In other words, the Ramban is questioning in the first part but his conclusion is that Yaacov lo mes means that his non-death is a spiritual matter.
Philosopher, this is the problem when you ignore the answer to your question for three weeks, and suddenly wake up to address it when you think you found a challenge.
In my original post where I brought the Ramban, I acknowledged your point, and it’s irrelevant to the discussion!
Here is part of my original post, with the part where I acknowledge your point in bold:
D) Your exellent question stands even if you learn יעקב לא מת spiritually: The fact is that Gemara calls Yaakov לא מת, and Rashi on Chumash (and Tosfos in Gemara) proves it from the fact that the posuk doesn’t use the word מיתה regarding Yaakov, so how can it say מת אביהם!?
E) Ramban (who doesn’t necessarily interpret the Gemara physically) is bothered by the same question as you!
In other words: Your question is a question on the Chazal according to any pirush, physical or spiritual.
Ramban answers your question perfectly. It doesn’t matter if he is one of the meforshim who interpret it physically or not. The point is that your question has been asked and answered.
The answer works for all pirushim of Yaakov Lo Mes.
This was the exact point I made originally with the Ramban, and you conveniently waited till everyone would forget this point before proposing your weak argument and pretending as if I ignored that part of Ramban.
P.S. The reason why I wrote “not necessarily” is because the last part of the Ramban is written in very vague and concise terms, so I’m not fully clear on his stance. However, even if he does hold that it is only spiritual, the answer still stand for Rashi et al, as I just explained.