Genesis 24:32

And the man entered the house, and Laban undid the gear of the camels, and gave the camels straw and provender; and water (to Eliezer) to wash his feet, and the feet of the men who were with him.

AND THE MAN CAME INTO THE HOUSE. Eliezer is the man who entered the house. And he ungirded the camels — this refers to Laban who acted ethically towards his guests, unharnessed their camels and gave them straw and fodder, and he also gave water to wash the feet of Eliezer and the feet of the men that were with him. It must refer to Laban for it would be unlikely that it was Eliezer who gave water to wash his own feet and those of his men. A similar case is the verse, And there passed by Midianites, merchantmen, and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit. The words, and they drew, refer back to the brothers of Joseph mentioned in the preceding verse, and not to the Midianites. And so in the verse, Then said Ziba unto the king [David]: According to all that my lord the king commandeth his servant, so shall thy servant do; but Mephibosheth eateth at my table as one of the king’s sons. [The concluding words, but Mephibosheth eateth], are the words of David and not Ziba. There are many such verses.
Now the purport of the expression, and he ungirded the camels, is that he unloosened the bands on their necks, as it was customary to lead them knotted, or perhaps they travelled with saddles girded upon them, just as is expressed in the verses: Let not him that girdeth on his armor boast himself as he that putteth it off, Loose thyself from the band of thy neck.
Now Rashi wrote, “He removed their muzzles for he had closed their mouths so that they might not graze in other peoples’ fields.” And in the words of Bereshith Rabbah, “He removed their muzzles. Rabbi Huna and Rabbi Yirmiyah asked Rabbi Chiya the son of Rabbi Aba, ‘Were not the camels of our father Abraham like the ass of Rabbi Pinchas ben Ya’ir, etc.?’” This question is intended to contradict [the interpretation which maintains that the ungirding refers to] the removing of the muzzles for it is impossible that the piety in the house of Rabbi Pinchas been Ya’ir should have been greater than that in the house of our father Abraham, and just as the ass of Rabbi Pinchas ben Ya’ir did not have to be guarded against eating things which its master was forbidden to feed it, all the more so were the camels of our father Abraham. There was thus no need to muzzle them for no injustice befalleth the righteous.

ויפתח, the word is used in the same sense as in Kings I 20,11 אל יתהלל חוגר כמפתח, “let not him who girds on his sword boast like him who ungirds it.”

ויבא....ויפתח, Laban released the various straps, etc., of Eliezer’s camels, something that is done when beasts of burden arrive at their destination. According to an aggadic interpretation quoted by Rashi the expression ויפתח applies to the muzzles which Eliezer had placed around the camels’ mouths to prevent them from eating grass or stalks belonging to private individuals along the route they had been traveling. According to our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 60,8) on

ויתן תבן ומספוא, Rabbi Acha concludes that mundane conversation of men such as Avraham’s servant Eliezer is esteemed more highly by G’d (the Torah) than the learned discussion of Torah by the children of the patriarchs; he derives this from the inordinate amount of detail provided by the Torah to the minutiae of the story of Eliezer at the well. On the other hand, basic legislation in the Torah concerning ritual impurity is often only hinted at by a letter here or an extra word elsewhere in the text. The same scholar continues: the washing of the feet of the servants of our patriarchs ranks as more worth reporting than details of the impurities of certain creepers and if the blood of such creepers confers ritual impurity similar to their bodies. This goes so far that the greatest scholars were not able to resolve their understanding of these rules by reference to what is actually written in the text of the Torah.