’d like to see a source for what the Piasecner wrote, and for two reasons. One, because it is interesting. Two, because I have already seen that I cannot rely on your interpretations.

@ ARso

“The Or Hachayim, in explaining Rashi, says that Yaakov was buried while alive PHYSICALLY. So does the Rif on the Ein Yaakov. And again again, do I have to take your word, or can I rely on my reading and translating of those mefarshim?”

Please stop writing this. Its false. I even provided you a paraphrase in English of what the Rif wrote.

Arso, regarding what is written in the Torah about Hashem, i have provided sources in my earlier posts. I’m not going to even deign to answer your questions. It’s like answering an elementary question like why a person cant be in Australia and Antarctica at the same time… Before asking questions that are not questions perhaps you should think what you are asking. Basically, your questions can be summed up as “why matter must behave like matter”. You don’t even have to know the science of matter to understand that your questions regarding the limitations of a physical body are not valid questions at all.

Non Political, sorry, but I don’t recall you paraphrasing the Rif in English. But regardless, here is exactly what he wrote in the original Lashon Hakodesh, and it clearly says that Yaakov Avinu was alive (I would highlight the relevant section, but I suspect that since it is in Hebrew the direction may be reversed, and thus messed up. So instead I’ll just say that the most relevant part starts with the words ומה שנקבר ונספד and ends with כי כל עוד נפשו בו.)

אמר הכי אמר רבי יוחנן יעקב אבינו לא מת דהא לא כתיב מיתה ויגוע וימת כדכתיב באברהם ויצחק אלא ויגוע ויאסף לומר שכח הנפש נשאר בגופו של יעקב ולא נפרדה הנפש מעל הגוף ואף על פי שהוא אמר אנכי מת ואלהים פקוד יפקוד וגו’ לא ידע מה שיהיה וחשב שגם הוא ימות ותפרד הנפש ממנו כדרך כל הארץ והקש’ לו א”כ בכדי חנטו חנטייא שכיון שהנפש היתה דבוקה בגופו אין לחוש מרמה ותולעה כי הנפש משמרתו כמו שנפש החי משמר את בשרו שלא ירחוש וכן למה נספד ונקבר דהא עיקר הקבורה היא כדי שיתעכל הבשר אבל בהיות הנפש אדוקה עם הגוף אין שם עיכול בשר א”ל מקרא אני דורש הנני מושיעך מרחוק ואי לאו הקישא הוה אמינא דאע”פ שמת יעקב אמר הנני מושיעך מרחוק לפי שכשיש צער לישראל האבות מצטערים בקבר ובעת גאולתם יהיה תשועה מוצאת ליעקב אבל מהקישא דמקיש הוא לזרעו ילפינן דאף הוא בחיים כי כל עוד נפשו בו קשורה בגופו ומה שנקבר ונספד הוא כי נתבטלו כחות התנועה ויאסוף רגליו אל המטה ויגוע כאיש שנתעלף ומוטל כאבן שאין לו הופכין והם לא ידעו כי כל עוד נפשו בו ולכך חנטוהו וספדוהו ויקברו אותו מכ”מ בשעת הגאולה קרינן ביה הנני מושיעך מרחוק באחרית הימים לך תשועה מוצאת בגאולת בניך שהרי אתה חי בנפש ומה זרעו בחיים אף הוא בחיים

@ Arso and Neville

Arso: “I definitely see philosopher having a cavalier attitude to Rishonim, starting with her writing countless times that Rishonim can’t argue with a passuk”and thus ‘proving’ that Yaakov Avinu died, despite it being pointed out to her countless times that the Ramban explains that according to Rashi the Shevatim believed that Yaakov had died even though he hadn’t.

This just proves that she has a cavalier attitude to your understanding of the Rishonim.

Neville: Did you really just read that one post or her’s, or are you just pretending you didn’t see all the posts calling it “dumb” to believe Hashem has a guf

She brought you an opinion above of the Piaseczner Rebbe based on which she is saying that even according to the Ra’avid the Gedolim and Tovim where not ascribing corporality to the Creator. That soesn’t sound like a cavalier attitude to Rishonim. But, even if we accept the simple reading of the Ra’avid I don’t think her sentiment demonstrates a cavalier attitude to Rishonim for the reasons I provided in previous posts.

Neville: ….and name calling everyone who doesn’t bow down to her undeniable genius?

I didn’t see these posts. But, even if they exist they would not demonstrate a cavalier attitude toward Rishonim.

