The Gemara states: "One who sees Pinchas in a dream, a wonder is performed for him; one who sees an elephant in a dream, wonders are performed for him; if he sees elephants, wondrous wonders are performed for him." Rashi comments there, "A wonder is performed for him, like what was done for Pinchas, as we say in Sanhedrin." From the straightforward reading of the Gemara, it seems that the difference between "one who sees Pinchas" and "one who sees an elephant" is that for "one who sees an elephant," many wonders are performed, whereas for "one who sees Pinchas," only a single wonder (in the singular form) is performed. This is puzzling: in Sanhedrin, it is explicitly stated that "six miracles were performed for Pinchas". So why is it that "one who sees Pinchas in a dream (only) a single wonder is performed for him" — this does not seem to be "like what was done for Pinchas"?
Furthermore, without Rashi's commentary, one might explain the reason for the distinction as similar to what is stated in the Gemara following this: "One who sees Huna in a dream, a miracle is performed for him; Chanina, Chananya, Yochanan, many miracles are performed for him," and Rashi comments there, "A miracle is performed for him, a 'nun' corresponding to a 'nun', etc.," "Chanina, many 'nuns', many miracles." Similarly, one might say in our case that the "peh" of Pinchas corresponds to "peleh" (wonder), and since in "elephant" there is (in addition to the "peh") also the letter "lamed" of "peleh," this adds to the matter — and there are "wonders" [and just as "elephants" in the plural form adds to "wonders" — "wondrous wonders," meaning in addition to the increase in quantity, there is also an increase in quality]. However, Rashi dismisses the beginning of this explanation by stating that the reason "one who sees Pinchas in a dream, a wonder is performed for him" is not because the letter "peh" in the word "Pinchas" indicates "peleh," but because this is "like what was done for Pinchas."
It can be said that Rashi's reason for distinguishing between "one who sees Huna, etc." and "one who sees Pinchas, etc." is based on the continuation of the Gemara's words there, that "one who sees Huna, etc." means he saw this name "in writing", and therefore it is reasonable that the hint is related to the letters he saw in his dream; whereas "one who sees Pinchas, etc., elephant, etc." does not mean he saw this word written, but he saw the image of Pinchas or an elephant or "without a saddle"), and since he saw Pinchas in his dream, it is reasonable that this is related to the events that happened to Pinchas himself. Thus, the question returns to its place — many miracles were performed for him.
This will be understood by first clarifying another point: according to Rashi, that "a wonder is performed for him" is "like what was done for Pinchas" — why do we say "a wonder is performed for him" (specifically a wonder), when in Sanhedrin the expression is "six miracles were performed for him," and it should have said "a miracle is performed for him"? And even if we say that the interpretation of the dream is also related to the name "Pinchas" — in the name "Pinchas" there are two (entire) letters "nun" and "samech" (which seemingly have a more apparent connection than the connection of the letter "peh" to the word "peleh").
It is sometimes explained the difference between the two expressions "miracle" or "wonder," that a "miracle" is something elevated, as stated before our parsha — meaning an event that is beyond and higher than the ways of nature, whereas a "wonder" is anything that arouses wonder in a person.
Even if it does not involve a disruption of the natural order, meaning even when the miracle is clothed in nature. Based on this, one might initially explain the precision of the phrase "a wonder is performed for him" — because most of the miracles listed in the Talmud there are not things that deviate from the ways of nature, such as "Zimri should have withdrawn but did not, he should have spoken but did not, etc." However, it is difficult to explain it this way, because the last two miracles listed in the Gemara there — "an angel came and lifted the lintel... an angel came and destroyed among the people" — are not clothed in nature at all. And according to the aforementioned Midrashim that twelve miracles were performed for him — most of the miracles listed there are things that are openly beyond nature.
Therefore, it seems to me the opposite, that here the intention in "a wonder is performed for him" is to a "wonder" that is beyond a "miracle," similar to the language of the verse, "As in the days of your exodus from the land of Egypt, I will show him wonders," which means that in the future redemption there will be great miracles, which even in comparison to the miracles that occurred to our forefathers during the Exodus from Egypt, will be in the category of "wonders." This is also Rashi's intention in what he wrote, "like what was done for Pinchas as we say in Sanhedrin," for from the Gemara in Sanhedrin it is evident that the main novelty concerning Pinchas is not the quantity of miracles performed for him, but that "a wonder was performed for him," meaning not just many miracles in quantity, but a quality that is unnatural — a conduct in a manner of "wondrous." For the six miracles listed in Sanhedrin there were all in the same matter, meaning that in every detail of his action, the Holy One, blessed be He, performed a miracle, and in this it is clearly seen that the entire conduct of G‑d with Pinchas was in a completely extraordinary manner, from the outset a conduct of "wonder," and the multitude of miracles is not the main novelty at all, but rather that the entire conduct with Pinchas was in a manner of "wonder."
