CS, I have read through most of what you wrote, and I simply don’t have the emotional ko’ach to go through everything I disagree with, especially when you make claims based on anecdotal evidence of how better Lubavich is than others (because of what-you-see-is-what-you-get and the like). But I can’t always just let things ride, especially when you apparently (and I do believe that’s the case) write things that you have been fed falsely.
In response to my claim that the term Nassi you write:
I don’t think the following sefer is lubavitch (Rashi quoted as well)…
נשיא, ראשי תיבות: ניצוצו של יעקב אבינו, שיעקב “נשמתו כלולה מכל הנשמות שבישראל” (מופיע בספר קהלת יעקב מערכת “רבי”).
After some searching, I found what you are quoting. The sefer was written by Reb Yaakov Zvi Yallish (Yalles?) who was a chossid of the Chozeh of Lublin, and the author of Melo Haro’im on Shas. (I once heard that he wrote Melo Haro’im – perhaps at the behest of the Chozeh, I don’t remember – to show that the rumors that chassidim don’t/can’t learn are untrue.) Here is exactly what he wrote:
רבי הנקרא רבינו הקדוש היה מניצוץ של יעקב אבינו, ואנטונינוס מעשו, וזהו ושני גוים בבטנך אלו אנטונינוס ורבי, ועל כן נקרא רבי יהודה הנשיא ראשי תיבות הוא ניצוץ של יעקב אבינו.
So here is where you have been fooled:
1. The sefer Kehillas Yaakov is talking specifically and only about Rebbi Yehudah Hanossi. There were nesi’im in E”Y both before and after Rebbi Yehudah Hanassi, and he is NOT even referring to any of them.
2. The part of the footnote from Habadpedia that continues about nishmoso kelulah, has nothing to do with the sefer Kehillas Yaakov, and it is in fact from Iggeres Hakodesh (of the Baal Hatanya) in relation to Yaakov Avinu. Not in relation to anybody else since! (In Iggeres Hakodesh he uses that terminology first in relation to Adam Harishon, and he then says it applies as well to Yaakov Avinu, but it stops there.)
In conclusion, we have yet another example of Lubavich – not you CS, as you were fooled as much as anyone else reading that footnote – wilfully misinterpreting, and adding to, a source to make it say what Lubavich wants it to say.
Please don’t ignore this post, and admit that the footnote is at the very least misleading.