Yeridas Hadoros, and whether Avraham muzzled his camels

Over at Rationalist Judaism, a discussion of yeridas hadoros, which applies even to intellect and (I would add) physical size (as per the Chazon Ish), which made me think of the following.

There is an interesting Rashi on parshas Chayei Sarah. Eliezer, on his mission, ungirded the camels {24:32}.

לב וַיָּבֹא הָאִישׁ הַבַּיְתָה, וַיְפַתַּח הַגְּמַלִּים; וַיִּתֵּן תֶּבֶן וּמִסְפּוֹא, לַגְּמַלִּים, וּמַיִם לִרְחֹץ רַגְלָיו, וְרַגְלֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ.

32 And the man came into the house, and he ungirded the camels; and he gave straw and provender for the camels, and water to wash his feet and the feet of the men that were with him.

And Rashi writes, based on Midrash Rabba:

and unmuzzled the camels: He loosened their muzzles, for he would shut their mouths so that they would not graze along the way in fields belonging to others. — [Gen. Rabbah 60:8, Targum Jonathan]

ויפתח: התיר זמם שלהם, שהיה סותם את פיהם שלא ירעו בדרך בשדות אחרים:

It seems to me that Rashi's point in all this is to increase the merits and praises of the tzaddikim and to increase the demerits of the reshaim, by focusing of various otherwise innocuous phrases and bringing out what they mean, midrashically. For example, when Rivkah answers, he points out that she answered his first question first and his last question last. And when Lavan ran, he explains that it was because he set his eyes on the money. And so on and so forth.

So it is understandable to cite this midrash, to show the righteous conduct of the family of Avraham.

Ramban understands this differently. He writes:

לב): ויבא האיש הביתה -

אליעזר הוא האיש הבא.

ויפתח הגמלים -

יחזור על לבן, שעשה עם אורחיו דרך מוסר ויפתח גמליהם, ויתן להם תבן ומספוא ונתן מים לרחוץ רגלי אליעזר ורגלי האנשים אשר אתו. כי רחוק הוא שיהיה אליעזר הוא הנותן מים לרחוץ רגליו ורגלי אנשיו. וכן ויעברו אנשים מדינים סוחרים וימשכו ויעלו את יוסף מן הבור (להלן לז כח), כי "וימשכו" חוזר אל אחיו הנזכרים בפסוק הראשון. וכן ויאמר ציבא אל המלך ככל אשר יצווה אדוני המלך את עבדו כן יעשה עבדך ומפיבושת אוכל על שולחני כאחד מבני המלך (ש"ב ט יא), והם דברי דוד, ורבים כן:

וענין ויפתח הגמלים -

שפתח מוסרי צוארם כי המנהג להוליכם קשורים, או שהיו הולכים חגורים במושב המרכבה אשר עליהם, כלשון אל יתהלל חוגר כמפתח (מ"א כ יא), התפתחי מוסרי צוארך (ישעיה נב ב):

ורש"י כתב:

התיר זמם שלהם שהיה סותם פיהם שלא ירעו בשדות אחרים.

ולשון בראשית רבה (ס ח):

התיר זממיהם, רבי הונא ורבי ירמיה שאל לרבי חייא ברבי אבא, לא היו גמליו של אברהם אבינו דומים לחמורו של רבי פנחס בן יאיר וכו'.

וזו שאלה לסתור פתוח הזמם, כי אי אפשר שיהיה החסידות בביתו של רבי פנחס בן יאיר גדול יותר מביתו של אברהם אבינו, וכאשר חמורו של רבי פנחס בן יאיר איננו צריך להשתמר מן הדברים האסורים לבעליו להאכילו, כל שכן גמליו של אברהם אבינו, ואין צריך לזממם, כי לא יאונה לצדיק כל און:

Thus, Eliezer went into the house, and Lavan was the one who ungirded the camels, and provided provisions for the animals, and hospitality for the people. And it is farfetched for Eliezer to have done all the detailed actions. In terms of ungirding the animals, it means opening the reins of the animal from about its neck {?}, as such was the minhag to travel {rather than a muzzle}, or that they traveled girded to the carriage which was about them, and Ramban gives two prooftexts.

