At Avot 4:20 Rabbi Matya ben Charash teaches:
הֱוֵי זָנָב
לָאֲרָיוֹת, וְאַל תְּהִי רֹאשׁ לַשֻּׁעָלִים
Be a tail to lions, rather than a head to foxes.
Be that as it may, in
this mishnah it is probable that Rabbi Matya ben Charash had in mind not the
real animal but the symbolic one, the creature of the proverb and the parable.
That sort of lion represents strength, intelligence and dignity, coupled with
an element of noble self-restraint, while his companion represents deviousness,
cunning, sharp observation and a dash of the instinct for self-sufficiency and
survival in a world of bigger, stronger animals.
If this is so, the message of the mishnah is
clear. We are advised to keep the company of our betters, whom we can trust and
from whose superior qualities we can learn. We should also avoid the company of
low-lives, even if we can demonstrate that we are better at being low-lives
than they are. According to Rabbi Abraham J. Twerski (Visions of the Fathers)
this mishnah is actually a teaching on the topic of self-image. Those who
associate with the foxes do so because they insufficiently value their
capabilities and their potential to better themselves. I doubt that the earlier
commentators would take issue with this.
But there is one issue
raised in this mishnah that troubles me. We are told to be a tail to lions, not
a head to foxes—but what does this mean for the foxes themselves? With no-one
to lead them in the face of such explicit instruction not to do so, what will
be their fate? It cannot be expected that the foxes will cease to be foxes just
because they don’t have a leader or that, in the absence of a leader, they will
all commit themselves to follow the (head of the) lions. So what is their fate?
I think the answer may be
found within Avot itself. Hillel at Avot 1:14 teaches:
אִם אֵין אֲנִי
לִי, מִי לִי, וּכְשֶׁאֲנִי לְעַצְמִי, מָה אֲנִי, וְאִם לֹא עַכְשָׁו, אֵימָתָי
If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am
I? And if not now, when?
This mishnah has been so
overused in recent years, regardless of its context, that one can easily disregard
that it might have had a context when Hillel first taught it. At any rate, the
first two propositions—if I am not for myself and if I am only for myself—place
it firmly within the category of Avot teachings that deal with interpersonal
relationships and the need to strike a balance between one’s personal needs and
the needs of others.
By identifying and
criticizing the polar opposites of absolute selfishness and total altruism,
Hillel foreshadows the Maimonidean golden mean that forms a central plank of
Hilchot De’ot in the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah. And as a pair of general maxims
for life, Hillel’s guidance casts a clear light on our case of the foxes. We
must not devote ourselves utterly to those who may live their lives at a lower
standard than our own, and with lower expectations. But nor must we ignore
them. We must take our inspiration from the lions and aspire to spread it among
the foxes, even though both the lions and the foxes may ridicule our ethics and
our efforts.
For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.
