From the book The Essential Secret of the Jews, M. Brushtein
Plants do not have individual freedom. Therefore, social relationships of plants are limited. We extend our study to the next natural stage of development – animate.
Animals are organisms that make up one of the kingdoms of nature; in contrast to plants, they consume ready organic compounds, are active, mobile. (sbio. Info, Project “Biology)
As follows from the definition, animals are mobile and active. This cannot but affect the relationship between individual members and between whole groups of the animal kingdom.
Let’s look at the major social unit of wildlife – a pack, flock, or school.
A pack, flock, or school are systematic, structured groups of mammals, fish or birds, usually of the same kind, that are in a similar biological condition, actively maintaining mutual contact and coordinating their actions.
A pack consists of individuals who perform a number of important vital functions, being members of a pack for much of their life.
There is an opinion that it is a pack (not herd) of primitive humans served as a basis for the creation of human society. (Wikipedia)
A pack – this is serious. For example, the relationships in a wolf pack in many respects are similar to the relationships in human society, and by some measures even surpass them, in particular, with respect to wolf-veterans. Wolves take care of their elders and give them enough to eat. To be honest, it is not always observed among humans.
And yet what is the main difference between animals and plants? In what are they more “advanced”? Again, the answer is found in Kabbalah.
“We see that each animal has its own characteristic; they are not confined to the environment, but each of them has its own sensation and characteristic. … Rather, they have their own lives, and their vitality does not depend on their friends’ lives.” (Baal HaSulam, Shamati #115)
What is the difference between an animal and human?
“Yet, they cannot feel more than their own being. In other words, they have no sensation of the other. And naturally cannot care for the other.” (Baal HaSulam, Shamati #115)
This definition requires some explanation. At first glance it seems that it is not quite right. We all know that animals feel their master’s mood, their states and attitudes. Furthermore, it is known that animals care about their kinsmen as in the example with wolves. There are even cases of self-sacrifice. All this is true, but they are instincts.
A dog feels when a person does not feel well, but the animal does not understand what shame is. A dog does not blush when he picks up food from the floor and is he is not embarrassed to walk without clothes. The animal will never lie under the knife voluntarily to lose his leg affected by gangrene. The animal does not understand that it is possible today to give someone a piece in order to take two tomorrow. It is even more impossible to imagine that the animal understands what it means “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” etc.
There is a perfect illustration of feeling the fellow man that is characteristic of the human being and is not typical of animals at all.
Try to catch up on the street with any passer-by and continue to move beside him. After some time, the following thing will happen. The passer-by will begin to glance sideways, look over his shoulder, check his pockets, become nervous and worried. But you can lie close with a stranger on the beach, sit next to him in the theater, and talk to him in a queue or anywhere else. A paradox.
By the way, this apt observation does not belong to the author. This observation is by satirist Mikhail Zhvanetsky.