The Talmud states that if an individual sees Pinchas in a dream, "a wonder will be wrought for him." This Sicha analyses this statement and doing so expresses the awesome character of Pinchas and the lesson for our lives.
This week’s parsha discusses the story of Pinchas. Concerning Pinchas the Talmud makes the following statement:
Text 1
If one sees Pinchas in a dream, wonder [pela] will be wrought for him. If one sees an elephant [pil] in a dream, wonders [pela'oth] will be wrought for him; if several elephants, wonders of wonders will be wrought for him.
Talmud, Berachos 56b
Rashi comments on the above and states:
Text 2
A wonder will be wrought for him: as was done for Pinchas...
Rashi, ibid
From a simple understanding of the Talmud it seems that the difference between seeing Pinchas in a dream or seeing an elephant in a dream is that when one sees Pinchas in a dream only one wonder will occur for him, while if one sees an elephant in a dream many wonders will occur.
Rashi stated that the reason that one merits to a wonder when one sees a dream of Pinchas is because many miracles were done for him.
What is not understood though, is why when seeing Pinchas does one merit to only one wonder when the Talmud states that Pinchas merited many miracles?
Text 3
R. Yochanan said: Six miracles were wrought for Pinchas: — [i] Zimri should have withdrawn - [from the woman] but did not; [ii] he should have cried out [for help], but did not; [iii] he [Pinchas] succeeded [in driving his spear] exactly through the sexual organs of the man and woman; [iv] they did not slip off the spear; [v] an angel came and lifted up the lintel; [vi] an angel came and wrought destruction amongst the people.
Talmud, Sanhedrin 82b
Many “nuns”
Were it not for Rashi’s explanation that the reason why one experiences many wonders when they see Pinchas in a dream is because many miracles transpired with Pinchas one would have been able to explain the difference as to whether one sees Pinchas in a dream or an elephant in a dream similar to what the Talmud explains concerning other visions that one may have while they are dreaming:
Text 4
If one sees the name Chanina, Chananiah or Yonasan, miracles will be wrought for him.
Talmud, Berachos 57a
The reason that when one sees these names in a dream they merit to miracles is because the word for miracle in Hebrew is nes which begins with the letter nun and the above names each have multiple nuns. Therefore when one sees these names spelled in a dream one merits many miracles.
One could have similarly explained concerning seeing Pinchas or Pil (elephant) in a dream, that the reason for the difference is because the way that each is spelled. Pinchas is spelled with one letter of the word pele which means wonder and therefore one sees Pinchas in a dream they merit to only one wonder, while pil incorporates two letters of the word pele and therefore merits to numerous wonders.
However Rashi negates this explanation by saying that the reason that one merits to a wonder when they see Pinchas in a dream is not because it contains the letter “pei” but because just as Pinchas merited to a wonder, so too, the
Rashi’s reasoning for differentiating between seeing Pinchas is understood from the Talmud. Concerning seeing Chanina etc. in a dream the Talmud there states “This is only if he sees the word in writing.” It is therefore understood that it is connected with the letters. However concerning seeing Pinchas or an elephant the Talmud states “The elephants are of good omen if saddled, of bad omen if not saddled.” It is therefore understood that one actually saw Pinchas, and the reason that one merits to a wonder is similar to what occurred to Pinchas.
Therefore one remains with the question: why is it that when one sees Pinchas in a dream they only merit to one wonder, when many wonders were wrought for Pinchas?
Pinchas’s name
To understand the reason why when one sees Pinchas in a dream they merit to one wonder although many miracles happened to Pinchas we preface with another question.
The Talmud stated if someone sees Pinchas in a dream a wonder (pela) will happen to him, while when the Talmud states what happened to Pinchas it says that six miracles (nissim) happened to him. Why does the the Talmud say that a wonder will happen to an individual who has a dream where he sees Pinchas while elsewhere the Talmud says that miracles happened to Pinchas?