To explain further: the concept of a "miracle" is a disruption of the natural order, from which it is understood that there is room for the conduct of nature, but it acts upon it with disruption and nullification, and therefore, every time there is a miracle, there must be a new action again of nullifying nature. However, a "wonder" — for "all wonder is a language of separation and distinction" — indicates a conduct that is completely separate from the conduct of nature, to the extent that it is not within the realm of nature, and therefore there is no special action each time of disrupting nature, but rather a miraculous conduct is established as the regular conduct in every such event. And this is what Rashi wrote, "a wonder is performed for him, like what was done for Pinchas" — "wonder" specifically in the singular: the fact that many miracles were performed for Pinchas was one (general) conduct, in a manner of "wonder," completely separate from the realm of nature (but as a result, it branched out that there were miracles in every detail, etc.), and therefore they are not "wonders" (or "miracles") in the plural, because the intention is to a state, a wondrous (singular) conduct.
[Based on this, perhaps it can be said that the "wonder" performed for "one who sees Pinchas in a dream" is beyond the "wonders" (plural) for "one who sees an elephant," for from the fact that it says "wonders," in the plural, it is understood that the intention is to a multitude of wonders in quantity, meaning actions of wonders, whereas "a wonder is performed for him" ("like what was done for Pinchas") means not the performance of one wonder, but a state of "wonder," as mentioned above.]
According to the aforementioned Rashi, "one who sees Pinchas in a dream, a wonder is performed for him — like what was done for Pinchas," it is understood that the concept of "wonder" is the essential aspect of Pinchas. If we were to say that this is merely a secondary or incidental matter for him, it would not be appropriate to say that because a wonder was performed for Pinchas on that day — unlike all the years before and after — therefore, "one who sees Pinchas in a dream, a wonder is performed for him." Rather, it must be concluded that the concept of "wonder" is intrinsic to Pinchas. This means that the reason G‑d conducted Himself with Pinchas in a manner of "wonder" is because Pinchas's own conduct and service were (not ordinary service, but) in a manner of "wonder," and G‑d's measure is measure for measure — therefore, G‑d's conduct with him was in such a manner, "a wonder is performed for him."
The explanation of the matter: The concept of "miracle" in a person's service is — mesiras nefesh (self-sacrifice). Just as a miracle in the literal sense indicates the greatness of G‑d, that nothing can prevent the fulfillment of His will, and if the natural state opposes His will, G‑d changes nature — similarly, the concept of service with mesiras nefesh indicates the strength of a person's will to fulfill G‑d's will, in a manner that nothing can prevent him from fulfilling His will, and he sacrifices his life for it.
Within this itself, there are the two aforementioned manners — "miracle" and "wonder": There is a person whose primary service is according to reason and understanding, in Torah study, mitzvah observance, and the like, but if an unusual detail requires mesiras nefesh, he exerts himself and arouses within himself a new conduct, a great strength to the point of mesiras nefesh. It is understood that in such a case, the mesiras nefesh each time is a new service, and there must be a new arousal for it. However, there is a person who is a man of mesiras nefesh, who is completely devoted and given over to fulfilling G‑d's will, and he has no independent will at all; his essence is mesiras nefesh for G‑d, and consequently, he has mesiras nefesh in every matter and detail related to his service to G‑d — similar to the aforementioned concept of "wonder," which is a state of miraculous conduct in such a way that this conduct is his regular conduct. This is the level of Pinchas, "when he zealously avenged My vengeance," who risked himself in a matter where there was no obligation (and on the contrary, if he had asked — he would not have been instructed to act), but zealots strike him, which is a permission and allowance for a zealot to strike him; especially according to the words of the Jerusalem Talmud that this zealotry was "not with the consent of the sages." Moreover, in our case — Moshe Rabbeinu did nothing (and Pinchas did not know that the law was concealed from him) — but Pinchas did not enter into deliberations himself; rather, he zealously avenged the L‑rd of Hosts. Pinchas's mesiras nefesh was beyond calculation and measure because he was inherently a man of mesiras nefesh, and since there was an issue of sanctifying G‑d's name — he zealously avenged the L‑rd of Hosts. Measure for measure — a wonder was performed for him.
