And to back up my stance that women should not be learning gemoro ;-), here is what CS wrote:
“it still says dugmaso- which is the same idea- an example. In that generation, the example of Moshiach min hachaim was Rebbi and min hameisim- Daniel. I don’t understand why you understand that Rebbi was only that generation but not subsequently, yet you don’t apply the same logic to Daniel.”
You are mixing up the two leshonos.
Lashon 1. If Mashiach is someone who is currently (i.e. at the time the statement was made) alive, then it IS Rebbi. No one else.
If Mashiach is someone who has already died, then it IS Daniel. No one else. Rashi does NOT mention dugmaso in this lashon. And it is in this lashon that Rashi says that the word “kegon” is lav davka. That is, it does not mean “like”. Rather it means “is”, i.e. it IS either Rebbi or Doniel. According to this explanation, the statement was not dealing at all with someone who was not yet born at that time, and that is another possibility, which, it would seem, we are left with if it is not actually Daniel or Rebbi themselves.
(Avirah, I agree kegon does not mean exactly ‘like’ or ‘for example’. I was a rebbi for a number of years and I also used to teach that it really means ‘of the type’, as in kegavna. In fact, often it is not an example at all and it is the only acceptable case. Nonetheless, Rashi here is clearly telling us that it is not to be taken as an example.)
Lashon 2: Mashiach will be someone great. How great? Well, if you want to see what type of person Mashiach will be, I can show you DUGMASO – someone like him – from those who are alive today, and that is Rebbi, or from those who have died, and that is Daniel. According to this lashon, there is no mention of the actual Mashiach being someone who has died. This lashon cannot, therefore, be brought as a proof that Mashiach can come from the dead. Again, Daniel, who, by the way, has died, had the characteristics that Mashiach will have, whoever he will be.
Is there any male out there who can show me how I have misinterpreted Rashi, and how Rashi does allow for someone else who has died to be considered Mashiach. Note: I am not asking for a discussion regarding whether Mashiach can come from the dead Rather I am asking for someone to show me that Lubavichers are justified IN QUOTING THIS GEMORO AND RASHI to prove that Mashiach can be someone who has died. (I’m sorry for seeming to be so repetitive, but I am trying to get a fact into some heads that are bolted shut to simple pshat.)
CS, I will be melamed zchus and say that you, a woman, can’t be blamed for misinterpreting a simple gemoro and Rashi, but it is hard to be melamed zchus on men who know how to learn gemoro and misinterpret the Rashi to suit their agendas.
One final point. I wouldn’t be fazed even if there were a multitude of Rishonim who wrote that Mashiach can come from the dead. It would still not bring me any closer to accepting that the Lubavicher rebbe is/was Mashiach for the many reasons that I have written in the past. The above discussion is just about Sanhedrin 98b.