English translation — פנחס א

Sicha 1<pg>164</pg>

A.

It is stated in the Gemara<sup>1</sup>

: "One who sees Pinchas in a dream, a wonder happens to him,

one who sees an elephant in a dream, wonders<sup>2</sup>

happen to him,

elephants, wonders of wonders happen to him."

And in Rashi there: "A wonder happens to him,

as happened to Pinchas, as we say in Sanhedrin"<sup>3</sup>.

From the plain meaning of the Gemara it seems,

that the difference between "one who sees Pinchas" and "one who sees an elephant" is,

that "one who sees an elephant" they perform for him "wonders" — many,

whereas "one who sees Pinchas" they perform for him only one wonder

("wonder" singular form).

And it is perplexing: In Sanhedrin there³

it is explicit "six miracles were performed for Pinchas"

(and in Sifri⁴,

Yalkut Shimoni⁴

and elsewhere it is stated that twelve miracles were performed for him,

and in Rashi on the Torah⁴

"and many miracles were performed for him"),

and why "one who sees Pinchas in a dream

(only)

a wonder

(one)

is performed for him" — is this not "as was performed for Pinchas"?

And one may add and note,

that were it not for Rashi, it would be possible to explain the reason for the distinction,

that it is in the manner of what is said in the Gemara in continuation of this⁵,

"One who sees Huna in a dream, a miracle is performed for him,

Chanina, Chananyah, Yochanan, miracles of miracles are performed for him",

and in Rashi there: "a miracle is performed for him,

the letter Nun corresponds to the letter Nun etc.'",

"Chanina,

many Nuns,

many miracles".

And similar to this it would be possible to say in our matter,

that the "Peh-Alef" of Pinchas corresponds to "Pele"⁶,

and since in "Pil" there is

(in addition to the Peh-Alef)

also the letter Lamed of "Pele"⁶

this adds to the matter — and there are "Pela'ot"

[And just as "Pilim" is plural — adds upon "Pela'ot" — "Pil'ei Pela'ot",

meaning in addition to the multiplicity in quantity,

also multiplicity in quality].

But Rashi rejects the beginning of this explanation,

in his saying that the reason that "one who sees Pinchas in a dream, a wonder is performed for him" is

(not because the letter Peh in the word "Pinchas" indicates "wonder",

but rather)

because this is "as was done for Pinchas".

[And one can say,

that Rashi's reason to distinguish between "one who sees Huna etc." and "one who sees Pinchas etc." is based on the continuation of the Gemara there that "one who sees Huna etc." means that he saw this name "in writing"

(that he saw the word Huna or Chanina — written.

Rashi),

and therefore it is logical that the hint is connected with the letters that he saw in his dream<sup>7</sup>

; in contrast, "one who sees Pinchas etc. an elephant etc." does not mean that he saw this word written,

but rather he saw the image of Pinchas<sup>8</sup>

or an elephant

(as is evident<pg>165</pg>

from the Gemara there<sup>9</sup>

that there is a difference if he saw an elephant "that is saddled"

(that has a saddle on its back.

Rashi)

or "that is not saddled"),

and since he saw Pinchas in his dream,

it is logical that this is connected with the events<sup>10</sup>

that happened to Pinchas himself].

And the difficulty returns to its place — that many miracles were done for him.

2.

And this will be understood with the prior introduction of another precision,

that at first glance,

according to Rashi that this that "a wonder was done for him" is "like what was done for Pinchas" — why do they say "a wonder was done for him"

(wonder specifically),

and behold in Sanhedrin there the language is "six miracles were done for him",

and it should have said "a miracle was done for him"?

And also if you will say that the interpretation of the dream also belongs to the name "Pinchas" — behold, in the name "Pinchas" there are two

(all)

the letters "nes"

(which ostensibly this is a more revealed connection,

than the connection of the letter pei to the word "pele").