He cites Rashi, who cited the midrash about the muzzle. But then he cites Midrash Rabba itself, in which Rabbi Huna and Rabbi Yirmeyah ask Rabbi Chiyya beRabbi Abba about how this would imply that Avraham's camels were not comparable to the donkey of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair. And he considers this a question which refutes the midrashic suggestion that it was an opening of the muzzle, for it is not possible that the chassidut in the house of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair was greater than in the house of Avraham Avinu. And yet, Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair's donkey did not need to be guarded against forbidden matters to his owner to feed him, and all the more so Avraham Avinu's camels, such that he would not need to muzzle them, for sin would not come upon a tzaddik.

This explains why Ramban would be so ready to give such a "peshat" oriented interpretation which directly contradicts the midrash Rashi cited. For the midrashic source itself included a refutation of the idea! And so he is endorsing the midrash's conclusion by showing how the pasuk is to be otherwise interpreted.

The midrash in Midrash Rabba is as follows (the Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair story also appears in Shekalim 13b):

ויבא האיש הביתה וגו'

התיר זמומיהם.

ר' הונא ור' ירמיה, שאל לר' חייא בר רבה:

לא היו גמליו של אברהם אבינו דומים לחמורו של ר' פנחס בן יאיר?!

חמרתיה דר' פנחס בן יאיר נסבוה לסטאי, עבדת גבון תלתא יומין, ולא טעמת כלום.

אמרין: סופה מייתה, ותסרי מערתא עלינו, נמסרה לרבונה.

שלחוה ועלת בביתא דמרה, כיון דעלתה נהקת וחכים קלה.

אמר: פתחו לאותה העניה, ויהבו לה דתיכול, דאית לה תלתא יומין דלא טעמה מידי, יהבין לה שעורין, לא טעמתון.

אמרין ליה: רבי, יהבינן לה שערין ולא טעמתון.

אמר לו: תקנתיהו?

אמרון ליה: אין אפיקתון דמאי?

אמרו: לא כן אלפין רבי, הלוקח זרע לבהמה, וקמח לעורות, ושמן לנר, ושמן לסוך בו את הכלים פטורין מן הדמאי?!

אמר לו: מאי נעביד לה, והיא מחמרה על גרמה.

ר' ירמיה שלח לרבי זעירא

חד קרטיל דתאינין.

רבי ירמיה אמר

אפשר רבי זעירא אכילהון, דלא מתקנן?!

רבי זעירא אמר

אפשר לרבי ירמיה דלא משלח להון מתקנן?!

בין דין לדין, איתאכלון תאנים בטיבלייהו.

למחר קם ר' ירמיה עם רבי זעירא.

אמר ליה: תקנת אילין תאנייא?

אמר ליה: לא!

אמר רבי אבא בר ימינא לרבי זעירא:

אין הוון קדמאין מלאכין, אנן בני נש! ואין הוון בני נשי, אנן חמרין, ולית אנן כחמרתיה דר' פנחס בן יאיר, חמרתיה דר' פנחס בן יאיר יהבון לה שערי דטיבלא, לא אכלת יתהון, ואנן אכלינן תאנייא דטבילין.

It is interesting that Rabbi Yirmeyah makes this assumption about Avraham Avinu, and also makes a false assumption about Rabbi Zera, with the result that Rabbi Zera (of a lower level, presumably because of yeridat hadoros) ends up eating tevel.

What is going on in this incident with Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair? I recently saw someone summarize the story (I would guess without considering it too carefully inside) that the donkey would not eat forbidden foods, and then suggest that the dispute in the midrash was whether, in Avraham's case, stolen food was consider forbidden food or not. That is, was Avraham's case of stolen food akin to Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair's case of tevel or demai.

