RSo

anyPotato: “@RSo clearly you have not read his book.”

I’ve already said that I have no intention of reading any book written with an agenda that I believe is dangerous to Yidden.

“Rashi says if it’s someone from the living NOW and if it’s someone who died ALREADY it’s Doniel. Ie in the future it can be anyone that lives or dies.”

Could you please explain the logic of your “that is” (I assume that’s what your Ie means)? Where did you get that it can be anyone who has died after Daniel?

“After rebbi died Rav would likely think Rebbi could still be Moshiach.”

Now you’re telling us what Rav WOULF LIKELY HAVE THOUGHT despite there being no indication of such in the gemoro! I thought that only the Lubavicher rebbe was a novi and knew what was in people’s hearts and minds. It seems at least one of his chassidim is too.

“Again you are showing your Am Aratzus and clearly have not read the book that you are trying to trash…. Not such an intelligent position to have….”

I didn’t trash the book. I am totalling ignoring it. And once again. thanks to the mods for letting anyPotato’s amusing post through without deleting it.

Avirah, here are quotes from the story as it appears online:

“He estimated that there had to be a tall hill about twelve to fifteen miles to the south, with tall trees growing on the hilltop.”

“The governor was highly impressed, and ordered a special agent to be sent to inspect all areas between twelve and fifteen miles south of his estate”

And Avirah, you wrote “maybe the trees were closer and visible, and it was the baal hatanya ‘s attention to detail which made him notice something everyone else overlooked”.

Surely if the sundial didn’t function correctly between 2 and 5 pm because of something blocking the sun, any idiot would have noticed that the day was darker during that period.

Also, I just realized that there’s another problem with the story. For two years the sundial did not show the correct time between 2 and 5. Summer and winter? Even in Russia/Poland the sun is much higher in the summer than it is during that winter. They must have been VERY high trees.

And the number of trees required to block the sun for three straight hours must have been large. But in a few days the trees were all cut down, and all before chainsaws were invented!

anyPotato: “Does this kinda sorta mean you now acknoledge Rashi 1st Pshat is very clealy understanding the Gemara to be teaching Moshiach can come from the dead?”

(I should have a macro that automatically inserts my response to this claim, as I’ve said it so many times on so many threads!)
Rashi’s first pshat is that if Mashiach is someone who has died then IT IS Damiel. No one else. And anyone who then says, “Rashi said Daniel, so why can’t I say Ploni who has died,” is being mezalzel Chazal by thinking he is on the same level as them. I believe it’s called מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה and it’s ‘not a very good thing’.

Avira, I’m surprised that you didn’t see what is inherently unscientific in the sundial story, but before I explain allow me to summarize the pertinent parts of the story very briefly for those who are unfamiliar with it.

A poritz had a sundial that did not work correctly from 2 pm to 5 pm. The greatest professors could not explain why, but the Baal Hatanya could.
(That may sound as if c”v I’m denigrating the Baal Hatanya, but I am not at all. In fact, I seriously have no problem believing that a gaon who was so kadosh vetahor could have a greater understanding of science than even the greatest professors nowadays. It’s just that the explanation given in the story is nonsensical.)
He suggested that there were tall trees growing on a tall hill 12 to 15 miles to the south, and they were blocking the sun from 2 pm to 5 pm. The trees were cut down and the Baal Hatanya was proven right. (The story is longer and contains accounts of anti-Semitism and trickery, but in a nutshell that’s what happened.)

What’s wrong with the story?
1. The horizon on flat land is approximately 3 miles away. Due to the curvature of the earth no hill or trees 12 to 15 miles away could interfere with the sun’s rays hitting a sundial.
2. If when standing next to a sundial on a clear day (sundials require sun to function properly) you can’t see any obstruction such as trees on a hill, the sundial can’t see it either, and it would not affect the time shown. If something would affect the sun’s rays reaching the sundial at any particular time, you would be able to notice it with the naked eye without having to resort to experts or professors.

Menachem: “Complete lies. Anyone who said what you said and calls himself a Chabad chossid is like an Israeli knesset member who calls himself satmar.”

I can understand your surprise, but it’s the truth. The Rayatz wasn’t the first one who wrote “fiction” in order to save Yidden from leaving Torah and Mitzvos. There was R Meir/Marcus Lehman, who btw was an outstanding talmid chochom. There was R Yudel Rosenberg, who was a rov and a talmid chochom, and who is responsible for all the stories about the Maharal’s golem.