And behold, sometimes it is explained¹¹

the distinction between the two expressions "nes" or "pele",

that "nes" is something high, as in the verse before our parshah¹²

— that is, an event that goes out and is higher than the ways of nature,

whereas "pele" is anything that arouses wonder in a person¹³,

even if there is no disruption of the systems of nature in it,

that is, even when the miracle is clothed in nature.

And based on this it was possible to explain,

at first glance,

the precise wording "a wonder was done for him" — because most of the miracles that were detailed in the Talmud there are not things that depart from the ways of nature,

"Zimri should have separated and he did not separate..

he should have spoken and he did not speak etc."

But it is forced to explain thus,

because the last two miracles that were counted in the Gemara there — "that an angel came and raised the lintel..

that 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 done for him — behold most of the miracles that were detailed there are things above nature in a revealed manner].

3.

And therefore it seems to me the opposite,

that here the intention of "a wonder will be done for him" is,

to "wonder" that is above "miracle",

in the manner of the verse¹⁴

"As in the days of your going out from the land of Egypt I will show him wonders",

that the intention in this¹⁵,

that in the future redemption to come there will be great miracles,

that even in comparison to the miracles that happened to our forefathers in the Exodus from Egypt

(which were not clothed in nature),

they will be in the category of "wonders".

And this is also the intention of Rashi in what he said "like <pg>166</pg>

It is done for Pinchas as we say in Sanhedrin,

that from the gemara Sanhedrin there it is proven,

that the main novelty regarding Pinchas,

is not the quantity of miracles that were done for him,

but rather that "a wonder was done for him",

meaning not only many miracles in quantity,

but a quality of non-nature — conduct in a manner of "wondrous".

For the six miracles that were enumerated in Sanhedrin there,

were all in that same matter,

namely that in every single detail of his action the Holy One, blessed be He, performed a miracle,

and in this it was clearly seen that all of the Holy One, blessed be He's conduct with Pinchas was in a completely unusual manner,

from the outset a conduct of "wonder",

and the multitude of miracles is not the main novelty at all, rather all of the conduct with Pinchas was in a way of "wonder".

For further explanation:

The concept of a "miracle" is a disruption of the systems of nature,

from this itself it is understood,

that there is a place given to the conduct of nature,

except that disruption and nullification are effected in it,

therefore,

each time there is a miracle there must be a new action again of nullification of nature; in contrast, a wonder — for "all 'wonder' is an expression of separation and division"<sup>16</sup>

— indicates a conduct that is entirely separated from the conduct of nature,

to the extent that it is not within the category of nature,

and consequently there is not here each time a special action of disruption of nature,

but rather a miraculous conduct was established that will be the regular conduct in every occurrence of this.

And this is what Rashi said: "A wonder was done for him,

as was done for Pinchas" — "wonder" in the singular specifically: that many miracles were done for Pinchas,

was a conduct

(general)

one,

in the manner of "wonder",

entirely separated from the category of nature

(except that incidentally it branched out from this that there were miracles in every particular etc.),

therefore they are not "wonders"

(or "miracles")

in the plural,

for the intention is to a state,

a conduct

(singular)

of wonder.

[And based on this perhaps one could say,

that the "wonder" that is done for "one who sees Pinchas in a dream" is above the "wonders"

(plural)

by "one who sees an elephant",

for from that which it says "wonders",

plural,

it is understood,

that the intention is a multiplicity of wonders in quantity,

and that is actions of wonders,

but not so "a wonder is done for him"

("as was done for Pinchas")

that is not the doing of one wonder,

but a state of "wonder",

as above<sup>17</sup>].

4.

And behold, based on Rashi above,

that "one who sees Pinchas in a dream, a wonder is done for him — as was done for Pinchas",

it is understood,

that the matter of "wonder" is his essential matter of Pinchas; for if we say that this is only a secondary and incidental matter in him,

it is not appropriate to say,

that because on that day a wonder was done for Pinchas — unlike all the years before this and after this — therefore every "one who sees Pinchas in a dream, a wonder is done for him".

