The Gemara (and especially Agadeta and Midrashim) while containing the deepest secrets and Sodos, talks to its audience in the language most intelligible to it, using items in daily use and whose nature would be readily apparent. Thus in the agricultural world which existed in those times one expects to find references to the animals, birds, flora and fauna which would most readily bring home the clearest picture to the reader.

Just as an example there springs to mind Eruvin 100b, "Were it not for the giving of the Torah we would have learned Tzeni'us (modesty) from the cat, theft from the ant, Arayos (sexual propriety) from the pigeon, Derech Eretz (good behavior) from the cock, etc."

So too here, the Gemara chooses the most appropriate animals to suit its purposes in illustrating the particular parable. We must first therefore analyze the animals quoted in our parable.

1. The Ze'ev (the wolf) - At the time of the Tanach, Mishnah and Gemara, this was the most familiar of the Chayos ha'Torfos (wild, predatory animals) and they were particularly fearsome in packs (Mishlachas Ze'evim). In Chumash we find Binyamin compared to the Ze'ev (Bereishis 49:27) and there are numerous Midrashim elaborating on this comparison. See Zevachim 53b., "The Beis Hamikdash was to be in the "Chelko Shel Toreif, etc." The Tzror ha'Mor on the Pasuk quotes a Medrash that the Ze'ev catches its prey but runs off quickly, so too, the Kingdom of Saul descended from Binyamin would be short. See also Rashi on the Pasuk.

There are numerous references to the Ze'ev in Shas as being a fierce animal. See Ta'anis 3:6, Bava Kama 1:4, Bava Metzia 7:9, Sanhedrin 1:4, Chulin 3:1 etc. where the consequences are discussed. What is remarkable, however, is that in all these last four cases, the Ze'ev is mentioned first, and the lion and the other wild animals follow. This cannot be because it was the most fearsome, dangerous or important; the only explanation I can think of is because it was the most frequent (Shechi'ach Tfei) and hence presented itself as the largest threat to humanity.

[Note: after writing this, I came across a reference to this question being asked in Shoshanim l'David and in the ha'Ashir on Bava Kama and a reference to Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer 23:13 but unfortunately I do not have access to them here in Israel - can you look them up for me?]

2. The Ari - (the lion) This needs no explanation. It is well known to be the King of the beasts and it represents strength, power and leadership. It has a number of different names: Ari, Aryeh, Lavi, Layish, Shachal, Kefir, Gur etc and occurs throughout Tanach. Yehudah the king of the Shevatim is compared to the lion (Bereishis 49:9). It is also frequently mentioned throughout Shas and has given its name to the Halachic concept of Mavri'ach Ari mi'Nichsei Chaveiro.

3. The Nachash (the snake) This too is well known throughout Tanach and Shas. There are over thirty varieties, some poisonous, others harmless. We usually meet the extremely dangerous varieties, renowned for their insidiousness and total untrustworthiness, stemming from the initial encounter with Chavah in Gan Eden. See Bereishis 3:1-14, 49:17 where Dan is compared to it, Shemos 7:15, Bamidbar 21:6 and 9, Devarim 8:15, etc. and in Shas in the places quoted above. In Bava Kama ibid, the snake is singled out by Rebbi Elazar as the only one of the group that cannot be tamed.

Turning now to the parable itself in Berachos 13a, the simple explanation is that it is demonstrating an ascending order of severity. It could also be that it is logical for it to commence with the Ze'ev, as the Gemara does in the other places we have mentioned because of its frequency. There may be indeed no deeper connection between the wolf and the Egyptians. Alternatively perhaps the wolf was chosen since the Shibud Mitzrayim encompassed a relatively short time span in the context of history, just as we have quoted above that the wolf is Chotef u'Vore'ach.

The lion which follows, apart from being linked with Malchus Yehudah is also linked with Malchus generally which is the connection with the Pasuk in Yeshayah 43:18, "Al Tizkeru Rishonos" - Zeh Shibud Malchuyos, quoted immediately previously in the Gemara there. However, in Daniel 7:4, the lion represents Nevuchadnetzar and Malchus Bavel, and so too Yirmiyahu 4:7. See Rashi in both places.

Finally we come in the parable to the Tzaros Acharonos and the Milchemes Gog u'Magog, which are to be of a different dimension from the previous Galuyos. The Maharsha in Chidushei Agados points out that after the lion there is no mention of having forgotten the wolf but after the snake the earlier two are completely obliterated from memory.

This is as we mentioned above, that the behavior of the snake is qualitatively different from that of any of the other Mazikim. Indeed Ben Yehoyada answers this question of the Maharsha by saying that the method of attack of the Ze'ev and the Ari are similar so one would not forget the earlier one as a result of the second one. However, the Nachash attacks in a completely different manner so that when one thinks about it, it excludes any memory of the earlier ones. The Maharsha himself answers his question based on the length of historical time that will elapse in connection with the final Galus. So, there is both a quantitative and a qualitative differential. As we also mentioned above there are very numerous varieties of snakes so they are a most appropriate choice for this parable as the ultimate Galus in which we find ourselves involves a great variety of Tzaros of numerous kinds.

Tosfos in Avodah Zarah 2b DH v'Aru, obviously has a different text in our parable, substituting the Bear (Dov) for the snake. They state there that though the lion is the king of the beasts nonetheless the Bear is Az (or other texts have Mesukan) Yoser and Ba'al Tachbulos, i.e. it is more dangerous because of its presumptuousness and its scheming nature.

In fact a bear is naturally vegetarian, but when under pressure of hunger or aroused to anger it can go berserk [cf. the Pasuk, "Dov Shakul" (Mishlei 17:12, Shmuel II, 17:8 and Hoshea 13:8)]. Elisha used the bear to exact punishment on the recalcitrant water carriers in Melachim II 2:24. Why two bears rather than wolves or lions? Perhaps we can suggest that it was to show that they changed from their natural behavior pattern to exact retribution on people who behaved in an irregular manner. So too in our parable the bears represent the retribution to be visited on the world generally and on Bnei Yisrael in particular if we stray from our natural path.

The natural friendly forces can unleash a reverse unnatural backlash of Holocaust, nuclear disaster etc. just as the bears change their nature when aroused. Perhaps the Nachash too illustrates the idea of the Nachash ha'Kadmoni: taking its due when we forget the Torah, which is our weapon with which to counterbalance it.

J. Pearlman