The parsha starts of with Yaakov sending "malachim" to Esav his brother. Rashi comments that these were mamash (real) malachim. The word malachim has two meanings. One is a messenger and the other is an angel. So when Rashi says that they were real malachim does he mean real messengers or real angels? Telling me that an ambiguous word really means what it means does not help us unless we believe that one meaning is primary.
Most readers assume that Rashi means really angels. They think this becasue they assume that the real or primary meaning of malachim is angel. They think that the normal word for messenger is shluchim. But this is not so. The word shluchim does not appear in the Torah as a noun. And, in fact, malachim's primary meaning is messenger, hence there are expressions like malachai hashem, messengers of G-d. That could not mean angels of G-d since obviously all angels are from G-d. The primary meaning is messenger and this then takes on the meaning angel when those messengers are sent by G-d.
If we read the end of the previous parsha we will understand why Rashi makes his comment. There Yaakov fights with an angel called Pniel. So when our parsha begins we might think that Yaakov is sending angels, just like the ones he fought, so Rashi tells us no these are real messengers, i.e. flesh and blood messenger. The word mamash has the primary meaning of "tangible" or "flesh and blood" as in the expression "shel mamash." This error in reading Rashi comes from our reading adjacent parshas with a time gap between them. Rashi wrote his commentary to be read as one long flow.