Rather, it must be said that the matter of "wonder" is the matter of Pinchas.

That is,

that the reason for this that the Holy One, blessed be He, conducted Himself with Pinchas in a manner of "wonder,"

is because the conduct and service of Pinchas himself was

(not ordinary service,

but)

in a manner of "wonder,"

and the measure of the Holy One, blessed be He, is measure for measure — therefore the conduct of the Holy One, blessed be He, with him was in such a manner,

"a wonder was done for him."

Explanation of the matter:

The meaning of "miracle" in the work of man is — self-sacrifice¹⁸,

for just as a miracle in its simple sense indicates the greatness of the Holy One, blessed be He,

that there is nothing that prevents the fulfillment of His will, may He be blessed,

and if the state of nature opposes His will, then the Holy One, blessed be He, changes nature — likewise<pg>167</pg>

it is the matter of service through self-sacrifice,

that this indicates the strength of man's will to do His will, may He be blessed,

in a manner that there is nothing that can prevent him from fulfilling His will, may He be blessed,

and he gives over his soul for this.

And in this itself there are the two aforementioned manners — "miracle" and "wonder":

There is a person whose main service is according to reason and intellect,

in the study of Torah,

fulfillment of the commandments,

and the like,

except that if he is required in some detail that goes beyond the ordinary,

self-sacrifice,

he exerts himself and arouses in himself a new conduct,

great strength until [the point of] self-sacrifice.

And it is understood,

that then the self-sacrifice each time is a new service,

and there needs to be a new arousal for this;

But there is a person who is a man of self-sacrifice,

who is entirely devoted and given over to His will, blessed be He, and has no will of his own at all,

his essence is self-sacrifice to the Holy One, blessed be He,

and then, automatically, he has self-sacrifice in every matter and detail connected to His service, blessed be He — in the manner mentioned above regarding the matter of "wonder,"

that this is a state of miraculous conduct in a way that this conduct is the regular conduct

(natural)

of him.

And this is the level of Pinchas,

"in his being zealous with My zeal"¹⁹,

that he endangered himself in a matter in which there is no obligation

(and on the contrary,

if he had asked — they do not instruct so²⁰),

rather, zealots strike him²¹,

that this is permission and allowance for a zealot to strike him; and especially according to the words of the Yerushalmi²²

that this zeal is "not with the consent of the Sages."

And furthermore in our case — that Moshe Rabbeinu did nothing

(and behold, Pinchas did not know that the halacha was hidden from him²³)

— but Pinchas did not enter into consideration and deliberation with himself, rather he was zealous with the zeal of the Lord of Hosts.

Pinchas's self-sacrifice was above calculation and measurement,

because he was a person of essential self-sacrifice,

and since it was a matter of sanctification of the Name²⁴

— he was zealous with the zeal of the Lord of Hosts.

And measure for measure — a wonder was done for him²⁵.

5.

Based on this, the reason will also be explained that the reward of Pinchas was — "And it shall be for him and for his seed after him a covenant of eternal priesthood"²⁶,

that according to the simple meaning of the verse²⁷,

the explanation of this,

that only then did Pinchas become a priest,

"Because he was zealous for his God"²⁶.

One could say,

that also the manner of this reward is in accordance with the above matter,

that the essence of Pinchas is — that he was a man of "wonder" inherently.

For priesthood is a thing that comes by inheritance,

for it is only for the seed of Aaron; and here priesthood was given to Pinchas "because he was zealous for his God"²⁸.

But this is measure for measure,

for just as<pg>168</pg>

That Pinchas was zealous for his G-d,

even though he was not commanded about this

(And this is "not with the consent of the Sages",

that according to the wisdom of the Torah there is room for discussion about this zeal),

so was given to him a thing — priesthood — that according to the wisdom of the Torah is not a thing given as a reward.

