Dear D. Zupnik

Thank you very much for your response. You explained me your point quite well.

I agree that opinion expressed by Rabah bar Avuha is that Eliyahu was a Cohen. There Rashi explained that Rabah bar Avuha thought so because he was of opinion that Eliyahu and Pinchas was one and the same person (physically) due to similarities in their personalities. With this we are given personal opinion of Rabah bar Avuha ( as well as many others as stated in Midrash about Rabbi Yeshua Hagarsi carrying the body of Rabbi Akiva). There are other opinions expressed by chazal mainly in midrashim that Eliyahu was from shevet Benjamin. There is also a third opinion that physically they were different people but Eliyahiu was reincarnation of Pinchas ( this opinion is about one thousand years old when Jewish thinkers accepted opinions of reincarnation most likely by influence of Neoplatonic philosophy popular at that time in Spain).

In Summary:

1. Pinchas and Eliyahu is one and the same person physically then he is a Cohen. (even-though this opinion is questioned by many mefarshim (see Ibn Ezra parashat Pinchas) and even by Rav Ovadiya Yosef in Yalkut Yosef. This is opinion of chazal and deserves due respect even though we may follow another opinion.)

2. Pinchas and Eliyahu are physically and spiritually different people but share personal qualities.Hence Eliyahu is not Cohen this is also opinion of midrash and Tosfot brings that opinion on that page as well Baba Metzia 114b, as well as many others.

3.Relatively recent opinion that Eliyahu is gilgul of Pinchas( I wonder can cehuna be transfered by gilgul as well. I guess this question should be better addressed to Pythagoras and Plato who invented that believe in western world till 2 thousand years later it made its way into Jewish religion.) This is not opinion of Chazal but recent Spanish revelation so there is really no mitzva to believe in it.

Now, with such a variety of opinions regarding cehuna of Eliyahu in the first place, in my opinion it was rather not serious to discuss the ramification of that machloket such as if he would be Cohen how could he metame la met, without even mentioning the opinion that that he may not be a Cohen at all. So he could easily revive the dead boy without violation and no proofs needed. I hope you understand that gilgul opinion has absolutely no value in determination of cehuna of Eliyahu. but the second opinion of chazal which makes a lot of sense and resolves difficult question you are trying to deal with deserves to be mentioned.

I also like to remind that the beauty of Internet is the ability to update and modify information at any time. So, if you think that my suggestion is reasonable and second opinion of Chazal deserves to be mentioned you have an easy way to do it.

I call upon your logical thinking. In your article cehuna of Eliyahu is defended at expense of diminishing his miracle (the boy was not really dead) See How critical is Rambam in Morah nevuchim about that opinion, he calls it mistake.See also letters of Alfachar to Radak and Moshe Narboni on that issue.

Moreover, Keeping Pinchas Alive to till the time of Eliyahu clearly implies that he was replaces from position of Cohen gadol while being alive. But it's well known that in time of 1st temple son was becoming Cohen only after father's death. It's only during 2nd temple that that practice changed (See masechet Yoma)

If you prefer to utilize the gilgul theory you would have to say that Eliyahu was Cohen "independently" from Pinchas. (For, none of the believers in gilgul went that far as to admit that cehuna can be transfered by it). But this is not opinion of chazal who state that the only way for Eliayhu to be Cohen is to be physically the same person as Pinchas.

Dear D.Zupnik do how you see fit. I would respect your choice in any way. The only thin I'd like to try is to suggest possible improvement of that article.

Thank you very much in general I like your articles very much and read them virtually every day. May G-d Bless you with success in both physical and spiritual endeavors.

Boruch Yuabov