We find ourselves in Bereshit Rabbah 60, a treasure trove of rabbinic interpretations on the Book of Genesis, wrestling with just that. The verse in question, (Genesis 24:33), describes Abraham's servant arriving at his destination: "The man came to the house and unfastened the camels. He gave straw and feed for the camels, and water to wash his feet and the feet of the men who were with him." But the rabbis, ever diligent in their reading, immediately zoom in on the seemingly mundane detail of "unfastening the camels."
Rabbi Huna and Rabbi Yirmeya pose a fascinating question to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rabba: Were Abraham's camels, paragons of virtue, perhaps akin to the legendary donkey of Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair? Now, this donkey wasn't just any beast of burden. This donkey was practically a Talmudic scholar in disguise!
The Midrash (rabbinic interpretive commentary) tells us that Rabbi Pinḥas's donkey refused to eat anything that wasn't properly tithed or was suspected of being stolen. It was so scrupulous, it once spent three days with robbers, refusing to touch their ill-gotten gains! When finally returned, the donkey wouldn't even eat barley until it was confirmed that the demai – the potentially untithed portion – had been removed.
"Did you process it?" Rabbi Pinḥas asked. "Did you separate the tithes of demai from it?" The robbers, bewildered, pointed out that one is generally exempt from tithing animal feed. But Rabbi Pinḥas simply replied, "What can we do for it if it is stringent with itself?" This donkey held itself to a higher standard!
So, back to Abraham's camels. The implication of the initial question is clear: if Abraham's camels were so righteous, surely they wouldn't need muzzles to prevent them from nibbling on forbidden vegetation. The "unfastening" mentioned in Genesis must refer to something else entirely, perhaps their saddles.
We even get a glimpse into the potential for religious one-upmanship. Rabbi Yirmeya once sent a basket of figs to Rabbi Ze'eira, not tithing them himself. He reasoned, "Is it possible that Rabbi Ze'eira would eat them without tithing them?” But Rabbi Ze'eira had the same thought about Rabbi Yirmeya, and so neither tithed them! The result? Untithed figs were consumed. The rabbis certainly had a sense of humor.
Later, Rabbi Abba bar Yemina laments to Rabbi Ze’eira that, compared to earlier generations, they are but donkeys. But not even the righteous donkey of Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair, but to ordinary donkeys who unwittingly consumed untithed figs.
But the story doesn't end there. The Midrash takes an unexpected turn, focusing not on animal righteousness, but on the importance of seemingly trivial details. "He gave straw and feed for the camels." The rabbis argue that the detailed conversation surrounding Eliezer, Abraham’s servant, is more significant than even fundamental laws of the Torah! The passage about Eliezer’s mission to find a wife for Isaac is long and detailed, while the law of impurity from creeping animals, a cornerstone of ritual purity, is derived from a mere extra letter in a verse.
Consider this: the Torah states "tameh, hatameh" (impure, the impure) and "zeh, vezeh" (this, and this) when referring to creeping animals (Leviticus 11:29). Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yosei point out that the extra "heh" and "vav" teach us that the blood of these creatures, like their flesh, also transmits ritual impurity. Such a crucial law, derived from such a small detail!
Similarly, Rabbi Aḥa argues that even the act of washing the feet of Abraham's servants is worthy of mention, highlighting its significance. "And water to wash his feet and the feet of the men who were with him."
So, what's the takeaway? Perhaps it's that righteousness can be found in the most unexpected places – even in camels and donkeys! Or maybe it's a reminder that no detail is too small, no action too insignificant, to be worthy of our attention. The rabbis, in their wisdom, invite us to see the profound in the mundane, the sacred in the everyday. And maybe, just maybe, to strive to be a little more like the donkey of Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair… figs permitting, of course.