Neville: The point with the Raavad is that she is saying it is pashut and obvious from pasukim that Hashem has no guf (no need for rishonim to even tell us so

You seem to understand that she is saying that anyone without any background can simply pick up a Chumash and know that Hashem is incorporeal. I don’t think this is here position because at the very least such a person would be confronted with contradictions in the text. I imagine that since she is posting in the TWN coffee room she is trading on propositions that are currently universally accepted when reading Psukim. Not many people learn Jewish Philosophy b’iun (Emunos v’Daos, Moreh Nevuchim, Milachamos Hashem, OR Hashem). Therefore, not many people appreciate how much work went into establishing propositions that today are taken for granted. This is not indicative of a cavalier attitude toward rishonim.

Non Political, please explain how the following does not indicate a cavalier attitude to Rishonim.

Rashi – a Rishon – says that Yaakov Avinu did not die. That would seem to contradict the passuk that says that the Shevatim saw that Yaakov had died. The Ramban – another Rishon – notes this problem and resolves the issue by saying (clearly according to Rashi) that they thought that he had died, but they were mistaken. This is all explicit in the Ramban.

philosopher has written numerous times that Rashi cannot mean that Yaakov literally did not die, because the passuk says that the Shevatim saw that he had died.

It has been pointed out to her that the Ramban resolves this problem, but philosopher continues to ignore that and claim – numerous times – that Rashi could not possibly be contradicting a passuk.

Google defines “cavalier attitude” as “having an unconcerned or disdainful attitude about important matters”. If philosopher continues to ignore the resolution provided by the Ramban, she is displaying a cavalier attitude to Rishonim.

