ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף תהילים 103:21

It is axiomatic in philosophy that simple things are expected to perform only simple tasks, whereas sophisticated phenomena or creatures are expected to perform a variety of tasks commensurate with their respective sophistication. If fire were to embody only heat, it would be expected to do no more than to provide heat. Since it also comprises dryness, it also functions as a drying agent. This kind of reasoning is at the core of the statement by our sages that each of the plagues in Egypt consisted of four, respectively five plagues, since each plague was a sophisticated phenomenon, embodying a variety of capabilities. In line with this reasoning, one can understand the dictum of Rabbi Yochanan (Taanit 9) "rain may come because of the merit of one individual; sustenance, however, because of the merit of the multitude." Since the way in which people make their livelihood varies both qualitatively and quantitatively, sustenance can only be entrusted to a group of people as infinitely varied as the modes of their livelihoods. Since man himself consists of both physical and spiritual components, he will have to function both on the physical and on the spiritual level. The physical functions need to be experienced, felt, by his senses. The spiritual functions do not need to be experienced or felt at the physical level. When the Jewish people responded to the imminent revelation of G-d and His Torah, they said “na-aseh," we will perform, referring to the activities of their bodies. Then they said "nishma," we will hear, learn, referring to the tasks reserved for the intellect and spirit.

Our opinion is not contradicted by Scriptural passages like the following: “He giveth to the beast his food” (Ps. 147:9); “The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God” (ibid. 104:2 1);” Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing” (ibid. 145:16); or by the saying of our Sages: “He sitteth and feedeth all, from the horns of the unicorns even unto the eggs of insects.” There are many similar sayings extant in the writings of our Sages, but they imply nothing that is contrary to my view. All these passages refer to Providence in relation to species, and not to Providence in relation to individual animals. The acts of God are as it were enumerated; how He provides for every species the necessary food and the means of subsistence. This is clear and plain. Aristotle likewise holds that this kind of Providence is necessary, and is in actual existence. Alexander also notices this fact in the name of Aristotle, viz., that every species has its nourishment prepared for its individual members; otherwise the species would undoubtedly have perished. It does not require much consideration to understand this. There is a rule laid down by our Sages that it is directly prohibited in the Law to cause pain to an animal, and is based on the words: “Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass?” etc. (Num. 22:32). But the object of this rule is to make us perfect; that we should not assume cruel habits: and that we should not uselessly cause pain to others: that, on the contrary, we should be prepared to show pity and mercy to all living creatures, except when necessity demands the contrary: “When thy soul longeth to eat flesh,” etc. (Deut. 12:20). We should not kill animals for the purpose of practising cruelty, or for the purpose of play. It cannot be objected to this theory, Why should God select mankind as the object of His special Providence, and not other living beings? For he who asks this question must also inquire, Why has man alone, of all species of animals, been endowed with intellect? The answer to this second question must be, according to the three afore-mentioned theories: It was the Will of God, it is the decree of His Wisdom, or it is in accordance with the laws of Nature. The same answers apply to the first question.