“Something tells me that although you dress chassidish, you don’t have a rebbe, but that’s just a theory.”

And it’s BH a completely incorrect theory.

Now it’s my turn to guess. Something tells me that you have never known what it is to have a live Rebbe who talks to you personally one on one. That is, I’m guessing that you came on the scene after the first stroke and therefore never faced a rebbe to his face.

Avira, sorry but I am not saying what I heard from anyone else other than Lubavicher chassidim. Those who aren’t totally blind know that the Rayatz invented a lot of what he wrote to fire up the chassidim in the dark times of Communist Russia. It helped keep them loyal (and frum!).

The story of the sundial is not a moifes story, nor something that is meant to be supernatural. It is a story that was intended to show the great SCIENTIFIC wisdom of the Baal Hatanya. The trouble is that SCIENTIFICALLY it makes no sense whatsoever. I’ll try to source it for you so you can see for yourself.

And to set things straight, although in relation to Lubavich I could certainly be considered a snag because of my opposition to them on a number of fronts (not just the Mashiach issue), in relation to chassidus I am not a snag at all. In fact I am a “card-carrying member” of a known chassidus, and clearly look the part.

anyPotato: “Rashi also holds they are calling their Rav Raui Lehyos Moshiach. As is seen clearly from Rashi d’h Menachem: (says Rashi) Ben Chizkiya. Once Rashi shows his girsa just said Menachem so he then states it’s a real human being with a father called Chizkiya. We see he holds not just names and attributes but rather they’re pointing a finger and saying he is fit to be Moshiach.”

1. The colons and periods in Rashi were not put there by him, as a number of Acharonim point out. Rather, Rashi wrote it all, and the printers decided where to put the colon, signifying the end of the quote from the gemoro, and the period, signifying the end of the piece. Thus, your attempted proof (which, at any rate I didn’t understand ) as to what Rashi holds has no basis. That is, we can’t know what Rashi meant by that piece.

2. Even according to you, who was Menachem ben Chizkiyah? One opinion in the gemoro said that that is the name of Mashiach, but that doesn’t mean that it’s referring to someone known.

And as to youir very impressive list of sources:
1. Quoting Rishonim and Acharonimi who write “משיח צדקנו” is disingenuous. (How come I only ever use that word in the Coffee Room?) It’s an honorific. Just like when it says “מלאך ה’בתוכנו”. Would you have us believe that the talmid thought the Maharal was a real malach and not human? A malach being Mashiach! That’s very novel.

2. I have to admit that I didn’t look up even one of the myriad sources that you quoted (I can imagine you thinking, “Let’s drown the snag in sources.” 🙂 ), but from a cursory glance at them I can see that my long-standing and oft-cited complaint has not been addressed at all.
These people considered their Rebbes fit to be Mashiach. If Lubavichers would say just that about their rebbe, I would not be so vehemently against them, even though I believe that he was nowhere near fit to be Mashiach, and that through some of his actions and views he was detrimental to correct emunah in bias Mashiach.
My major complaint is that Lubavichers say that he was bechezkas Mashiach, and in order to buttress this nonsensical claim they selectively quote and misinterpret whatever they want. That to me seems מגלה פנים שלא כהלכה, and is very dangerous to Klal Yisroel.

Finally, to address one of the sources that I happened to see in your list:
“”וראה גם רד”ק על תהלים פט, מח “בכל דור ודור יתאוה מי שהוא מזרע דוד שתהי’ בימיו הישועה ויהי’ הוא המלך המשיח”.
That is, in every generation (the definition of which, as I have written in the past, Lubavichers reinterpreted after Gimmel Tammuz) there is a descendant of Dovid who longs for the salvation to come in his day, and he will be the Mashiach. Note, it does not say that he longs for himself to be Mashiach!

Neville, you insulted me greatly with this description: “RSo (the evil misnaged)”. I would much rather you had called me by my correct title: SNAG!

Now down to less serious stuff. I find it interesting that with all the back and forth no one – including Ortho – has answered the claim, mentioned by a number of posters, that before Gimmel Tammuz the proof that the Lubavicher rebbe was Mashiach was that Mashiach HAS TO BE SOMEONE ALIVE at the time. And don’t tell me that that isn’t true. It’s 100% true.

