Chelek 33, Pinchas 1 - Mrs. Freidy Yanover

The Talmud in the Tractate of Brachos, in the section called Haroe, teaches that one who sees Pinchas in a dream should expect a wonder to occur for him.

One who sees an elephant in a dream should expect wonders to occur for him.

And one who sees elephants in the plural should expect amazing wonders to occur for him.

Rashi explains the words, a wonder to occur for him, saying, just like a wonder was performed for Pinchas when he acted to defend the honor of God and killed Zimri and Kozbi, as is discussed in the Tractate of Sanhedrin.

Looking at the Talmud from a completely literal point of view, it seems that the difference between one who sees Pinchas in a dream and one who sees an elephant in a dream is that if it's Pinchas, there'll be a wondrous event in the singular.

But if one sees an elephant, he'll experience wondrous events in the plural, which of course is a bit surprising, because in the Sanhedrin we find details of six miracles that were done for Pinchas on that day when he killed Zimri and Kozbi.

And in the Sifri and in Targum Yonason, we learn of twelve miracles that were done for him.

Rashi too teaches that many miracles were done for Pinchas.

So why, if that's not what happened for Pinchas, why is seeing Pinchas in a dream symbolic of only a single wonder? And we should add and point out that if Rashi has not commented, had not commented on the multitude of wonders that occurred for Pinchas, then we would have understood the Talmudic teaching that one who sees Pinchas in a dream should expect a wonder, versus if one sees an elephant, one should expect profound many wonders, based upon how the Talmud teaches in continuation of this lesson, teaching that if one sees Huna in a dream, he will experience a miracle.