But at the start of the story, Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair's donkey is stolen by robbers, and the donkey refuses to eat for three days. No one said explicitly that the food the donkey was given was tevel. Indeed, donkeys can eat straw or else barley. Barley requires terumah be taken off, but straw does not. (Indeed, midrashically this is how Esav fooled Yitzchak, by asking about how to tithe straw and salt.) And the story is that the donkey would not eat anything. I would posit that the donkey refused not because of tevel, but because all the robbers' possessions were composed of theft. If so, it is a direct correlation to Avraham's camels, who Rabbi Huna and Rabbi Yirmeyah suggest also would not have eaten of what didn't belong to them.

It is true that subsequently, upon the donkey's return, the donkey refused barley which was tevel, or rather demai. But this was upon the donkey's return, and further showed this donkey's conduct.

Even if earlier the concern was tevel, there is a general theme regarding Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair we could recognize. He was exceedingly punctilious about other people's property. He never partook of someone else's meal. He did not want to benefit from an olive's measure of someone else's food. He refused to eat by Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi, because the latter owned a white mule which could cause damage to others. He told his students that water would split on their behalf, as it did more than once for him, if they never harmed another person or his feelings. He told people that mice were eating their grain because they were not punctilious enough in maaser. When beggars left him with two bags of wheat stalks, he tended it for them with such care that he managed to transform it into a warehouse of grain for them.

I would consider the insistence on terumah and maasar as part of this, that these are the rightful portions of the kohanim and leviim, and so one must not deprive them of their share. And his insistence upon this was a measure of his great piety, and it had a spiritual impact even on his animal, such that his donkey, as well, would refrain from eating what it should not.

But is it really the case that Avraham's animals must be on the same level of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair's animal, because of yeridas hadoros? I don't know, but this appears to be the assumption of Rabbi Huna and Rabbi Yirmeyah. And couple this with the declaration of our own spiritual decline, that Rabbi Zera and company were not even at the level of the donkey of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair.

I would note that this idea of Yeridas Hadoros working to the extent that Avraham must have been on at least as high a level is not monolithic. In another Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair story, he splits a river for himself, and then another two times for his traveling companions. Rabbi Yossi remarks on this that in that Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair is greater than Moshe Rabbenu, for Moshe Rabbenu only split the Yam Suf once! Apparently, it was not problematic -- though maybe a bit surprising -- that Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair was on this higher level.

Whoever authored the midrash related by Rabbi Chiya bar Rabba (a contemporary of Rabbi Yirmeyah, I think) does not necessarily subscribe to this overwhelming idea of yeridas hadoros in all respects.

We don't measure a person using only a single value; rather, a vector of values provides better information. Each value in the vector would represent the magnitude of some particular attribute -- e.g. selflessness, devotion, humility, intelligence, fear of Heaven, positive attitude, sense of humor, and so on. Even if we say that overall, the Avos were of a higher level than the Amoraim, and if we say that the Amoraim were on a higher overall level than us, are we positive that this applies to every single attribute in turn? Was Moshe, who complained lama hareiota laam hazeh at a higher level than Nachum Ish Gamzo in declaring that all Hashem does is for the best? Were the jokers in the marketplace who merited Olam Haba for their cheering people up matched in this by Yaakov Avinu? We don't find that he particularly cheered people up with humor, to the same degree as these people.

And so, if Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair has a particular trait, and a particular positive attribute that he stressed more than anyone else, sometimes to extremes, it is not so surprising if his donkey is impacted by it. And it is not insult to Avraham Avinu to say that he did not go to such an extreme in this particular area. And so, Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba could have responded (though he didn't in the account of the midrash) that indeed, it is possible that Avraham Avinu's animals required muzzles.

Yet in the end, the dispute is not much of a dispute. Why did Rabbi Chiya bar Abba relate this midrash about the muzzles? The point was to show how Avraham was meticulous in bein adam lachaveiro, and in respecting other people's property. That is the point the midrash was likely attempting to bring out. If so, Rabbi Huna and Rabbi Yirmeyahu's refutation is not so much a refutation as a reinforcement! Yes, in terms of peshat of the pasuk (according to this midrash), no muzzle was removed. But the reason for the rejecting of the interpretation is that Avraham was even more meticulous in respecting the property of others than we assumed, such that his animals did not need any muzzles. And so we can look back at our ancestors and respect them even more, as they serve as role models in keeping all aspects of the Torah.