Siman 340

One who has a deceased relative, and he is among the deceased for whom one is obligated to mourn as I have written in siman 374 – he is obligated to perform krieah for him. This obligation is of rabbinic origin, and they supported it with a verse. Thus our sages, of blessed memory, said in Moed Katan (Moed Katan 24a): A mourner who did not rend – is liable for death, as it is written: "And your garments you shall not rend, that you die not." This implies that another who did not rend – is liable for death. This is in the sense of what they said: One who transgresses the words of the sages – is liable for death (Beit Yosef). For it is a mere support, as the plain meaning of the verse refers to the sons of Aaron, that if they were to rend – they would be liable for death (Tosafot ibid.).

And in truth, throughout the entire Tanakh it is found that one rends for this and for similar matters. Did not David rend for his son who died, as it is written: "And David arose and rent his garments" (II Samuel 13:31). And in Job (Job 1:20) it is written: "And Job arose and rent." And let it not be inferior to other bad tidings for which one rends, as we find with Hezekiah (Isaiah 37:1) and with Jeremiah (Jeremiah 41:5), and as will be explained in this siman. And one rends specifically while standing. But if he rent while sitting – he has not fulfilled his obligation (Moed Katan 21a), and he is required to rend a second time. And this itself we learn from David, as it is written: "And David arose." And in the Yerushalmi there (Chapter 3, Halakha 7) it is learned from Job, as it is written: "And he arose," see there. And in our Gemara this derivation is rejected, see there. (And the opinion of the Rif and the Ra'avad is that post facto he has fulfilled his obligation if he rent while sitting, see in the Tur.)

The primary obligation of keriah is after the departure of the soul, for then is the primary time of grief, at the very least before he closes the face of the deceased in the grave with earth. However, if he did not perform keriah then—he performs keriah throughout the seven days, for this too is a time of grief. But when the seven days have passed and he did not perform keriah—he does not need to perform keriah anymore, except for his father and his mother, for whom he performs keriah forever out of their honor.

In which place on the garment does one perform keriah? Specifically from the front, above, opposite the heart. This is the wording of the Gemara: One who tears from below or from the sides has not fulfilled the obligation (Moed Katan 26a). And the poskim who wrote the phrasing "at the neckline in the front"—their intention is also the same. Regarding our garments which are entirely open in the front, the phrasing "neckline" is not applicable. Rather, they followed the style of garments that were not entirely open in the front, but were like our shirts; therefore, it is called the "neckline." Therefore, if one tore at the hem of the garment, or behind it, or from the sides—he has not fulfilled the obligation. This applies to those for whom the obligation to mourn is from the Torah. However, it will be explained further on that one performs keriah for any person when standing at the moment the soul departs, and there are other obligations of keriah. For those, they have fulfilled the obligation even if they tore at the hem of the garment, since there is no obligation of mourning involved. And so they were accustomed to be lenient ab initio regarding these keriah tears. (And a keriah of obligation is not across the width of the garment, but rather along its length.)

One is obligated to tear from the body of the garment. And so they said in the Gemara (Moed Katan 26b): One who tears from the hem, from the basting, from the gathering, from the ladder-stitch—has not fulfilled his obligation. From an Alexandrian mending—he has fulfilled his obligation, see there. And such is the wording in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 2 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 340:2). And they did not explain what these are, only regarding "Alexandrian mending" did they explain, which is a stitch that is even on top and protrudes from below. Thus far their words. And also in the commentary of Rashi it was not explained. And from the commentary of the Aruch I understood, as he wrote in the entry "ML": That which the weaver leaves at the beginning of the garment and at the end of the garment the measure of two fingers, and it is the warp alone without the woof, and in our language "frenzin." And in the entry "Shalal" regarding "basting of the launderers" he explained: The launderer who washes the garments joins four and five together, and does not sew them well but only bastes. Thus far his words. And in the entry "Leket" he explained: That he does not sew in the usual manner but like a person who gathers from here and from there, and does not gather in order. Thus far his words. And in the entry "Ach" he explained: Alexandrian mending, which is like a type of weaving. Thus far his words.

