Kommentar zu Bereschit 18:8

ויקח חמאה וגו AND HE TOOK חמאה, ETC. — but he did not bring bread, on account of Sarah becoming mentstruant; as the 'way of women' returned to her that day, and the dough became impure (Bava Metzia 87a).

ויקח חמאה וחלב, according to the plain meaning of the text there was no need to report that Avraham supplied the bread which he had volunteered to serve these men. It was only necessary to list the additional items he served, seeing no mention had been made of them thus far.

ויקח, he, personally.

ויקח חמאה וחלב, “he took butter and milk;” according to our sages the bread was never served, as Sarah had begun menstruating suddenly, so that she had become ritually impure while doing her chores in the kitchen. According to the plain meaning of the text, there was no need to mention the basic ingredients of the meal, the bread. Alternately, the reason the individual components of the meal are listed, is to show the correct order in which to serve such course during a meal.

But, the bread he did not bring... You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it simply was not baked yet! The answer is: Bread is the main part of the meal, as it is written (Daniel 5:1): “עבד לחם רב, [King Belshazzar] made a great feast.” Thus, Avraham would not have prepared the other foods if the bread had not yet been baked.

חמאה: vielleicht verwandt mit המה, gähren, der Abhub, der aus einer Zersetzung der Milch hervorgeht. — חלב, verwandt mit חלף, wechseln. Milch ist die Umwandlung des Blutes in Nahrungsstoff, der wieder in Blut verwandelt wird, somit Durchgang des Blutes durch Milch zu Blut. Was חלב für das Junge ist: der für dasselbe ausgeschiedene Nahrungsstoff, das ist חֵלֶב für das Alte: der für künftiges Bedürfnis zurückgelegte Nahrungsstoff, das gleichsam zurückgelegte Kapital. (S. 84).

ויקח חמאה וחלב, “he took curd and milk, etc.” this teaches that he fed them both milky and meaty dishes. When G–d was ready to give the Torah to the Israelites, the angels are reported as having said to Him (Psalms 8,2): תנה הודך על שמים, “You have covered the heavens with Your glory” [This is perceived as the angels demanding that the Torah remain in the celestial regions of the universe. Ed.] G–d replied to them: “in My Torah it is written that milky and meaty dishes not be consumed at the same meal (Exodus 23,19), yet when you descended to earth you partook of such a mixture at Avraham’s table. (The inference is clear, i.e. “the laws of the Torah do not apply to you.”) As soon as the angels heard this they withdrew their objections to the Torah being given to people on earth. This is the deeper meaning of Exodus 34,27: כי על פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית ואת ישראל, “for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” What do “these words” refer to? They refer to the verse prior to this where eating meaty and milky dishes at the same time has been prohibited. Nonetheless, this metaphorical explanation appears to contradict another metaphorical interpretation (Midrash) in which we have been taught that Avraham personally observed not only all the Biblical laws of the Torah, but even the “fences” surrounding them to protect us against violating the prohibition itself. The particular example quoted there for such a “fence” is interestingly the subject of eyruv tavshilin, certain preparations of food when the holiday occurs immediately before the Sabbath. But that is not the only way of explaining the Midrash. The word: eyruv, actually means “mixture,” so that the Midrash may have referred to a mixture of meaty and milky courses of the same meal, so that there is no contradiction at all. Seeing that Avraham is reported as first having served milky dishes, and the meat subsequently, it is reasonable to assume that he wished to give his guests something to eat before freshly slaughtered animals, that had to have their blood removed could be cooked or roasted on the spit. The interval would have sufficed not to violate the laws of mixing milk and meat. [If people ate their main meal during the fourth hour after sunrise, seeing that these men (angels) did not arrive at Sodom until evening, there would have been plenty of time for their eating both. Ed.]

ויקח חמאה וחלב, (meanwhile) “he took butter and milk;” our Rabbis (in B’reshit Rabbah 48,9) state that it is understood that Avraham also served them bread, seeing that he served them things he had not even promised. Although we have no proof for the fact, as one does not usually eat cheese when expecting to be served meat shortly thereafter, and not in the reverse order, the order in which the Torah lists the menu makes this a plausible assumption.

חמאה is the fatty part of milk which is skimmed off its surface.

עומד עליהם, when a person is seated and someone else stands beside him, the one standing is referred to with the preposition עליו. Compare Isaiah 6,1-2 ראיתי את ה' יושב על כסא ושרפים עומדים ממעל לו. “I saw G’d seated on a throne and the Seraphim were standing beside Him.” [it is hardly likely that Isaiah in this vision saw the angels as standing above G’d. Ed.] A similar construction is found in Kings I 22,19 involving a vision by Michyahu in response to Yehoshaphat’s request.