Rabbi Klonimus Kalmish Shapira – Piasetzna

וּמִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם לֹא הָיְתָה זֹאת גַּם יְסוֹד וְסִבַּת חֵטְא הָעֶרֶב רַב, שֶׁאָמְרוּ עָשָׂה לָנוּ אֱלֹהִים שֶׁיֵּלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ, וְשֶׁנִּרְאֵהוּ, רַק הֵם הִרְחִיקוּ לָלֶכֶת וּלְבַקֵּשׁ לֹא צִיּוּר מַחֲשָׁבָה בִּלְבַד רַק גַּם דְּמוּת בְּפוֹעֵל, וְעוֹד הִתְטַפְּשׁוּ לִרְצוֹת דְּמוּת אֱלֹהֵי מִצְרַיִם רַחֲמָנָא לִיצְּלָן.” Perhaps this was underlying motive behind the sin of the mixed multitude, who said, “Make us a god who will go before us” (Exodus 32:1). They wanted a god that they could see. They went too far, however, and sought not only a mental image, but a physical one. And, even more egregious, they foolishly desired an image of the god of Egypt.
וְכֵיוָן שֶׁיְּסוֹד חֶבְרָתֵנוּ הוּא שֶׁלֹּא לִגְעֹר וְלִגְזוֹר סְתָם עַל הָאִישׁ עשה כָּךְ וְכָךְ כִּי אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁמַע לָנוּ אוֹ שֶׁיִּרְאֶה אֶת עַצְמוֹ לֵאמֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַחֲשָׁבָה טוֹבָה וְהִתְעוֹרְרוּת וְאֵין לוֹ. The basis of our group is that we do not rebuke and command people—for either they will not listen, or they will look at themselves and say that they already possess positive mindfulness and inspiration, even if that is not the case.
כִּי בֶּאֱמֶת גַּם כֻּלָּם רוֹצִים לִהְיוֹת טְהוֹרֵי לֵב וּבְנֵי עֲלִיָּה רַק שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָהֶם לְהִתְעַלּוֹת מִן רִפְשָׁם כַּנַ”ל. This is because everyone wants to be pure of heart and elevated. However, most people cannot rise beyond the flotsam in which they are afloat.
וְכָל יְסוֹד חֶבְרָתֵנוּ הוּא לְהַרְכִּין אֶת הַכָּתֵף לִמְקוֹם נְמִיכֻיּוֹת הַחֲבֵרִים עַד כַּפּוֹת רַגְלֵי נַפְשָׁם וְגוּפָם, וּמִשָּׁם לְהַעֲלוֹתָם בְּאֶמְצָעִים מַתְאִימִים לָהֶם. The entire purpose of our group is to raise people. We will lower our shoulders to whatever low level another member may be on, down to the soles of the feet of his spirit and body, and from there we will raise him, using means appropriate to his condition.
לָכֵן נרְאֶה נָא גַּם לָהֶם תַּקָּנָה וְעֵצָה אֵיךְ לְהַרְגִּילָם כְּפִי מַצָּבָם. לָכֵן בְּמַצָּב כָּזֶה בְּרֵאשִׁית גִּדּוּל וְהִתְרַחֲבוּת מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ יִסְמֹךְ עַצְמוֹ עַל הָרָאָבָ”ד זַ”ל שֶׁמֵּשִׁיב עַל הָרַמְבַּ”ם זַ”ל פֶּרֶק ג’ מֵהִלְכוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה הֲלָכָה ז וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ: “אמר אברהם וְלָמָּה קָרָא לְזֶה מִין? כַּמָּה גְּדוֹלִים וְטוֹבִים וכו’ הָלְכוּ בְּזוֹ הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה וכו’.” Group members must be given exercises and counsel appropriate to their level, which will help them habituate themselves to mindfulness. And so, in this spirit, my counsel is that a person in such a situation—at the beginning of the growth and expanding of his mindfulness—should depend upon the view of the Ravad, who responded to the Rambam: “Why does he call a person [who attributes physicality to God] a sectarian? A number of great and good people . . . have entertained this idea . . . “ (Hilchot Teshuvah 3:7).
וְעַל פִּי פּשטו קָשֶׁה לְהָבִין אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָרַאֲבַ”ד זַ”ל הֲלֹא מִקְרָא מָלֵא הוּא, “כִּי לֹא רְאִיתֶם כָּל תְּמוּנָה” וְכַדּוֹמֶה. וְעַיֵּן בְּכֶסֶף מִשְׁנֶה שָׁם קֻשְׁיָתוֹ. It is difficult to understand the words of the Ravad. Does the verse not clearly state, “You saw no image” (besides other such statements)? (Cf. the Kesef Mishnah’s question ibid.)
וּלְפִי הַנָּ”ל לֹא שֶׁאָמַר הָרָאָבָ”ד זַ”ל שֶׁיִּטְעֶה הָאִישׁ לֵאמֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ ח”ו לְמַעְלָה שׁוּם תְּמוּנָה, חַס מִלְּהַזְכִּיר, אֲבָל כַּנַ”ל בֶּאֱמֶת יֵדַע הָאִישׁ שֶׁהַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ אֵינוֹ בַּעַל שׁוּם תְּמוּנָה ח”ו רַק הוּא הַקָּרוּץ מֵחֹמֶר אִישׁ מְגֻשָּׁם בַּעַל תְּמוּנָה מְצַיֵּר לוֹ זֹאת, כְּדֵי שֶׁתּוּכַל מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ לְהֵאָחֵז וּלְהִתְגַּדֵּל וּלְהִתְרַחֵב. But in line with what was stated above, we can understand this as follows. The Ravad is not saying that we should delude ourselves that there is some image in the upper realm, God forbid, let it not even be uttered. Rather, we must know in truth that God has no image, heaven forbid. But we beings scraped of physicality, corporeal people who possess form, visualize such a thing so that our mindfulness will be able to grasp, expand and broaden.
וְכַאֲשֶׁר יַעֲזֹר לוֹ ד’ וְתִתְחַזֵּק מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ וְתוּכַל לַחֲשֹׁב בד’ מַחֲשָׁבָה חֲזָקָה וּנְקִיָּה, וְדִמְיוֹן נִיצוֹץ נְבוּאָה יִתְגַּלֶּה לוֹ, אָז הַתְּמוּנָה הַצִּיּוּר גּוּפָנִי הַזֶּה מִמֵּילָא יִתְבַּטְּלוּ, וְיוּכַל לְצַיֵּר לוֹ בְּעֵת תְּפִלָּתוֹ שֶׁעוֹמֵד לִפְנֵי ד’ ית’ וְלִפְנֵי כִּסֵּא כְּבוֹדוֹ עִנְיָן כְּדֵי לְשַׂבֵּר אֶת הָאֹזֶן וּכְדֵי לְשַׂבֵּר אֶת הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה מָה שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לַחְשֹׁב וּלְדַמּוֹת. Then, when God helps us and our mind grows stronger so that we can think of Him with a strong and clean mindfulness, and when an image of a spark of prophecy is revealed within us, this physical image will of itself cease to exist. When we pray, we will be able to picture that we are standing before God and His throne of glory—realizing that whatever we imagine is merely the way that our senses—our ears and mind—are capable of interpreting things .
וְגַם אַתָּה חָבֵר בְּחַבְרַיָּא בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק צַיֵּר לְךָ שֶׁאַתָּה עוֹמֵד לִפְנֵי כִּסֵּא כְּבוֹדוֹ וְאַתָּה מִתְפַּלֵּל וּמְבַקֵּשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ ית’ פָּשׁוּט כְּבֵן שֶׁעוֹמֵד וּמִתְחַנֵּן מֵאָבִיו רַחֵם נָא עָלַי אָבִי, כְּבָר אִי אֶפְשָׁר לִסְבֹּל נְדוּדֵי הַגּוּף וַעֲזִיבַת הָרוּחַ, וּמִן הָעֵת אֲשֶׁר הִשְׁלַכְתַּנִי מִמְּךָ וְהִסְתַּרְתָּ פָּנֶיךָ מֵאִתָּנוּ, מָגוֹר מִסָּבִיב. And so, member of this group, if you find yourself in such an extremity, visualize that you are standing before God’s Throne of Glory and that you are praying and begging Him simply, like a son crying and begging before his father, “Have mercy on me, my Father, I can no longer bear the wanderings of my body and the abandonment of my spirit. From the time that you cast me from You and hid Your face from me, I am surrounded by terror.”
וּמִי הוּא הָאִישׁ אַף בְּלֵב אֶבֶן שֶׁלֹּא יִמַּס בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמְּצַיֵּר בְּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ אֶת הַדְּמוּת הַזֹּאת, אֵיךְ הוּא עוֹמֵד לִפְנֵי כִּסֵּא כְּבוֹדוֹ אֵשׁ אֹכְלָה וּמִתְחַנֵּן עַל עַצְמוֹ וְעַל בְּנֵי בֵּיתוֹ וְעַל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל. Which person, even if has a heart of stone, will not melt when he pictures that he is standing before God’s Throne of Glory, a consuming fire, pleading for himself, his family, and all Israel?