As I wrote earlier – perhaps in a different thread – I heard many many times, “Look around. Who is greater nowadays than the Lubavicher rebbe? And Mashiach has to be someone alive, so he must be Mashiach.”

Then, during the levayah (that did or did not take place; it depends on whom you ask in Lubavich) papers were distributed that implied that the Lubavicher rebbe said that Mashiach can be someone who had died. This was NOT an acceptable opinion on Beis Tammuz! Ortho, I don’t know how long you’ve been around Lubavich, but I venture to say that I have been around much much longer, so please don’t try arguing with me what the official Lubavich policy was prior to Gimmel Tammuz.

Again, as I’ve said in the past, people who can blithely change what to them was one of the ikarei emunah to suit themselves, never had an ounce of emunah. Not beforehand and not afterwards.

You’re using SZ as a proof that it’s justifiable to say that the Lubavicher rebbe can be Mashiach after he died!

Allow me to point out that SZ was most definitely not Mashiach, and neither is LEHAVDIL (I put that in capitals so that you won’t miss it) the Lubaviche rebbe.

Neville and coffee-addict, you upset me by beating me to it!

Ortho: “…he also says bar kochba was a melech and rabbi Akiva thought he was moshiach. How strange! The Rambam pashut says a king and ur gonna tell me bar kochba was a king without fitting how the Rambam says a king is established?!”

The question is itself the answer. If the Rambam sets out criteria for someone being a king, and he then calls Bar Kochba a king, it must mean that Bar Kochba fit the Rambam’s criteria! The Rambam just doesn’t feel the need to tell us how Bar Kochba became king. The Lubavicher, on the other hand, does not, and did not, fit ANY of the criteria.

ujm: “Avira, in regards to your comment about intermarriage, is there a difference between intermarriage (which in reality is invalid as there’s no recognition of a so-called “marriage” of a Yid to a goy) versus someone who stam is mezana with a shiksa?”

As far as I understand there is certainly a major difference between intermarriage and being mezaneh with a shiksa. The Torah explicitly says about the 7 Umos “לא תתחתן בם’, while being mezaneh is an issur enacted by the beis din of Chashmonai. See Avodah Zarah 36b. True a marriage with a non-Jew is not valid, but it’s worse than stam zenus.

Ortho

There is no repetition at all in the Rambam.

ויכוף כל ישראל לילך בה ולחזק בדקה
He will force all Yidden in the ways of the Torah etc

וילחם מלחמות ה’
He will wage wars of Hahem. Note: a person can wage war and lose, and he can wage war and not yet win those wars. He has still waged wars. So even without winning he can still be הרי זה בחזקת שהוא משיח

Then if he did all that and was successful in defeating all the surrounding nations etc.
אם עשה והצליח ונצח כל האומות שסביביו ובנה מקדש במקומו וקבץ נדחי ישראל הרי זה משיח בודאי

No repetition at all. At first he has to wage wars for the sake of Hashem. That, together with the earlier criteria, make him bechezkas Mashiach. Then when has successfully defeats ALL the surrounding nations and builds the BHMK, he is certainly Mashiach.

One other obvious point that hasn’t yet been stated explicitly. As far as I know, and I’m not a total ignoramus in these matters, the Lubavicher rebbe didn’t force EVEN ONE PERSON or tell anyone to FORCE someone to keep Torah and Mitzvos. So how is he bechezkas Mashiach?

(Just a thought that came to mind. The ones closest, perhaps, to actually forcing Yidden to keep Torah and Mitzvos, are the Satmar Rebbe z”l and the original founders of Neturei Karta. No, I don’t agree with their views or their methods, but technically they are the ones who are trying to use force.)

I think it’s quite sad that someone as lucid and intelligent as you, has been so influenced by Lubavich propaganda that you don’t see the obvious inconsistencies in the claims that you (I assume) have been told over and over and have therefore taken on board. On this thread it is only myself and a few others who point out these inconsistencies, but the ENTIRE frum world rejects Lubavich’s claims about your rebbe’s candidacy. And it’s not based on hatred. It’s based on the ludicrousness of the claims.

Before I reply to any of Ortho’s disagreements with what I have written, I would like to clarify what I believe Avira wrote and what I think is possibly being misunderstood.

