“מה שמו דבי רבי שילא אמרי שילה שמו שנאמר (בראשית מט, י) עד כי יבא שילה דבי רבי ינאי אמרי ינון שמו שנאמר (תהלים עב, יז) יהי שמו לעולם לפני שמש ינון שמו דבי רבי חנינה אמר חנינה שמו שנאמר (ירמיהו טז, יג) אשר לא אתן לכם חנינה.
Sanhedrin 98b.
This Gemara is saying that students would believe that they’re Rebbi was Moshiach.”
And now you can all see why I can’t stand all the Lubavich propaganda as it’s based on misinformation and misinterpretation. I have two questions:
1. Were their Rebbes alive or not at the time?
2. More importantly, who says that that is what they meant? Rashi DOES NOT explain it that way. He writes כל אחד היה דורש אחר שמו. Why doesn’t he simply say that they said their Rebbe was Mashiach? Could it possibly be that that’s not what they were doing, and it’s just you and your cohorts wanting to interpret it that way?
And for argument’s sake, let’s say that you are right, and they were alluding to their belief that their Rebbe was Mashiach. Clearly if that is the case they must have understood that their Rebbe had all the criteria necessary for being Mashiach. But the Lubavicher rebbe, and Wolpo in his footsteps, relied solely on the Rambam’s criteria, OF WHICH THE LUBAVICHER REBBE HAD NONE!
Maybe I should offer a cash prize to anyone who can prove that the Lubavicher rebbe had ANY of the Rambam’s criteria 🙂 One important rule, though: saying something like, “He said it himself in a sicha,” does not count as proof.