And according to this, this is the explanation: One who rends from within the fringe from the edges of the warp without the woof, as in our talitot; from within the basting, where there is a piece attached with laundry-stitches; and similarly from within the gathering from within the "ladders," where the piece is attached with gathered stitches like ladders, which is not a fine stitching—it is not a rending. But if it is attached to the garment through weaving—he has fulfilled the obligation of rending. And so it is implied from the Mordechai, and from the Ramban in the book Torat HaAdam. And this is common among us, that at the edges of the garments they attach silk "snerlach" for beauty, and it is attached with fine stitching and not through weaving, and he has not fulfilled the obligation of rending. But according to what is explained in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, that stitching is also good—he has fulfilled the obligation of rending. And truly, that which they wrote "protruding from below," I do not understand its meaning. However, in any case, since stitching is also a connection—you have no finer stitching than that which is customary. And so among us, everything that is attached to the body of the garment is by stitching. And to this the Ra'avad, the Rosh, and the Nimukei Yosef agreed (see Beit Yosef and Bach). So it is explained from the words of the Rambam, as will be explained in the next section.

From the Rambam, chapter nine of Laws of Mourning, law 3, another explanation of this matter is clarified, for he wrote: All these rents—they may never be mended. And even though they may not be mended—it is permitted to baste them, to hem them, to gather them, or to make them like ladder-stitches. They only prohibited Alexandrian mending. And anyone who rends through the basting, the hemming, or the gathering—has done nothing. But one who rends through the Alexandrian mending alone, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he explains that it does not deal with something attached to the garment according to the explanation of the Aruch, but rather that there was a rent in the garment, and he sewed it with an unrefined stitch, and afterward he rent from this place—he has not fulfilled the obligation of rending. But when he joined the rent with Alexandrian mending and rent from this place—it is a rending and he has fulfilled his obligation. And the mending is only a refined stitch, and does not require weaving. (And according to the Rambam, the words of Rashi in the Rif on this matter are understood, for seemingly they have no understanding at all, see there.)

The measurement of keriah is a tefach. And there are distinctions between keriah for a father and mother and keriah for other relatives for whom one is obligated to mourn, such as his son and daughter, his brother and sister, and his wife. And there is one distinction from the perspective of custom, and it is not from the essential law, and that is that for his father and mother he rends on the left side, and for other relatives on the right side. And if he reversed it, whether in this case or in that case, he has fulfilled the obligation (and see Shach, subsection 19). However, there are distinctions from the essential law of the Gemara and which are indispensable, and they are etc.

Regarding other relatives, one rends only the uppermost garment upon him, which is in our language a surdut or kapta, and not the garments beneath the uppermost. But for his father and mother, even if he is wearing several garments beneath the uppermost – he must rend all of them, except for the undershirt which he does not rend, as will be explained. And if he did not rend all his garments – he has not fulfilled his obligation, and they rebuke him so that he should rend. And as long as that garment is upon him which he wore at the time of their death – he is obligated to rend them even after thirty days. However, in the Gemara (Moed Katan 22b) they said that his aparkasuta he does not need to rend. And there are those who explain that this is the uppermost garment over all the garments in which they walk in the street, and in their language a kapa and in our language an over-garment, or mantel, or plashtz, or a winter garment. And there are those who explain that it is the sweat-garment attached to his flesh. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 10 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 340:10) that the widespread custom is not to rend the kapa even for his father and mother, and to rend the undershirt that they call a kamiza. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that in these provinces we do not practice thus, but rather we do not rend the linen undershirt which is the sweat-garment, nor the uppermost cloak. But his other garments – he rends for his father and mother, and for other deceased – the uppermost garment beneath the cloak. Thus far his words. That is to say: beneath the cloak in which he walks in the street, which is the surdut, and that he rends. (And the custom requires investigation: for in the Gemara it excluded only one garment. And it must be said that he holds that it excluded the cloak, and the undershirt does not need to be excluded at all, for it is obvious that he should not reveal his flesh. And perhaps the sweat-garment that they wrote of is the garment over the undershirt. So it appears in my humble opinion.)

