I think there’s a point Qwerty has been making recently that I can help clarify:
“Yes, the Torah (Tanach, Gemara, Midrash, etc.) is filled with references to the supernatural, but it’s our job to discern the truth within. Generally speaking, we’re expected to eschew the fantastic in favor of the mundane. Hameivin yavin.”
“We follow Rambam, who rejects any violation of natural law, even Bilaam’s talking donkey. The Gemara says, ‘Lama Li Kra, Sevara He?’ Judaism is a rational religion. This is the point that philosopher and yankel berel are making, and obviously, they’re right.”
Qwerty keeps saying that Judaism is rational, and that we should try to rationalize the supernatural rather than interpret Torah as depicting changes in nature. He argues that this is the Rambam’s view, and thus the derech we must follow.
I want to clarify the issue here:
It’s important to remember that there are different opinions in Torah. If you’re quoting the Rambam, keep in mind that many Rishonim strongly disagreed with him.
Which one is right? אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים.
Even if you pasken/lean toward a particular opinion, that doesn’t give you the right to misinterpret the opposing opinion to match the one you like.
For example:
Regarding the future Geulah, there’s a major machlokes between the Rambam and Raavad. The Rambam says the Geulah will be entirely natural, while the Raavad argues it will be miraculous.
If you lean toward the Rambam’s approach (based on the hadracha of your rabbeim) that’s fine.
But if you were to say that also the Raavad holds the Geulah will be natural just because that’s how the Rambam understands it—that’s absurd!
The same applies in our discussion:
Can the Gemara about יעקב לא מת be understood spiritually? Absolutely!
As I’ve written many times, many (or perhaps most) of the meforshim (beginning with the Maharsha and Rashba) interpret it this way.
But does Rashi understand it spiritually? No! Rashi explains that Yaakov seemed dead to those burying him, but in reality, he was alive. (Even the Maharsha reads Rashi this way, which is why he ARGUES with him. See Artscroll!) This is also how the Rif, Etz Yosef, and Iyun Yaakov understand it, as they clearly wrote.
You may prefer a more rational interpretation, such as the Maharsha’s, because of your derech, but don’t misinterpret Rashi and say that the literal interpretation is completely invalid!