I forgot to add to my post of the excerpt from the writings of the Piaseczno Rebbe Hy”d that it is from his sefer Bnei Machshava Tova

Non Political, indeed I said a few times on the other thread that one explanation of Yaacov Avinu’s being alive forever can mean that his nefesh is bound to his guf on some level. That does not mean that his guf it’s actually alive i.e. breathing, and doing other bodily functions.

@ Arso

You wrote: “One of the things she said was that Yaakov Avinu can’t be alive because he would be suffering there, and why would Hashem make him suffer.”

Right. Because being physically alive has 2 aspects

1) the Nefesh animates the body
2) the Nefesh is constrained to experience whatever it experiences through the body

If he is physically alive in the full sense of that concept then both of those conditions would still apply and he would be suffering. So surely there is at least something different between the state Yaacov is in and the state a guy is in when he is buried alive, no?

“She also argued that Rashi does not mean he is alive.”

If alive means in the full physical sense then she is in very good company

“And don’t forget that she keeps on insisting that Rashi can’t be saying that he is alive because a later passuk says he died, and Rashi can’t be arguing with a passuk. This is all despite the fact that the Ramban explains that according to Rashi the sons mistakenly thought that he died, which philosopher keeps intentionally ignoring.”

I am not sure why she used that as a proof. Maybe she made a mistake. It happens to the best of us.

As to your claim that none of the mefarshim say that all conditions of being alive apply to Yaakov Avinu, look again at the Or Hachayim who writes:
חי הוא אלא דורמיטא קראתו כישן ונרדם, which to me seems clear that he’s saying that Yaakov was fully alive (and breathing!) and in a sort of comatose state.

דורמיטא denotes withdrawal (like how some kochos hanefesh withdraw from the guf during sleep). The point here is that the Nefesh retains a connection to the Guf similar to a person when he is sleeping. The OrHaChaim then goes on to describe some (there are others) consequences of that connection that are relevant to pshat in the Narrative. This is how I understand the OrHaChaim.

It’s true that there is some ambiguity here because one could understand the כ’ הדמיון two ways (as you probably know from the sugya in Brachot re כחצות). So, on could read the OrHaChaim as saying that Yaacov is precisely like one who is sleeping. This seems to be how you are understanding the OrHachayim.

Same thing for the Rifs use of the כ’ הדמיון in כאיש שנתעלף.

@ Philosopher

” It says in the Torah that Yaacov himself said he is about to die. אָבִ֞י הִשְׁבִּיעַ֣נִי לֵאמֹ֗ר הִנֵּ֣ה אָנֹכִי֮ מֵת֒ בְּקִבְרִ֗י אֲשֶׁ֨ר כָּרִ֤יתִי לִי֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ כְּנַ֔עַן שָׁ֖מָּה תִּקְבְּרֵ֑נִי וְעַתָּ֗ה אֶֽעֱלֶה־נָּ֛א וְאֶקְבְּרָ֥ה אֶת־אָבִ֖י וְאָשֽׁוּבָה׃ and his sons saw that their father died. וַיִּרְא֤וּ אֲחֵֽי־יוֹסֵף֙ כִּי־מֵ֣ת אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ ל֥וּ יִשְׂטְמֵ֖נוּ יוֹסֵ֑ף וְהָשֵׁ֤ב יָשִׁיב֙ לָ֔נוּ אֵ֚ת כׇּל־הָ֣רָעָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר גָּמַ֖לְנוּ אֹתֽוֹ׃

“The Ramban himself is not saying that Yaacov is alive forever he himself says alive spiritually. But on the words of Rashi he is saying that “to them (the shevatim) he was dead or perhaps they did not know all of this”

Right. So according to Rashi, as the Ramban understands him, the above psukim can’t be proof texts that he died. Of course, that does NOT mean that he understands Rashi as saying that he is literally alive or buried alive.