“The man came to the house and unfastened the camels. He gave straw and feed for the camels, and water to wash his feet and the feet of the men who were with him” (Genesis 24:33). “The man came to the house [and unfastened the camels]…” – he untied their muzzles. Rabbi Huna and Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rabba: Were the camels of Abraham our patriarch not like the donkey of Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair?30As the Midrash goes on to relate, Rabbi Pinḥas’ donkey would not touch forbidden food. Surely Abraham’s animals were no less righteous than those of Rabbi Pinḥas, therefore there was no need to muzzle them to prevent them from eating private vegetation, and the unfastening mentioned in the verse was referring to their saddles. Robbers once took the donkey of Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair. It spent three days with them and did not eat anything. They said: ‘In the end it will die, and stink up our cave for us. Let us return it to its owner.’ They sent it out and it came to its owner’s house. When it arrived it brayed, and he recognized its voice. He said: ‘Open the gate for that unfortunate one and give it to eat, as three days have passed during which it did not taste a thing.’ They gave it barley, but it would not taste it. They said to him: ‘We gave it barley but it would not taste it.’ He said to them: ‘Did you process it?’31By removing the chaff and other refuse. They said to him: ‘Yes.’ [He asked:] ‘Did you separate the tithes of demai from it?’32Demai is produce purchased from a person who is not trustworthy regarding the separation of tithes from his produce. One who buys such produce must separate the tithes himself, as a precaution. They said to him: ‘No. Did you not teach us, Rabbi: “One who purchases grain for an animal, or flour for hides, or oil for light, or oil to rub into leather is exempt from tithing demai?”’33Demai 1:3. He said to them: ‘What can we do for it if it is stringent with itself?’34The donkey was so righteous that it did not want to rely on the exemption from tithing animal feed. Rabbi Yirmeya once sent a basket of figs to Rabbi Ze’eira. Rabbi Yirmeya said: ‘Is it possible that Rabbi Ze’eira would eat them without tithing them?’35He therefore did not tithe them himself before sending them. Rabbi Ze’eira said: ‘Is it possible that Rabbi Yirmeya would send them without tithing?’ Between the two of them, the figs were eaten in their untithed state. The next day, Rabbi Yirmeya met Rabbi Ze’eira. He [Rabbi Ze’eira] said to him: ‘Did you tithe those figs?’ He said to him: ‘No.’ Rabbi Abba bar Yemina said to Rabbi Ze’eira: ‘If the people of early generations were likened to angels, we are likened to human beings. If they were likened to people, we are likened to donkeys. And [if we are likened to donkeys] we are not likened to the donkey of Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair, [but to an ordinary donkey]. When the donkey of Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair was given untithed food it would not eat it, but we ate untithed figs.’ “He gave straw and feed for the camels” – the conversation of the servants of the patriarch’s household are more significant than the Torah laws of the descendants. The passage about Eliezer is two or three columns long, it states it and repeats it. The [law of impurity of] creeping animals is one of the fundamental laws of the Torah, but the fact that its blood imparts ritual impurity, like its flesh,36The flesh of a creeping animal imparts impurity (see Leviticus 11:29–38), but the Torah does not state explicitly that its blood imparts impurity. is learned only from a derivation based on an extra letter in a verse. [What is that derivation?] Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Tameh, hatameh (Leviticus 11:29).37The verse, when speaking of creeping animals, could have said: “And these are impure [tamei],” but instead it says “And these are the impure ones [hatamei].” It is from the additional letter heh that the impurity of its blood is derived. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yosei says: Zeh, vezeh (Leviticus 11:29).38The verse, when speaking of creeping animals, could have said: “These [zeh] are the impure ones,“ but instead it says “And these [vezeh] are the impure ones.” It is from the additional letter vav that the impurity of its blood is derived. “And water to wash his feet and the feet of the men who were with him” – Rabbi Aḥa said: The washing of the feet of the servants of the patriarch’s household is more significant than the Torah laws of the descendants, for [the Torah] found it necessary to write even about the washing of his feet, The creeping animal is one of the fundamental laws of the Torah, but the fact that its blood imparts impurity like its flesh is learned only from a derivation based on an extra letter in a verse. [What is that derivation?] Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Tameh, hatameh, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yosei says: Zeh, vezeh.
