the foundation of transactions involving an exchange. If the heir does not agree to become liable for the rent, and the lessor says, “I will not make the use available to you so that you may enjoy his entitlement to it,” then requiring the heir to pay the rent immediately from the estate, while enjoyment of the use remains deferred, plainly entails injustice to him.

If the leased property is an endowment or the like, its administrator has no right to collect all the rent in advance. Even stipulating this would not make it permissible. For if he does not own the future benefits and is entitled to their rent only as they arise in the future, collecting it in advance without any need for repairs amounts to taking something to which the endowment’s beneficiary is not yet entitled.

He also answered:

Payment of the rent in advance is not required according to the sounder of the scholars’ two views, especially if the rented property is an endowment. Collecting rent in advance for an endowment is permissible only for repairs and similar needs, because successive generations of beneficiaries are entitled to its benefits. Each group is entitled to the rent for the benefits arising during its own time. If they receive payment in advance for future use, they will have taken compensation for something in the endowment to which they are not entitled, and this is impermissible.

However, if those entitled to the property ask the tenant’s heirs to provide a guarantor for the rent, they have that right. The sum remains a liability of the heirs, backed by a knowledgeable guarantor for the endowment’s beneficiaries in respect of its occupant. Moreover, even if the property were not an endowment, the debt would not fall due upon the debtor’s death. The same applies according to those who hold that debts do fall due upon death, on the more evident of their two views, since they distinguish leases from other transactions, just as they distinguish land held under a ground-rent arrangement when it is sold or