In Pirkei Avot 2:5, Hillel suggest, "In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man."
One idea that I infer is that if you are in a place where there are no leaders, you should attempt to be the leader. So, if you are in a place where there are no Torah leaders or Talmidei Chachamim, and you are able to be one and be the community leader, you should do this.
However, this notion seems to conflict with Rav Nehora's precept in Avot 4:14 that says that one should exile himself to a place of Torah.
My question is both in terms of understanding these two seemingly contradictory precepts as well as its applications today.
If someone currently lives in a place where there is no Torah leadership of any form, and the majority of Jews living there are secular, unobservant and uneducated, and this person feels that he could establish a Torah community and be the leader, should he attempt to do this, in line with Hillel's advice? Or, should he follow Rav Nehora's advice and go to an already established place?
Perhaps, an analogous situation, today, is when Chaba"d decides to send a shaliach who, say, has lived near 770 and they send him to a place that has no Torah leadership to establish a new community.
In summary, In viewing these two precepts, when should one enact one precept vs. the other?