Tosafos explains that the concept of their being a mitzvah on inheritors to pay their fathers debts, depends on a few variables: a. whether the father left them property from which to collect. b. whether a debt without a contract is collectible from the yesomim. c. whether the yesomim inherited anything from their father.
1. If the father leaves over property on which there is a loan with a contract - the orphans have a mitzvah to pay and we force them in beis din to pay.
2. If the father doesn't leave over property - the orphans have a mitzvah to pay, but we don't force them to pay [Rashash points out that the shulchan aruch (107) paskens like the hagahos ashri that if the father doesn't leave over anything, they don't even have a mitzvah to pay at all].
3. If the father leaves them property on which their is a verbal loan, it depends: One opinion holds that a verbal loan is collected from orphans, so we force them to pay. But according to Rav and Shmuel that a verbal loan isn't collected from orphans, they have a mitzvah to pay but we don't force.
We discussed this issue in Kesubos, see here:
I suggested that the concept of forcing the yesomim to pay is under the rubric of forcing for positive mitzvos. This seems to be supported clearly by Tosafos who quotes this gemara not only for the reason that one must repay their own debt, but to justify why we force yesomim to pay their fathers debt (when it is a contractual debt and he leaves over property). The difficulty is, if we force for mitzvah aseh, why don't we force in all situations where they have a mitzvah to pay, even when he doesn't leave over property on which there is a shi'bud? See what I wrote in kesubos.
No comments:
Post a Comment