You can understand this, too, through the aforementioned parable in section #15#. We proved there that the force of the guest’s rejection and refusal to accept a meal became a receiving vessel instead of the hunger and appetite. The hunger and appetite, which are the usual receiving vessel for eating, were disqualified here from being a receiving vessel on account of the shame and degradation the person felt at receiving a gift from his friend, and only the powers of rejection and refusal became receiving vessels in their place, because as a result of the rejection and refusal, the receiving was transformed into giving once the guest realized that he would be doing the host a favor by accepting the meal, and through them the person attained appropriate receiving vessels for accepting his friend’s meal.
However, it cannot be said that now he no longer needs the usual receiving vessels, which are hunger and appetite, as it is clear that without an appetite for eating, he will be unable to fulfill his friend’s wishes and give him the satisfaction of eating with him. Rather, what happens is that the hunger and appetite, which were disqualified in their normative form, have now been altered, due to the force of the rejection and refusal, and have received a new form: receiving in order to give.