הלכה אויף בראשית 18:8

And thus the utensil, the knife, with which food is cut into pieces is called a ma’akhelet because it annihilates and destroys, as in the expression, “you shall consume (ve-‘akhalta) all the peoples.”³Dt. 7:16: “You shall destroy all the peoples” (NJSB). Ma’akhelet is the term for the knife with which Abraham prepares to slaughter Isaac in Gen 22:10. And the verse which uses va-yokhlu (“they ate”) to refer to what the ministering angels were doing teaches this,⁴Gen 18:8, in the story of the angels visiting Abraham at Mamre. as our sages z”l taught in a midrash about the three calves that Abraham brought to them. “One after another each one went up and disappeared (kalah) off the table, and Abraham when he realized this, brought some more meat almost continually time after time, like a person who kept increasing the number of whole burnt offerings he sacrificed on the altar.”⁵Gen. R. 48:16. And likewise about Adam it is written, “She also gave some to her husband, and he ate (va-yokhal).”⁶Gen 3:6The word va-yokhal (“and he ate”) proclaims his sin both by his deed and by his thought. By his deed: that is that he caused the tree to lose its fruit, and ate it despite his being warned not to: “for as soon as you eat of it, you will die.”⁷Gen 2:17. His thought: that is that he destroyed, cut off, and made like the branch of the tree was a thing in and of itself, and if so, everything suffers destruction and annihilation, in both physical and intellectual things.⁸R. Bahya alludes here to the kabbalistic idea that the sin of Adam also involved “the cutting of the shoots,” the intellectual error of mistaking the part for the whole of creation. This had profound cosmic implications, since by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, Adam not only physically separated the fruit from the tree, he intellectually “separated” it from its heavenly image above, its source of power and energy. This intellectual separation cuts the divine “pipeline” connecting the lower and upper worlds, effectively blocking the empowering flow of divine energy between the two worlds. It is precisely this state of affairs, the consequence of Adam’s sin, that the table blessings R. Bahya discusses in the First Gate is intended to repair. And so when you are found saying the word va-yokhal, it includes the destruction (hashhatah) of both something below and the destruction of something above, as it is written, “your people have gone bad (shihet),”⁹Ex 32:7. This is from the story of the Golden Calf. God is speaking to Moses, and instead of referring to the Israelites as “My people” as He usually does, God calls them “your – i.e., Moses’ – people,” much as parents often pass the buck to one another when their children have misbehaved (as does Moses, too, replying to God in Ex 32:11). I think R. Bahya’s point is that there is both a lower and upper “people “(“your [Moses’] people” vs. “My [God’s] people” that have “gone bad.” and likewise Jeroboam was called a mashhit – “destroyer” – because he destroyed and cut short the shoots.¹⁰See note 8 above. R. Bahya alludes to the midrash in b. Berakhot 35b: “‘He is a companion to vandals (ish mashhit) (Prov. 28:24).’ This refers to Jeroboam the son of Nebat who ruined (she-hishhit) Israel for their Father in Heaven,” by building two golden calves and ordering the Israelites to worship them (I Kings 12:28-32).