Avira wrote that there was a great decline in the acceptance of Torah and Mitzvos during the L rebbe’s lifetime. It seems to me that some may have understood that to mean that the L rebbe was the cause, but that is not – at least not the way I understand it – what Avira is saying.

Rather he’s saying that you can’t consider the L rebbe bechezkas Mashiach when that entails forcing all Yidden to keep Torah and Mitzvos, and during his lifetime there were more and more Yidden who distanced themselves from Torah and Mitzvos. Not that he caused that.

Looking back at what I just wrote, it seems pretty obvious that that’s what Avira meant. But in this thread I have learnt that nothing is obvious 🙂

“No talmid chacham or Rov that I know says that the Lubavitcher Rebbe ZT”L wasn’t a tzaddik.”

That is patently untrue! There are many many (not a typo) Litvishe talmidei chachomim and roshei yeshivah who hold that the Lubavicher rebbe was NOT a tzaddik. And I believe there are more than one or two chassidishe talmidei chachomim who are of the same opinion.

Actually, I retract that. Maybe it is true that YOU don’t know them… but it’s definitely true that I do.

Continuing with my arguments to OrthodoxRabbi:

The Rambam is not open to interpretation when that interpretation clearly misrepresents what he says. Among the Rambam’s criteria for Chezkas Mashiach are:

1. A king of the House of David will arise – the Lubavicher rebbe was not a king. We don’t currently have a king, so no one can be considered bechezkas Mashiach until we do. The statement מאן מלכי רבנן – which Lubavichers have cited to overcome this problem – is an Aggadic statement and does not count in Halocho. Can one of the Rabbonon nowadays decide to break down your fence and lead his retinue through your property? No, of course not. A real king can.
Furthermore, as mentioned, we have no proof that the Lubavicher rebbe was a descendant from the House of David, other that his and his father-in-law’s claim. And that obviously has no weight in a non-Woke world.

2. Delves in Torah and is occupied with Mitzvos as was David – that’s something we can’t know, so we’ll have to wait for a higher authority to rule on that when the time comes.

3. He will force all of Israel to go in it’s [the Torah’s] path – he may indeed have wanted that, and encouraged it, but he didn’t (couldn’t!) force people. The argument, which I have heard numerous times in Lubavich circles, that since nowadays we can’t force, encouraging is the equivalent, does not hold water. In fact, even in the Rambam’s time there was no possibility of a Jewish king forcing all Yidden to keep Torah and Mitzvos.

4. He will wage the was of Hashem – waging war is something kings of yore (and dictators of today) did. The Lubavicher rebbe didn’t wage any wars.

So how can anyone claim that the Lubavicher rebbe is bechezkas Mashiach on the basis of the Rambam. And please don’t quote me other Rishonim or Achronim because official Lubavich policy was, as I have written in the past, that the Rambam is the final word in determining these things as Mishneh Torah is a sefer Halocho.

To make my view absolutely clear: I would not be attacking Lubavich regarding their claim as to their rebbe’s candidacy for Mashiach SO vehemently if they were to say, “Our rebbe is the greatest tzaddik of the generation, and he is the most worthy to be Mashiach.” I would definitely disagree with the claim, and argue with it. But I wouldn’t be as incensed as I have been for the past nearly-thirty years due to the distorting of the Rambam. That together with the claim – and I have heard/read it many times! – if the gemoro can say Daniel is Mashiach even though he is not alive, we can say the rebbe is Mashiach even though he is no longer alive. That’s like saying if the gemoro can say you’re allowed to cook on Yom Tov, we can say you’re allowed to drive a car on Yom Tov.

And if, by any chance, you have read this far, and you are wondering when my blood pressure started rising over the issue of Mashiach, it was around Gimmel Tammuz 1994.

As I have written, I have had a close association with Lubavichers over decades, and I clearly remember many occasions pre Gimmel Tammuz when dyed-in-the-wool Lubavichers would be attampting to convince non-Lubavichers (both frum and frei) that the Lubavicher rebbe is Mashiach with the following argument:
“There has to be someone alive in each generation who is worthy of being Mashiach. Look around and tell me who is more worthy nowadays than the rebbe. There isn’t anyone else who comes close, so he is obviously this generation’s candidate.”

