[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
It is therefore understood that seeing Pinchas in a dream is greater than “If one sees an elephant [pil] in a dream,” where “wonders [pela'oth] will be wrought for him.” For from the fact that the statement is said in the plural is a proof that what is occurring is not the singular action of transcending nature, but many miracles.
The word pele which “denotes detachment and separation” is expressive that there need not be another proactive action for each miracle to occur, as the individual is completely removed from the confines of nature from the get-go. It is for the reason that one who sees Pinchas in a dream has “wonder wrought for him.” The statement is expressed in the singular—though many miracles may occur for the individual—to express that all the many miracles that may occur are a result of the singular wonder of transcending nature.
The essence of Pinchas
From the fact that one sees Pinchas in a dream has a miracle wrought for him “as was done for Pinchas,” it is understood that the concept of “wonder” was Pinchas’s primary trait. For, if it would only to have been a one-time occurrence, it would make no sense to assume that because there was one instance that a wonder happened to Pinchas that seeing him in a dream would mean that G-d will act to the individual in a wondrous manner.
Rather, Pinchas’s whole manner of service to the Almighty was wondrous and therefore—tit for tat—G-d responded in kind and acted towards him in a wondrous manner.
To explain:
The concept of a miracle in one’s personal service to G-d is the idea of self-sacrifice. Similarly that the concept of a miracle is expressive that nothing stands in G-d’s way, and that he will break natural law, in order for his wish to be fulfilled, the same is with self-sacrifice. Self-sacrifice expresses the tenacity of man that he will not let anything stand in the way of fulfilling G-d’s wishes—no matter the odds.
Dependent on the manner in which a person sacrifices themselves to G-d, is as a response the way that G-d relates to man:
There is one individual who generally serves G-d in a rational way. However, when faced with a challenge he will rise to the occasion and have self-sacrifice. This being the case though, it is clear, that because he usually serves G-d in a logical manner that he must re-awaken the super-rational in each scenario that he is faced with a challenge.
There is another type of individual though that his entire identity is super-rational and permeated with self-sacrifice. This individual has no personal desire whatsoever. Instead, his whole personality is completely bequeathed to G-d’s will. His self-sacrifice is the natural result of his identity and he need not awaken this trait in each instance that he is faced with a challenge.
This second level, was Pinchas. He went on self-sacrifice even in an instance that it was not demanded from him, because in his mindset, it was impossible for an individual to transgress G-d’s desire.
This is expressed in the Talmud’s statement concerning Pinchas’s action:
More so, the Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 9:7 expresses that such an act is contrary to the council of the sages.
Text 8
R. Chisda said: If the zealot comes to take counsel [whether to punish the transgressor who cohobates with a heathen woman], we do not instruct him to do so. It has been stated likewise: Rabbah b. Bar Chana said in R. Yochanan's name: If he comes to take counsel, we do not instruct him to do so.
Talmud, Sanhedrin 82a
Pinchas did not sacrifice because he was placed into a situation where this was the only manner to fulfill G-d’s will. For were he to have asked, the sages would tell him that he is not obligated to act in the manner that he did.
Rather, Pinchas did not make a calculation of how he should or shouldn’t act. Instead, because his whole identity was completely dedicated to G-d, he acted in the only way that was natural for him. Being that G-d responds in kind, the manner that G-d acted towards him, was as well complete transcendent of nature.
Pinchas’s reward
Concerning the reward for Pinchas’s actions, the verse states:
Text 9
It shall be for him and for his descendants after him [as] an eternal covenant of kehunah, because he was zealous for his G-d and atoned for the children of Israel."
Bamidbar 25:13
According to the simple meaning of the verse this means (Rashi, ibid, Talmud, Zevachim 101b) that Pinchas was not made a kohen until he killed Zimri.”
The reward that Pinchas received—that he became a kohen—correlates as well to the manner in which he served G-d. Because he was a wondrous individual, reward as well was wondrous. The entire idea of the priesthood is something that is passed down naturally from father to child. In this instance though Pinchas—as a reward was given priesthood.
The reason is, because Pinchas’s actions transcended the logic of Torah—for would he have to have asked the sages how to act they would not advise him to execute Zimri—so too his reward as well transcended the natural logic of Torah. So although, according to regular Torah logic the priesthood is not something that one receives as a reward, nevertheless, Pinchas received the priesthood as a result of his personality that transcended nature.
Just as to act in a way that transcended nature, was an expression of Pinchas’s very nature, the same too is with the priesthood which naturally in inherited by one’s children. Once Pinchas became a Kohen in naturally was inherited by his children, as this was Pinchas’s nature—that his natural character was completely transcendent of logic.
The Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe
The previous Rebbe was redeemed from his exile on the week of Pinchas and on that Shabbos he recited the special blessing that one makes upon being released from prison. Being that every action that happens is by Divine Providence—specifically one that occurs to a leader of the Jewish People—it is understood that there is a correlation between the manners that Pinchas served G-d and the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe.
Indeed, we see that the manner in which the Previous Rebbe sacrificed himself for G-d and the Jewish People was in a way that completely transcended logic—similar to Pinchas. Just as with Pinchas were he to have asked the sages whether or not to act in the way that he did they would not have advised him to execute Zimri, so too with the Previous Rebbe. In his time, there were various rabbis that expressed their opinion that one need not sacrifice one’s life to fight against the Russian government in the way that the Previous Rebbe did.
However, the reason why the Previous Rebbe did indeed sacrifice his life was because this was his entire identity. Self-sacrifice was not a detail of his life, but his essential character trait. He could not consider a situation where all his actions and his entire identity was not in symbiosis with G-d and Torah.
This was as well expressed during the various periods of his life. Whether he was in Russia literally sacrificing his life to keep the embers of Torah burning, in Latvia teaching Chassidic thought to religious Jews, or in America rebelling against the zeitgeist that said that “in America it is impossible to be a Jew,” he always fought with self-sacrifice.
Though all these situations demanded a different nature, he did them all with the utmost dedication because his very nature was that he was a person of self-sacrifice. Therefore all his actions were done with self-sacrifice. This as well is the lesson in our live that when we are completely dedicated to Torah in a way that our whole character is expressive of self-sacrifice we will merit the time when “As in the days of your exodus from the land of Egypt, I will show him wonders!”
(Based on Likutei Sichos 38, Balak 3, reworked by Rabbi Dovid Markel. To see other projects and to partner in our work, see: www.Neirot.com.)
