In our parasha Moshe, following Hashem’s instruction, returns to Egypt to free his people, bringing his family members on a donkey (Shemos 4:20). According to the Midrash, cited by Rashi (Bamidbar 16:15), Moshe recalls this episode as defense against the claims of Korach and his company that he is a despot (Bamidbar Rabba 18:10)
“I have not taken one donkey from them”: That which I had [a right] to take I did not take. By universal custom, one who works in the sanctuary receives wages from the sanctuary. [In my case, however,] when I went down from Midian to Egypt I had a right to take a donkey from them, since it was on behalf of their needs that I was going down [there]; but I did not take [one].
Moshe’s claim seems perplexing. How was he supposed to take a donkey from the Jews in Egypt in order to travel to Egypt? One possible answer is that Moshe was entitled to be reimbursed, but voluntarily waived this right. This would be parallel to the situation of the sanctuary workers. Or perhaps Moshe is pointing out that he had no obligation to incur expenses to fulfill his mission, but he willingly did so. At any rate, this Midrash presents a good opportunity to review the laws of reimbursement.
The Gemara (Bava Metzia 101a) states that “one who entered another’s field and planted trees in it without the permission of the owner of the field” must be compensated according to the lesser of the owner’s benefit and the usual expense incurred for the work done. (This situation usually arises due to a misunderstanding; see e.g. Bava Metzia 76b.) The Rema (Choshen Mishpat 264:4) adds: “Likewise, anyone who performs a labor or a favor for his friend, [the friend] cannot say, ‘Since I didn’t instruct you [to do the work, it is considered as if] you worked for free.’”
A common example is asking a neighbor to babysit in an emergency, or accepting a Shidduch suggestion from a friend or relative. Even if the helper was not explicitly hired, and even though it is not unusual for people to agree to do these things for a mitzvah and without payment, the usual remuneration for a babysitter or Shadchan is due.
Another common reimbursement halacha is adjudicating when repayment is offered, but the exact extent is unclear. For example, an expense account covers “business related expenses” but it is not clear if an extravagant business lunch with a client is included. Here we apply the rule of the Mishnah (Bava Metzia 7:1, 83a in the gemara) whereby all working conditions follow the general custom unless otherwise stipulated.
Moshe’s Risk
The example of sanctuary workers noted in the Midrash is given because public funds in general, and especially sanctuary funds, have strict limitations on their use. As the Midrash mentions, the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:1) and Tosefta (Shekalim 2:6) give broad latitude to pay Mikdash craftsmen from sanctuary funds. A beraita (Kesubos 106a) extends this permission to Torah scholars who teach halachos to Kohanim; here is an early precedent for today’s custom to ensure that Torah teachers receive suitable recompense for their considerable efforts.
None of these explanations seem applicable to Moshe’s situation. Moshe did not go to Egypt at the bidding of the people, but rather at the bidding of Hashem. Furthermore, Hashem did not instruct Moshe to bring his family with him.
Perhaps the most apt analogy to the events of our parasha is the following: In general, a person is not required to incur any loss to fulfill the mitzva of rescuing somebody else’s endangered object. In fact, one is allowed to forgo saving an object worth millions of shekels so as not to lose something of trivial value. To partially rectify this regrettable situation, Chazal allow a rescuer to stipulate that he undertakes rescue on the understanding that his loss will be compensated by the owner; this stipulation is generally binding (Mishnah, Bava Metzia 2:9, 30b in the Gemara; Choshen Mishpat 264:4-5.) The Shulchan Aruch uses the term “one who descends in order to save” to define the rescuer.
Moshe took a great risk by bringing his family to Egypt. Indeed, Chazal (cited in Rashi, Shemos 18:2) tell us that Aharon was amazed when he saw them, and admonished Moshe to return them to safety in Midian. Evidently, Moshe sought, as always, to throw his lot in completely with the Jewish people. If their families were at risk, then his family would be too. Moshe did not seek any privileges; he “goes down” to Egypt only “in order to save” the people of Israel.
If Moshe had been interested in minimizing his risk, he could have left his family in Midian. At the very least, he could have stipulated that he expected the people to reimburse him for the expenses of bringing them. But Moshe does exactly the opposite: he shows self-sacrifice over and above what is required, by not only descending to Egypt himself but even by bringing his wife and sons to demonstrate solidarity with his people. This is the essence of his rejoinder to Korach.