Of course, I disagreed with that, but what really got me worked up (I still am, in case you haven’t noticed) is that IMMEDIATELY post Gimmel Tammuz the argument changed:
“Mashiach does not have to be someone who is alive. The rebbe is Mashiach!”
or:
“As long as there are people who are alive when the rebbe was alive, it is still the same generation, and the rebbe is still the most likely (only likely?) candidate of our generation.” Note: even nowadays there are people still alive שיחיו who were born before the war, so, for example, R Chaim Ozer, or countless other gedolei Yisroel, would be considered part of our generation, and any one of them could be a suitable candidate for Mashiach.

For all I know no one reads my posts, but in case some do, and they’re wondering why I am so vehemently against Lubavich, I’ll explain myself.

I’m all in favor of Chabad Houses offering meals and services to tourists and the like, but the Lubavich hashkofah in all other areas is IMHO very dangerous.

They disparage all other frum streams, especially “snags”, and they blatantly misinterpret Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim to suit their views. I don’t care if they don’t eat Seudah Shlishis and they don’t sleep in the sukkah. Lots of streams have their own “strange” minhogim. But when they say that they are doing it better than anyone else despite the fact that in Shulchan Aruch it says otherwise, they pose a danger to Torah society.

There are other major issues with them, but a public forum is not necessarily the proper venue to discuss those issues והמבין יבין.

“Reb Sholom Wolpo wrote a book called Yechi Hamelech explaining how the Rebbe is/was bechezkas Moshiach. That Sefer got the haskamos of Reb Moshe and Rav Ovadia among others.”

Do your research. The haskamos were given only on a Halocho sefer written by Wolpo about Mashiach. They did not give haskomos on the sefer saying that the Lubavicher rebbe was/is bechezkas Mashiach. That came out a number of years after Reb Moshe was niftar!

Chabadpedia has the entire story.

(I apologize in advance for the length of this post.)

There is so much that could be said in reply, I can’t remember all the points I wanted to contest. But I do remember a few (not in any particular order).

“Quote me a Rambam and I’ll quote you an Abarbanel.”

Even before 1994 Lubavichers were saying that the Rambam is a sefer Halocho and that that is what is relevant, not other Rishonim or Achronim who aren’t paskening. (This is exactly the same reasoning Lubavichers use when arguing that the branches of the menora were straight and not round. The Rambam says so, so other meforshim don’t count against Halocho.) To now say that Moshiach can come from the dead because the Abarbanel apparently says so is disingenuous.

“I dont know where ur getting the idea that we dont know the rebbe was from king david. He himself testified that his father is from zera dovid in an edited sicha. We have the rebbes family background recorded. He is related to the alter rebbe, who is related to the maharal who is related to dovid hamelech. None of this is disputed by anyone in entire lubavitch.”

Sorry for the long quote but I wanted to give everyone out there the opportunity to enjoy it once again. The proof that he is from zera Dovid is… (drumroll)… he himself said so! And his family connection is recorded with NO ONE IN LUBAVITCH disputing it! Well, then. That’s good enough, isn’t it? How very woke! The Lubavicher rebbe identifies as zera Dovid, so we take his word for it. If he identifies as Mashiach we’ll take his word for it. edited
And one other point on the Davidic claim: the claim is that the line goes through Rashi, who had no sons, so that line is not ben achar ben.

You claim that people have other issues against Lubavich, not just the Mashiach matter. I agree with you!

As I have written in other threads, I have been in very close contact with Lubavichers – both familially and parnossa-wise – for many many many years. And that means decades before 1994. Even before they started hounding us about Mashiach, they were hounding us about the “correct” things we should be learning, the “correct” way to put on tefillin, the “correct” nusach to daven, the “correct” days to celebrate etc. Everyone else was wrong or at the very best, insignificant. There were no other tzaddikim and no other gedolei Yisrael. People who slept in the sukkah were shallow or stupid, as were people who ate Seudah Shlishis. Everybody was mechuyav to recite Chumash-Tehillim-Tanya, aka Chitas, daily. Everyone was mechuyav to learn Rambam daily. Everyone was mechuyav to learn mesechta Sotah during Sefirah. And the list goes on.

As the Kohein Gadol said on Yom Kippur (and no, I am not chas veShalom comparing myself to him, just using a quote) יותר ממה שקריתי יש כאן. There’s a lot more to say, but I think you get the point.

One final thing I’d like to say. I really liked Yserblus’ statement that it doesn’t say anywhere in the Torah that Mashiach can’t be a purple monkey. Very clever, and VERY to the point!

