Neville says “Irrelevant. We don’t bring proofs from straight pasukim pretty much ever. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. I get the temptation to say “well you’re bringing a rishon? I’ll bring an even better proof, a passuk from the Torah itself!” For better or for worse, that’s not how the Orthodox world works.”
When you want to have a Talmudic discussion you can bring a rishon. But to say that the comment that Rashi is making on a pasuk contradicts another posuk in the Chumash is absolutely ridiculous and disgusting. Rashi did not contradict the Word of Hashem.
Do you know that anyone can “prove” anything from such type of “learning” that you claim is the legitimate way?
You, like the others, keep parroting that Rashi means that Yaacov’s guf is alive is the mainstream understanding. So, please bring me any reputable rabbi that says that that is the meaning that Rashi means- that Yaacov’s guf is alive in his kever. Still waiting to hear from Arso, and now from you.