ויתן, he placed before them butter and milk as well as the young calf. He offered them the choice to eat either dairy or meaty. There was no need to mention the bread as it is understood that he first brought them the bread. After all, the very minimum one can serve guests is bread. When one entertains guests who appear to be distinguished people one most certainly does not fail to offer them bread first. Besides, the Torah had already mentioned that he prepared the bread in the guise of uggot, cakes. There was also no need to mention that he served them wine, another, staple at all meals.

Because Sarah began to menstruate... She did not actually menstruate, for she exclaimed soon afterward (v. 12): אחרי בלותי היתה לי עדנה, implying she did not have menstruation [see Rashi there]. Rather, “the way of women” returned to her. I.e., her head and limbs felt heavy, and her lower abdomen ached. Thus she feared she would menstruate and render the dough impure. Since Avraham ate all his food in ritual purity, she stopped working the dough and left—and before someone else could come, it turned to chametz. And it was Pesach, when chametz is forbidden. Alternatively, it could be that she actually began to menstruate. If so, why did she ask incredulously: אחרי בלותי היתה לי עדנה, when she was already menstruating? The answer is: She thought it [was not a regular cycle but] happened by chance. And she knew that Avraham ate all his food in ritual purity. So explained the Re’m. You might ask: How could Avraham give them butter and milk and calf? It is mixing milk and meat! An answer is: He first gave them the milk, and afterward the meat. Alternatively, [he first gave the meat,] and held like the Halochos Gedolos, [cited in Tur, Yoreh De’ah 89]: through cleaning out [the mouth by eating and drinking pareve items,] one is then permitted to eat cheese.

ובן הבקר אשר עשה, “and the calf which he had prepared;” this is not the only time when the word עשה, does not, and could not mean: “he had made,” we find it used in the same sense as here also in Genesis 1,7: ויעש אלוקים את הרקיע, where it could not mean that “G–d made the sky or firmament,” as He had already decreed for it to come into existence in the verse prior to that. It meant that He made it functional, made it ready to fulfill its purpose. (Based on Rashi)

ובן הבקר, “and the calf;” according to Rashi, the Torah should have written “and the calves;” (pl) some commentators justify the use of the singular by pointing out that Avraham started serving as soon as the first calf was ready to be served. The three lads whom Avraham had charged with these tasks did not all work at the same speed.

ובן הבקר אשר עשה literally, AND THE CALF WHICH HE HAD MADE — i.e. prepared. Whatever was ready first he brought and placed before them.

תחת העץ, a reference to trees, as in an orchard.

אשר עשה, by means of his servant.

As each one was prepared he immediately brought it to them. [How does Rashi know this? Because it answers the question:] If there were three tongues, why does the verse imply he brought only one, by writing “the calf,” in singular form? (R. Meir Stern) [Alternatively,] Rashi is answering the question: Butter and milk were not mentioned before, so should it not say first, “He took the calf,” and then, additionally, he took “Butter and milk”? Thus Rashi explains, “As each one was prepared...” Since the butter and milk were ready before the calf was prepared, [he brought them first]. A further answer: Rashi learned it from the apparently extra phrase, “He had prepared, which implies that whatever he prepared first, he brought immediately.

ויאכלו, “they ate.” Seeing that angels cannot eat, the meaning of the word is that they burned it in the sense of consuming it, just as food is burned by our bodies to provide us with energy enabling us to continue to exist. [We know that these “men” were angels, from what followed when they arrived in Sodom. Ed.] The word אכל is used in the same sense when Moses in Exodus 3,2 observed that the burning bush was not being consumed (eaten) by the fire.

ויאכלו, “they ate;” according to the Talmud, which says the angels had been told by G-d to behave on earth as do the earthlings, we may understand this literally. According to the aggadah, they pretended to eat in order to make Avraham feel that he had fulfilled the virtue of being hospitable. Concerning the first interpretation, G-d is supposed to have criticised the angels that even babies are more discriminating than they, as babies who have been circumcised refrain from eating meat (cooked) with milk. (Based on Pessikta rabbati at the end of this Parshah.)

ויאכלו AND THEY DID EAT—They appeared to be eating: from this we may learn that a man should not act differently from the prevalent custom (Bava Metzia 86b).

והוא עומד, as explained by Onkelos, i.e. he served them in the capacity of waiter.

From this that a person should not act differently... You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Since angels do not eat, perhaps it is written they “ate” in order to appear as [human] guests, rather than as angels! The answer is: If so, “And they ate” teaches us nothing. It need not be written, as it is obvious that they did not really eat. And what does it even matter if they ate or appeared to eat? Thus Rashi explains, “We learn from this...”

עליהם, the word is used in the same sense already in verse 2

ויאכלו, this is how it appeared to him. All this was part of his prophetic vision.