גביית מלוה ד

font-size: 18px;

line-height: 1.75;

And therefore, after a person passes away — when the lien of the lender upon the borrower expires, for repaying a creditor is a mitzvah, and the dead person is free from the mitzvos, and automatically he has no lien whatsoever — for the lien upon the borrower's property is only in the manner of areivus [surety/guarantee]. And the essential lien is upon the body [person] of the borrower himself. And as is brought in the Poskim [halachic authorities] regarding one who sells a promissory note to his fellow and then forgives [the debt] — it is forgiven, and this is for this reason; see there.

It emerges: when the lien on the body of the borrower expires [at death], automatically he has no lien whatsoever. For the property is now in the possession of the heirs. However, the essential lien that the lender has upon the property of the deceased is only because the root of the nefesh was there, as above. And therefore, even now after the nefesh of the borrower has departed, nevertheless a small amount of the vitality of the nefesh still remains in the deceased person, as is brought [in the sources]. It emerges that a small amount of the nefesh still remains within his property — for the property is the root of his soul, as above. And therefore the lender comes back upon them [the properties], because there is still a small amount of the borrower's nefesh there. And therefore the essential lien is upon karka'os [land] — because there is the essential root of the nefesh, as above. Therefore there remains even now a small amount of vitality there, as above. But regarding mitaltelim [movable property] — where the nefesh was not as deeply rooted, as above — therefore now, after the nefesh has departed, they are not considered the borrower's at all, and they are not called by the name and soul of the borrower at all — since the nefesh has departed from there, and even during his lifetime it was not as deeply rooted there. And this is the aspect of the fact that karka'os are called by the name of the deceased — for it is the essential inheritance that is called by his name, as it is written: "To establish the name of the dead upon his inheritance" (Ruth 4:5). But mitaltelim are not called by his name at all after he departs. For the shaim [name] is the nefesh, as Rabbeinu, neiro ya'ir, wrote (Siman 59). And after his death, the remnant of the nefesh and the shaim is only considered [to remain] in the karka'os — where the essential root [of the soul] is, as above. But the mitaltelim are considered immediately after his departure to be in the possession of the orphans. For the root of his soul does not remain there as it does in the karka'os, which are called by his name, as above. And the mitaltelim belong primarily to the orphans — based on what is explained in the aforementioned teaching "G'zelah": that the nefesh, the wealth, and the souls of his children are in the aspect of a tree, branches, and fruits. And the children — they are the fruits of the tree. And he himself is the one who nurses the tree and provides for it. And when he passes away and there is no one to exert himself to nurse them and provide for them with wealth — where the root of their soul is — therefore they take an inheritance, so that they themselves will engage with the money and complete their soul through wealth. And sometimes the children take an inheritance from money that is actually theirs. For sometimes the father has money on account of the children, and it is the children's money; see there well, in the passage beginning "And this is the aspect of inheritance"; see there. And therefore the mitaltelim are fitting for the orphans after his death. For the children are the aspect of the fruits of the tree. And the fruits are the aspect of mitaltelim — for after one picks the fruits, they are movable. It emerges that the entire vitality of the children is in the aspect of fruits, the aspect of mitaltelim. It emerges that the entire portion that the children have in their father's wealth is in the aspect of mitaltelim relative to karka'os. For their very selves are only the aspect of fruits, as above. But the father is the essential root of the tree and its nursing. It emerges that the root of his soul, relative to the children, is in the aspect of karka'os — from which all the mitaltelim and fruits come, which are the aspect of the souls of his children. And therefore the essential root of the father's soul is in the aspect of karka'os. And the essential root of the children's souls is in the aspect of mitaltelim — which is the aspect of fruits, as above. And during his lifetime, everything is in the domain of the father, as is explained there, as above. But after he departs, then his soul departs more [completely] from the mitaltelim — for his soul was not as deeply rooted there, as above. And they belong to the children, for they are the aspect of the root of their souls — for they are the aspect of fruits, as above. And therefore: the movable property of orphans is not liened to a creditor. For his lien has expired from them, since the nefesh of the borrower has departed from them, as above. And they belong to the orphans, who are the aspect of fruits, the aspect of mitaltelim, as above. And this is [the significance of the Gemara's language]: that they are called "mitaltelei d'yasmei" [the movable property of the orphans] specifically, as above. For they belong to them, as above. But the karka'os — where the essential root of his soul is, as above — therefore even after his departure, a small amount of the vitality of his soul remains there. And therefore the lien of the lender applies to them. For his essential lien is upon the nefesh of the borrower, as above. And therefore nowadays — when the essential wealth and properties are only mitaltelim — therefore all the roots of the souls are in mitaltelim. For nowadays we are wandering and displaced and m'tultalim [uprooted/moved about]. Therefore the roots of the souls are also mitaltelim [movable]. And therefore, for the most part, we do not have karka'os — only mitaltelim. And therefore all the roots of the souls — which are in wealth — are there [in the movable property]. And therefore even the movable property of orphans is liened [nowadays]. For since now the essential root of the nefesh is in mitaltelim — because we have no karka'os, as above — therefore the lien applies to them. Even after the departure [of the borrower], for certainly there remains some vitality of the borrower's nefesh there, since all the roots of the souls are there now, as above. The property of a person serves as surety on behalf of the borrower to repay, as above. And this is the aspect of: "A person's feet are his guarantors" (Sukkah 53a). For wealth is the aspect of his feet, as Rabbeinu, neiro ya'ir, wrote (Siman 69), in the aspect of: "And all the substance that was at their feet" (Deuteronomy 11:6) — this is a person's money, which stands him on his feet. A continuous essay building on Hilchos Halva'ah 1 and LM I:69 "G'zelah." The nefesh is rooted in wealth; wealth comes from the earth (karka'os). After the borrower dies: (1) the mitzvah-based lien on his person expires (hameis chofshi min hamitzvos), (2) property lien = only areivus, (3) a small residue of the nefesh remains in karka'os (where the nefesh was deeply rooted) but not in mitaltelim. Therefore: karka'os remain liened to the creditor, but mitaltelim belong to the orphans. The tree mashal from "G'zelah": the father = the root/trunk that nurses the tree; the children = the fruits (peiros). Fruits = mitaltelim (once picked, they're movable). The children's portion of the father's wealth = mitaltelim; the father's root = karka'os. After death, his nefesh departs from mitaltelim → they pass to the children → mitaltelei d'yasmei la mishta'b'dei l'va'al chov. Critical contemporary application: nowadays we have no karka'os — we are na'im v'nadim um'tultalim (wandering, displaced, uprooted). All roots of the souls are in mitaltelim. Therefore nowadays even mitaltelei d'yasmei are liened. Closing: a person's property = areivim (guarantors) for the borrower. "Raglohi d'var inash inun arvin leih" (Sukkah 53a) — wealth = his feet, as in "v'es kol hay'kum asher b'raglaihem — zeh mamono shel adam shema'amido al raglav." Based on Hilchos Halva'ah 1 (above) and Likutay Moharan I:69 "G'zelah"