If the host himself wants to serve his guests, he may, even if the host is a talmid hakham. The reason is from this:³⁵Rabbi Yitzchok Etshalom, on his Rambam website, explains clearly the Gemara that R. Bahya cites in this way:
The essential question, as presented in the Gemara (BT Kiddushin 32a-b), is whether the honor due the sage is his own (like the father’s), or if it is the *K’vod haTorah* (Honor of the Torah), which he embodies. The Gemara posits that even though the father (and, presumably, the mother), may be *Mochel* [that is, “waive”] the honor due him, the teacher may not. A challenge is brought from the fact that God Himself was “*Mochel*” His Honor, by “walking” in front of the camp of Bnei Yisrael in the desert (inappropriate for one due honor) – and God is seen here as the model for the teacher. The Gemara defeats this challenge by distinguishing – it is God’s world and it is God’s honor – if He wishes to be *Mochel* – that is “up to Him”. But the scholar isn’t just representing his own self; it is God’s Torah which is the source of his honor. The Gemara refutes this distinction by pointing to an alternate reading of the first verse of Psalms, which indicates that after learning Torah, the Torah becomes the “property” of the student/scholar. That is the final result of the *sugya* (section) in the Gemara. http://www.torah.org/learning/rambam/talmudtorah/tt5.11.html, consulted 3/11/10. If a teacher has waived the honor due him, his waiver of honor is waived, as it is said, “The Lord went before them by day.”³⁶That is, God Himself waived His own honor by walking in front of the Israelites. It would have been more appropriate for the honored person to be proceeded by someone lesser in rank (like when King Ahashverous honors Mordechai by having Haman lead him around the city on horseback). That contradicts this! Or does it? It is the Holy One Blessed be He’s world, and if He wants to waive His honor, it is up to Him.³⁷Here the Gemara goes on to object that if the teacher’s honor depends his knowledge of Torah, and Torah comes from God, that it is not the teacher’s honor that he’s waiving, but God’s. However, the Gemara then goes on to refute this objection with the proof text from Psalm 1:2, where R. Bahya resumes his paraphrase of the sugya, having omitted the objection itself. And it goes on to say that it is the teacher’s torah (and honor) once he has learned it, as it is said, “he studies his torah day and night.”³⁸Ps. 1:2, taking the “his” of “his torah” (be-torato) to refer to the subject of the verb “studies” (ye-he-geh), that is, the man who studies, not God. And they also said, if a nasi (political authority) has waived his honor, his waiver of honor is waived.³⁹B. Kiddushin 32b. It happened to Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua when they were reclining in the banquet hall of the son of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, that Rabban Gamaliel was serving them something to drink. He gave a cup to Rabbi Eliezer, who refused it, and to Rabbi Yehoshua, who accepted it. Rabbi Eliezer said to him, “What is this, Rabbi Yehoshua? We are sitting, but Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi is standing and serving us something to drink!” He replied, “We have precedent for the greater acting as a table server. Abraham was the greatest of his generation, and it is written about him, “And he stood over them under the tree and they ate.”⁴⁰Gen 18:8. Lest you object that they appeared him as heavenly angels, on the contrary, they appeared to him as Arabs. So as for us, why shouldn’t Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi stand and wait upon us?” Rabbi Zadok said to them, “How long are you going to overlook the honor of God and occupy yourself with the honor of mortals? The Holy One Blessed be He causes the winds to blow and raises up rulers, makes the dew fall and makes plants grow from the earth; He sets a table before each and every one. So as for us, why shouldn’t Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi stand and wait upon us?⁴¹In other words, R. Zadok says, we hardly need the precedent of Abraham, a mortal, to wait on his inferiors, when this is what God Himself does for everyone all the time! For anyone familiar with the New Testament, this whole discussion about the appropriateness of a high status host waiting upon his guests at the table calls to mind a scene in the Last Supper in Luke’s Gospel:
A dispute also arose among them [the disciples] as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. But he [Jesus] said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather, the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.” (Lk 22:24-27)
Yet despite their similarities, the most striking difference between the Jewish and Christian stories is who gets to make the interpretation that the host’s lowering himself to the status of a table server is okay. In the Christian story, Jesus defends his own behavior, while in the Jewish story, the guests defend their host’s right to lower his status to wait on them. Moreover, they justify his behavior with examples from others who willingly lowered their high status to wait on their guests: Abraham to wait upon his mysterious visitors, and God to “wait upon” the whole world! In the Last Supper, Jesus justifies his behavior by his own example. Jesus warrants his practices by his own charisma; the rabbis warrant theirs on the precedents of others, that is, on past traditions and rational argument.

He who sees a wise man approaching does not rise before him until he will be within four ells, and as soon as he passes by, he may sit down; he who sees a dean of a tribunal passing by must rise before him as soon as his eyes behold him from a distance and not sit down until he will pass him by and be back of him four ells; he who sees the president of the tribunal approaching he should rise before him as soon as his eyes behold him and not sit down until he will take his seat, or until he will walk away out of his sight. The president of a tribunal who renounces all these attentions of honor, his renunciation thereof is valid. When the president enters, the whole audience rises and do not sit down until he will tell them, "Be sitted." When the dean of a tribunal enters, two lines are formed in his honor and the people on either side remain standing until he enters and sits down on his place, but the rest of the audience remain sitting in their places.⁵Kiddushin, 32b; Ketubot, 17b; Horayot, 13b; Ta’anit 27b. C. G.