One may attempt to resolve this question: saying that although the reason that one who sees Pinchas in a dream miracles occur for him “similar to pinchas,” it is nonetheless connected to the letters of the name. Therefore, because the word Pinchas contains the letter Pei of Pela, a wonder (pela) will therefore occur to him and not a miracle (nes). This though is completely incorrect, for the name Pinchas (פנחס) is more closely related to the word for miracle (נס) as the entire word for miracle, nes, is contained in Pinchas’s name. It is therefore clear that one cannot explain that the reason why the Talmud chose to express that one who sees Pinchas in a dream has a wonder occur to him is because it is any way connected to the letters that he saw.
Wonders and miracles
Now, when analyzing the difference between wonders and miracles there are generally two manners of explaining the matter. Clearly the definition of a miracle (nes) is something that transcends nature. This is seen in the following verse:
Text 5
Moshe made a copper snake and put it on a pole (nes), and whenever a snake bit a man, he would gaze upon the copper snake and live.
Bamidbar 21:9
This that a person became healthy through gazing at a copper snake is something that is beyond nature and is therefore classified as a miracle.
However, when understanding the word pela, which means wonder, it is possible to understand that the matter under discussion is not an actual miracle, but is merely a wondrous occurrence that causes its viewer to be in a state of amazement.
Possibly, one can explain that this is the reason why if an individual who sees Pinchas in a dream has a wonder occur to him, as opposed to a miracle. For, when one reading the various wondrous occurrences that happened with Pinchas of “Zimri should have withdrawn but did not; he should have cried out, but did not; succeeded [in driving his spear] exactly through the sexual organs of the man and woman; they did not slip off the spear,” that while all these occurrences are wondrous, they are not miracles. Therefore if an individual sees Pinchas in a dream, they merit a wonder but not a miracle.
However, this explanation is somewhat difficult, as the last two happenings enumerated in the Talmud of “an angel came and lifted up the lintel and an angel came and wrought destruction amongst the people,” are miraculous and not merely wondrous. Therefore, it is implausible to explain that when someone sees Pinchas in a dream that they will only merit to a wonder that is by no means beyond nature.
It is therefore probable that the reverse is the explanation here. When the Talmud expresses that one who sees Pinchas in a dream, “wonder [pela] will be wrought for him,” it is not to limit what will happen to merely a wonder but not a miracle, but the opposite—a wonder that is greater than a mere miracle.
That a wonder (pela) is greater that a miracle (nes) is expressed in the verse concerning Moshiach:
Text 6
As in the days of your exodus from the land of Egypt, I will show him wonders (nifla-ot).
Micha 7:15
The intent of this is, as explained in chassidic thought that the miracles that will occur during the redemption will be wondrous even in comparison to the miracles that happened during the exodus.
This then is Rashi’s intent in saying that when someone sees Pinchas in a dream a wonder will occur for him “as was done for Pinchas.” The intent of this is explain that what was important about Pinchas was not the amount of miracles that G-d wrought for him, but that the entire manner that G-d dealt with him was wondrous—as it completely transcended that normal way that G-d deals with an individual. From the fact that it once scenario G-d did for him six miracles, is expressive that the manner that G-d dealt with him, was from the onset, completely wondrous.
To explain this concept in more detail:
The general concept of a miracle is to break nature. However, from the very fact that this is the definition of a miracle, it is understood that there is a nature that must be ignored for the miracle to transpire. Each event where there is a miracle is another proactive action where G-d specifically breaks the laws of nature, causing the miracle to transpire.
However, concerning the definition of the word wonder (pela) rashi comments concerning the verse (Devarim 17:8) about the judges which states: “If a matter eludes (Yipale) you in judgment”. There Rashi defines the word pele:
Text 7
[The term] haphla’a always denotes detachment and separation; [here it means] that the matter is detached and hidden from you.
Rashi, Devarim 17:8
