Avot258

Today's shiur is prayerfully dedicated by Melvin Shuter
for the speedy and complete recovery of his wife
Helene Shuter,
Who is hospitalized with a cardiac problem.

6:
The second part of our present mishnah seems quite metaphorical. Clearly, the lion is seen – as in almost all popular cultures – as the "king of the beasts" and the strongest of the predators. The fox is almost universally seen as a sly animal. Both animals, of course, hunt and kill those that are smaller than they; but the lion will also attack a larger animal, something that the fox will almost never do.

7:
However, the fox was also associated in Tannaïtic times with foppery because its bushy tail was much admired and used for decoration. The Tosefta [Shabbat 5:5] tells us that on Shabbat

8:
The practical application of the attitude of the sages to lions and foxes can be seen in a story that is relation in the Gemara [Bava Kama 117a]. Rav Kahana was a student of the great Amora known as Rav [Rabbi Abba ben-Aivo]. Rav Kahana was very hot headed and impetuous. On one occasion, when a lay person was very rude to Rav, Rav Kahana hit the man with such a blow that he eventually died from the strike. Rav advised Rav Kahana to decamp to Eretz-Israel (to escape retribution from the Persian authorities). But, knowing his student's great intellectual ability, he advised him to not to enter into halakhic debate with Rabbi Yoĥanan for at least seven years!

9:
Rav Kahana arrived in Eretz-Israel and attended a study session led by Rabbi Yoĥanan's colleague, Resh Lakish [Rabbi Shim'on ben-Lakish]. Rav Kahana displayed his great acumen and Resh Lakish warned Rabbi Yoĥanan that "a lion has arrived from Babylon; be careful." In those days students sat before the teacher in rows; those considered to be the best students were seated in the front row and the weakest students were seated in the back rows. Because of his display before Resh Lakish, Rav Kahana was seated in the front row. Rabbi Yoĥanan tried to goad him into debate but, because of the advice of Rav, Rav Kahana resolutely remained silent and refused to enter into debate. This led Rabbi Yoĥanan to assume that Rav Kahana was out of his depth, and the visitor was moved to the back rows! Rabbi Yoĥanan remarked to Resh Lakish: "Your lion has turned out to be a fox!"

10:
The classical commentators on our mishnah seem to have been influenced by this story. Rather than apply the mishnah to a general teaching they apply it to the specific situation of study. Rambam, for example, makes the following comment:

I find this most disturbing. If everyone were to follow this advice there would never be teachers for the weaker students. Furthermore, my own personal experience has taught me the great wisdom of Ben-Zoma [Avot 215]:

And on several occasions in our study of this tractate I have quoted with approval the comment of the Amora of Eretz-Israel, Rabbi Ĥanina [Ta'anit 7a], that was prompted by this biblical verse:

In the discussion section in [Avot 256 I presented a comment by Ed Frankel. Bayla Singer relates to this:

Ed Frankel, in his excellent short essay, aligns "exile yourself to a place of Torah" with the example of Avraham Avinu, and writes: "One has to give up all that matters at home for that which truly counts." I would expand that statement a bit, and perhaps find some allegorical meaning as well. Avraham avinu does not "give up all that matters at home" – he takes Sara with him, and other elements of his household, in addition to his faith in God. I agree with Mr Frankel that a permanent change is implied, but would suggest that the 'exile' is not purely geographical. (Perhaps Mr Frankel intended to include this interpretation in his note, but I didn't perceive it that way.) Mr Frankel returned to his geographical home after study abroad, but returned a changed person – and in that sense, he exiled himself from his previous spiritual and emotional environment and his 'home' was forever changed although it may have been in the same geographical location. I would read the choice of the word 'exile' as meaning that one should remain in 'Torah-land' and not return to one's previous less-than-fully-pious ways. That one should permanently 'inhabit' Torah-land, and not leave it at the door of the beit midrash.

I comment:

I find both Ed's original comment and Bayla's elaboration on it to be very illuminating. Thank you both.