“The current parshas relating to Balak and Bilaam raise an interesting monetary question,” Uri said to Rabbi Dayan.
“How so?” asked Rabbi Dayan.
“Balak offered Bilaam great honor and wealth to come and curse Am Yisrael,” said Uri. “Three times Bilaam tried his best to curse Israel, building altars at various vantage points, but was unsuccessful, as God turned his curses to blessing.
“Balak finally sends Bilaam off, saying, ‘I said that I would honor you greatly, but now God prevented you from honor.’ Bilaam replied [Bamidbar 24:11-13] that he told the messengers from the outset: ‘If Balak would give me a houseful of silver and gold I cannot violate God’s words.’ It seems that Balak sent Bilaam away without pay, since he was unsuccessful in cursing Israel, while Bilaam objected.
“When a person performs a service, but despite his best efforts is unsuccessful, is he entitled to a salary or not?” asked Uri. “Shouldn’t the fact that he warned ahead of time that he might not succeed also make a difference?”
“The Gemara [B.K. 116a] addresses this issue in the case of a river that swept away two donkeys,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “The owner of the less valuable donkey agreed to abandon it and save the more valuable one instead, provided he would be compensated for his own donkey. The Gemara states that if the rescue was unsuccessful, he is entitled to the normal value of such services; the implicit understanding is that additional compensation was promised only on condition of a successful rescue. However, if the rescuer explicitly stipulated that he be compensated for his donkey even if he were unsuccessful, he is entitled to compensation, as any other monetary agreement.
“Thus, the person is entitled only to the regular cost of such service, but not to extras promised, unless stipulated otherwise.” (C.M. 264:4; SM”A 264:11)
“Is there a difference between rescuing and other services?” asked Ploni.
“It seems logical that there is a difference between a job in which the outcome is known to be uncertain, like rescuing, and one in which the outcome is expected,” answered Rabbi Dayan. “Chavos Yair [154] rules that someone who hired a political activist to advocate with the authorities on his behalf must pay for his services at a reasonable rate, even if the activist was unsuccessful. Thus, a person who hires a lawyer to represent him must pay for his toil and services, even if he loses the case, since it’s known that the outcome is uncertain. However, a person who hired a plumber to clear a stoppage and or technician to fix an appliance would not have to pay the serviceman for his toil (other than for the call) if he was unsuccessful, since he is paid not for his efforts but for the repair. Of course, this also depends on the common commercial practice.”
“Machaneh Ephraim [Hil. Sechirus 23] distinguishes further based on the language of the agreement,” added Rabbi Dayan. “In the Gemara’s case, the agreement was to pay extra compensation for the rescue. Thus, the obligation remains to pay the normal rate of the services even if the rescue was unsuccessful. However, had the owner said: ‘If you rescue, I will pay you,’ he clearly committed himself only if the rescue would be successful. Machaneh Ephraim suggests that even ‘Rescue my animal and I will pay you’ is a commitment to pay only if the rescue is successful.
“Thus, Bilaam argued that he had warned ahead of time that he could only speak as God would tell him,” concluded Rabbi Dayan. “Perhaps he felt he had stipulated to receive pay for his efforts regardless, whereas Balak insisted that he did not do the job at all. Nonetheless, after the sin of Shittim and the subsequent plague in Am Yisrael, Bilaam came to claim payment for the partial ‘success’ through his advice.” (Sanhedrin 106a)