And according to the above, there is to explain the reason that the reward was specifically in a matter of priesthood,

that this is a matter of inheritance and nature — because also this is like a "wonder"

(above a miracle),

that is,

that in addition to this that there was done for him a thing not according to the wisdom of the Torah

(that it is impossible to reach priesthood through work),

there is yet this,

that this reward itself

(above wisdom)

became for him a matter in nature,

until it came by inheritance "to his seed after him" — this is the definition of "wonder",

that the matter of the miracle became his nature,

as above at length.

6.

And behold, the redemption of the K"K Mv"Ch Admo"r

(on the day of 12 Tammuz 5687)

from his imprisonment, in which he was imprisoned in that state, was in the week of Shabbat Parshat Pinchas&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;,

And furthermore,

that on Shabbat Parshat Pinchas he recited the blessing of HaGomel&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;.

And if all matters of the world are with Divine Providence

(according to the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov),

all the more so and how much more so the matters of a Jewish person,

and certainly of a Nasi of Israel — and from this it is understood,

that the redemption of the K"K Mv"Ch Admo"r is connected to the content of the matter of Pinchas&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;.

And indeed we saw regarding the master of the redemption — the K"K Mv"Ch Admo"r&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;,

that his self-sacrifice in that state was in the manner of the self-sacrifice of Pinchas in the manner of "in his zealously avenging My vengeance",

namely, not a self-sacrifice that one is obligated in according to the law of the Torah,

and several Sages of Israel held that one is not obligated in self-sacrifice in such a manner — and he sacrificed himself for this.

And this is because by the Rebbe, my father-in-law, the Rebbe, self-sacrifice was not a detail in his holy service, but rather his entire essence was self-sacrifice,

so that every matter in this service was permeated with self-sacrifice.

And as explained elsewhere at length³³,

regarding the three general periods in the thirty years of the presidency of the Rebbe, my father-in-law, the 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 — that his holy service in each of them demanded strength and self-sacrifice,

and in each of them — in a different manner:

In that country, this was connected with self-sacrifice in its simple sense, in physicality,

service connected with risking the life of the body,

and not only of himself,

but also of his emissaries and chassidim,

who according to his instructions or also through his actual mission engaged in spreading Torah and strengthening Judaism in that country,

and placed their lives in actual mortal danger;

In the second period, his service was among our brethren the Children of Israel,

observers of Torah and mitzvos — and there my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, established yeshivas anew,

and engaged in spreading Torah in general and in spreading the wellsprings and the teachings of Chabad Chassidus among all circles;

And in the third period,

upon his arrival in the United States,

where there was need to change the אָפּ­לייג

(deposit)

of the state in the United States&lt;pg&gt;169&lt;/pg&gt;

is different,

and it is impossible [to have] Judaism exactly as in "the old shtetl" — that this involvement was possible only through strength and self-sacrifice against all the streams.

that each of the three modes of mesiras nefesh,

is of a different type from the other — and my master, my father-in-law, the Rebbe, leaped into the wave of each one with vitality and mesiras nefesh,

without any limitation at all.

And this is a person of mesiras nefesh in his very essence,

therefore every single thing in this is done with mesiras nefesh

[in the manner of the above section 3 regarding the matter of "pela"].

And this is also the instruction for action — that by means of "we will go in the way..

which He taught us..

and we will go in His paths"³⁴

to engage in strengthening the religion and spreading the Torah,

with self-sacrifice — and especially now that it is not out of physical distress, G-d forbid, but out of expansion,

surrender and giving to work beyond measure and limitation,

without taking into account any preventer or hinderer etc. — they merit that "a wonder will be done for him",

that the Holy One, blessed be He, makes the work successful in a way of "wonder",

And all this hastens and brings speedily in our days, literally, the fulfillment of the prophecy³⁵

"As in the days of your going out from the land of Egypt, I will show him wonders."

(From the farbrengen of Shabbos Parshas Pinchas 5726)