I am dying to add my 2 cents to the discussion, but so far I have nothing much to add as some of you – e.g. AviraDeArah (who is clearly a yesh, by the way) – are doing a great job for me.

Two points, however. Menachem Shmei writes: “Unless you’re not interested in honest discussion, feel free to put your head in the sand.” Which implies that if you’re takke not interested in honest discussion, then you should not put your head in the sand. I get the feeling that’s not what he meant.

Finally, I couldn’t find those seforim with discussions on some of the outlandish statements of the Lubavicher rebbe anywhere online. Can someone help me with that please?

Any chance of you letting me know where I can access volume 2? I read volume 1 many years ago but have never seen volume 2.

N0m: “It should be noted that the stereotypical the-entire-world-should-be-just-like-Chabad-there-is-a-great-answer-for-everything-because-the-Rebbe-was-so-great is a minority in Chabad.”

Who on earth are you kidding? I have close Lubavicher relatives, have worked together many with Lubavichers, have davened in their shuls and Chabad houses (even in 770 on rare occasions) traveled widely and come in contact with literally thousands of Lubavichers in my time, and I am yet to find EVEN ONE who does not have that attitude.

Either you know nothing at all about Chabad, or the truth means nothing to you.

Catlover 613: “Chabad does have Seudas Shlishit in their shuls.”

Lubavicher chassidim DO NOT wash for Shalosh Seudos, and I was told by a mashpia in one of their yeshivos that to eat Shalosh Seudos “is a kula al pi chassidus”. And that is a quote.

“Not eating before davening is minhag, not Halacha.”
??? Are you, perhaps, a member of the Aseres Hashevatim? See Rambam Hilchos Tefilla 6:4 and Shulchan Aruch O”C 89:3.

“The Rambam holds that if one is hungry and can’t concentrate on prayer they should eat before they daven.”

And that is why ALL Lubavichers are taught that they should eat cake before Shachris, right?

“The Lubavitcher Rebbe encouraged men and women to learn Gemara.”

The “and women” is in itself problematic.

“According Sukkah 25b to Sleeping in the Sukkah is not required if it makes one uncomfortable.”

100% true. However, it does not exempt someone who is upset by the fact that he is ABLE to fall asleep in the sukkah! And that was the crux of the Lubavicher rebbe’s reasoning for not sleeping in the sukkah.

“Chabad does not believe the Rebbe would come back to life as Machiach.”

Which part of Chabad? Or are you referring to those who say he does not have to come back to life because he did not die?

“The Rebbe was against people who made such claims.”

Can you quote a primary source for that? I remember that when he died the Lubavichers in my area were distributing a copy of his handwritten emendation to a sicha in which he crossed out the phrase or word that said that Mashiach has to be someone who is alive.

N0m,

Either you are a Lubavicher who has been inculcated with all their fraudulent claims, or you are just being very naive. Saying that practically every Jew in Europe (Why Europe davka? Don’t know.) is descended from Dovid Hamelech may be correct, but that doesn’t make someone qualify as DEFINITELY descended, which is a pre-requisite for Mashiach.

As to the claim that he was “unique in his vast knowledge” and that “the bnei yeshiva of today considered him the biggest lamdan among all the Rebbes” – do you have a basis for that other than hearsay? Have you ever heard of the Klausenberger Rebbe zt”l who would darshen in lomdus for hours at a time? And the Satmarer and Vizhnitzer Rebbes zt”l? That is to name just a few.

There are and were a lot of Chassidishe Rebbes who were HUGE talmidei chachomim, but who didn’t spend time displaying it. It often came to light only when circumstances forced them to reveal it.

And as I have pointed out in the past on earlier threads, the “geonus” of the Lubavicher rebbe was often clearly faulty and seen as such by the same bnei yeshiva you mention. Two examples, his sevara for not sleeping in a sukkah, and the need to convince goyim to keep 7 mitzvos.

Yechi Hamelech, whether or not you’re really a Lubavicher or writing tongue in cheek, it’s not davka Inyonei Moshiach where we display tremendous knowledge. It’s the ability to recognize the obstinate and unfounded claim that “My Rebbe is Mashiach because I want him to be” that we have, and that we are fighting.

Just for the record, I challenge any Lubavicher to show me how the late Lubavicher rebbe /fit/fits even one of the criteria delineated by the Rambam in Hilchos Melachim.