ויבא האיש הביתה ויפתח הגמלים ויתן תבן ומספוא לגמלים ומים לרחץ רגליו ורגלי האנשים אשר אתו
So the man came to the house and unmuzzled the camels (Bereshis 24, 32)
Medrash Rabbah 60:8 Rabbi Chiya says the stress on the self-understood ownership teaches us that Avrohom’s camels were readily noted as uniquely his. He had them muzzled when they left his property so that they would not graze in privately owned fields. But then Rav Huna asked him, “Wouldn’t Avrohom’s camels be as well trained as Rabbi Pinchos ben Yoir’s donkey, which did not eat untithed food? (Chulin 7)?”
Ramban - Since there was no rejoinder, it is obvious that Rabbi Chiya accepted this question as negating his interpretation. Because of this the Ramban says that “va’y’fatach” ויפתח means removal of their riding gear.
Rashi - יפתח means to release (open) their muzzles; Avrohom did not want to take a chance at the expense of others, if perchance one of his camels would eat from someone else’s property.
According to Rashi many ways to understand the difference between the camels of Avrohom and the donkey of Rabbi Pinchos ben Yoir:
- The camels Avrohom sent were part of a fleet, but not ones he personally used. Hence, he did not create an aura of sanctity that would affect them. R’ Pinchas ben Yoir’s donkey was his personal donkey, which he used for daily transportation, thus allowing him the opportunity to affect the donkey.
- R’ Pinchas ben Yoir’s donkey was in Eretz Yisrael while Avrohom’s camels traveled to “chutz learetz.” Eretz Yisrael itself adds to the spiritual sensitivity.
- Food that is untithed, “tevel,” is intrinsically prohibited. An animal can be trained to be sensitive to this (donkey of Rabbi Pinchos ben Yoir). Stolen food is intrinsically kosher, and no animal would refrain from eating it (camels of Avrohom).
- Since the land of Canaan will eventually become Avrohom’s, the theft of others’ property hinges upon a time factor. We find that even tzadikim themselves would occasionally slip and eat something that was only prohibited by virtue of a time factor, i.e. before havdoloh. Although at the present time it is true theft, but since the change in ownership does not require bilateral action between Avrohom and the Canaanites, their ownership is tenuous and the level of theft is weak, hence the difficulty in sensitizing his camels to this.
- The rule is that animal owners are not responsible if their animals inadvertently eat someone else’s food in the public domain, (gemara Bava Kama 24b). Therefore, it is difficult to train them to discern between the public domain and private property. Untithed foods are always prohibited.
- A donkey is more sensitive to tithing, i.e. a portion being sanctified, since there is the sanctity of “b’chor petter chamor.”
- It is harder to train a camel since camels have an inborn hatred of humans.
- At maamad Har Sinai there was “poska zuhamoson,” there ceased to be a negative spiritual atmosphere caused by Primal Man’s sin, even for the animals that came there If so, Avrohom’s camels, which were before matan Torah could not be trained, as they had the negative “zuhamo,” while Rabbi Pinchos ben Yoir’s donkey was after matan Torah.
- It was harder for Avrohom to influence his camels against theft since they were exposed to the theft of Lot’s camels, which were not restrained. Although this took place many years earlier, hence they are not the same camels, but this bad trait might be passed on. Or Avrohom had them muzzled to strengthen the morality of his camel caretakers. They were exposed to Lot’s livestock caretakers, who allowed Lot’s animals to graze in others’ fields.
Basic understanding of the concept that HaShem protects a Tzadik from accidental sin:
- Specifically applies to food items; a Tzadik does not have physical benefit from a prohibited item.
- Or, HaShem prevents spiritual harm to a Tzadik of timtum halev (applies to known prohibition).
