CS: “you brought sources on the Rashi- (the Rashi itself merely lists the two kgons- shades of/ examples, and you’re deciding to read it like the interpretation that it means it can only be these two. Which I don’t have to do that. And even so, taking it further – it would seem even according to that- that that only applies to that very generation. So yes, there’s the Ramban, and yes there’s the explicit Gemara, The sdei chemed, abarbanel etc etc. And the Rebbe about his father in law which didn’t seem to be any issue before Gimmel Tammuz because I probably would have heard of it.”
Sorry, but you’re rambling here. I didn’t ‘decide to read it’ in any way. I translated the Rashi according to pshat, something I have been trying to do with every Rashi that I learn in Shas. You most definitely do have to translate it that way. As I wrote, ask a male who learns gemoro properly to be honest about the Rashi.
You yourself wrote last week that Rashi is not halacha lemaaseh. That is, you backtracked on your claim that we have to follow the Rashi who allows you to claim that a dead LR is Mashiach. Now are you backtracking on that backtrack? Please don’t tell us men, even if we are not the greatest talmidei chachomim, how to learn plain simple pshat in Rashi.
And what ‘explicit Gemara’. The one where the only Rishon I can find on it says that if it’s someone who has died it MUST BE Daniel?
You do realize after all this time that anything the LR said about the identity of Mashiach doesn’t have weight with all non-Lubavichers on this thread. So why do you keep quoting it TO US as some sort of proof.
Finally, even in the times of the Rayatz most of Klal Yisrael were against his Mashiach statements, such as Le’alter Lig’ula. So when the LR claimed that his shver was Mashiach it was just added to the discard pile.