Based on this, we can also explain the reason that Pinchas's reward was — "and it shall be for him and his descendants after him a covenant of eternal priesthood," which according to the simple meaning of the verse, means that only then did Pinchas become a priest, "because he was zealous for his G‑d." It can be said that the manner of this reward is also in accordance with the aforementioned concept, that Pinchas's essence was — that he was inherently a man of "wonder." For priesthood is something that comes by inheritance, as it is only for the descendants of Aaron; yet here, priesthood was given to Pinchas "because he was zealous for his G‑d." This is measure for measure, just as...
Pinchas was zealous for his G‑d, even though he was not commanded to do so (and this was "not with the consent of the sages," as according to the wisdom of the Torah, there is room for deliberation regarding this zealotry). Therefore, he was given something — priesthood — which according to the wisdom of the Torah is not something given as a reward. Based on the above, we can explain the reason that the reward was specifically in the matter of priesthood, which is an inheritance and a natural matter — because this too is like a "wonder" (beyond a miracle). That is, in addition to the fact that something was done for him that was not according to the wisdom of the Torah (as it is impossible to attain priesthood through one's own efforts), furthermore, this very reward (which is beyond wisdom) became for him a matter of nature, to the extent that it came as an inheritance "to his descendants after him" — which is the definition of a "wonder," where the miraculous becomes his nature, as explained at length above.
The redemption of the Previous Rebbe, my father-in-law, on the 12th of Tammuz 5687 (1927) from his imprisonment in that country occurred during the week of the Shabbos of Parshas Pinchas. Moreover, on the Shabbos of Parshas Pinchas, he recited the blessing of Hagomel. If all matters of the world are by Divine Providence (as taught by the Baal Shem Tov), how much more so the matters of a Jewish person, and certainly those of a leader of Israel — from this, it is understood that the redemption of the Previous Rebbe is connected to the essence of Pinchas.
Indeed, we saw in the case of the one who was redeemed — the Previous Rebbe, my father-in-law — that his mesiras nefesh in that country was similar to the mesiras nefesh of Pinchas, in the manner of "zealous for My sake," meaning it was not a mesiras nefesh that was obligatory according to the law of the Torah. Many sages of Israel held that one is not obligated in such a manner of mesiras nefesh — yet he gave his life for it. This was because, for the Previous Rebbe, mesiras nefesh was not merely a detail in his holy service, but his entire essence was mesiras nefesh, to the extent that every aspect of this service was imbued with mesiras nefesh.
As explained elsewhere at length, regarding the three general periods in the thirty years of the leadership of the Previous Rebbe — the first period during his time in that country, the second period during his time in Latvia and Poland, and the third period in the United States — his holy service in each of these required strength and mesiras nefesh, and in each of them in a different form: in that country, it was connected with literal mesiras nefesh in the physical sense, work associated with risking one's life, not only his own, but also that of his emissaries and chassidim, who, according to his instructions or even by his direct mission, engaged in spreading Torah and strengthening Judaism in that country, putting their lives in actual danger; in the second period, his work was among his fellow Jews, observers of Torah and mitzvos — there, the Previous Rebbe reestablished yeshivas and engaged in spreading Torah in general and the wellsprings of Chabad Chassidus among all circles; and in the third period, upon arriving in the United States, where it was necessary to change the prevailing attitude that in the United States it is different, and it is impossible to have Judaism as in "the old shtetl" — this engagement was possible only through strength and mesiras nefesh against all currents. Each of these three forms of mesiras nefesh is different from the other — and the Previous Rebbe leaped into each wave with vitality and mesiras nefesh, without any limitation. This is a person of mesiras nefesh in his very essence, and therefore everything in this was done with mesiras nefesh [as mentioned above in section 3 regarding "wonder"].
This is also the practical instruction — that by "walking in the path... that he taught us... and walking in his ways,"
to engage in strengthening Judaism and spreading Torah with mesiras nefesh — especially now, when it is not out of physical distress, G‑d forbid, but from a state of expansiveness, dedication, and giving to the work beyond measure and limitation, without regard for any hindrance or obstacle, etc. — one merits that "a wonder is performed for him," that the Holy One, blessed be He, grants success to the work in a wondrous manner. All this hastens and brings about, speedily in our days, the fulfillment of the prophecy:
"As in the days of your exodus from the land of Egypt, I will show him wonders." (From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Pinchas, 5726)