Both the man and the woman are equal regarding the matter of keriah. However, the woman rends the undergarment and turns it behind her, and then returns and rends the upper garment. Thus they ruled in the Gemara there and in the poskim. And behold, this was according to their garments, but with ours, it is impossible to turn it behind her. And according to this, there is reason to doubt whether she must rend all her garments for her father and her mother. And it appears to me that in Masekhet Semachot (chapter nine) it is taught: The woman only rends the upper garment. Rabbi Yehuda says: The woman rends the inner garment and turns it behind her, and then returns and rends the rest. And so it is in the Yerushalmi Moed Katan (chapter three, halacha 8), see there. And according to this, for us, since this is impossible—certainly Rabbi Yehuda agrees with the first Tanna. Therefore, even though in the Shas there the version is "Both the man and the woman," Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The woman rends the undergarment and turns it etc., see there; and ostensibly it implies that the first Tanna holds that she does not need to turn the rend, but rather rends all her garments like a man, and the poskim ruled like Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar; nevertheless, in order to harmonize with the Yerushalmi and Masekhet Semachot, it must be said that this is the explanation: Both the man and the woman must rend. And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar came and explained how she should act. And according to this, for us, she does not need to rend all her garments (so it appears in my humble opinion).

For all other deceased, if one desired to leave the edge of the garment whole, and he rends from the edge and downward in a manner that the rend is not so visibly apparent as two distinct pieces, but rather the rend is within the garment—it is permitted. However, for one's father or mother, one is obligated to rend from the edge of the garment, so that all will see that the rends are separated into two. And some say that even for other deceased, one must specifically rend the edge, and if not, it is not a rending at all. And such is the custom. (For they ruled like Rabbi Yehuda there and not like the first Tanna. And this is the opinion of the Mordechai, and it is a minority opinion. And it also requires further study: how can we rule like a minority opinion for stringency? And certainly the primary law is like the first opinion, for so ruled the Rambam and the Tur and Shulchan Aruch. And in the Piskei Tosafot there is another interpretation of this, see there and in the Beit Yosef. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

For all other deceased, it is permitted for him to rend in a manner that all do not see when he rends. That is, he wears his jacket, which is the upper garment with which he goes out to the street, which he does not need to rend. He places his hand inside under the jacket and rends in private. But for his father and for his mother, it is forbidden for him to do so; rather, he removes the upper garment and rends in front of everyone on the outside. Similarly, for all other deceased, if he wishes—he rends with his hand, and if he wishes—he rends with a knife or with another implement. But for his father and mother, he rends only with his hand. And if the beginning of the rending is impossible by hand—he rends a little with a knife and pulls the rending with his hand a tefach. And even though by hand the garment will be ruined more than with a knife (so it is implied from Rashi there), nevertheless, for his father and mother, there is no rending except specifically by his hand, and not with a knife and not by the hand of others. (And also for other deceased where it is permitted with a knife, nevertheless, he must cut it himself and not by means of others, for so it is implied from the language of the Gemara and the poskim.)

For all other deceased, one may baste the tear immediately after seven days, and mend it after thirty. "Basting" refers to uneven stitching, and mending is fine stitching, as I wrote in section 7, see there. However, for one's father or mother, one only bastes after thirty days, and never mends it. A woman may baste immediately, even within the seven days (Rashi 26b (Moed Katan 26b)), for the sake of her dignity. As long as it is forbidden to baste, it is even forbidden to join the edges of the tear by means of a needle. There are places where they practiced stringency even for other deceased not to baste within thirty days, and then it is even forbidden to join the edges of the tear by means of a needle. Regarding that which was explained that one mends after thirty days, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 15 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 340, 15) that there is no difference whether a festival occurred during them or not. Thus far his words. That is to say: even though a festival cancels the decree of thirty days, as I wrote in siman 399, that is regarding mourning but not regarding the tear. But the custom is not so, and we hold that the festival completely cancels all its matters (Shach, subsection 25, see there). When it is forbidden to mend—it is also forbidden to cut out the tear and sew in another piece.

For all other deceased, if one comes to change into another garment within the seven days—he changes, and does not rend this garment that he changes into. But for his father or his mother, if he comes to change—he changes and rends all his garments that he changes into, just as during the time of the obligatory rending at the time of death. And similarly, he may never mend it, just as with the first time. And this is on a weekday. But on Shabbat—he changes and does not rend. And similarly, for all other deceased, he may turn the rending to his back within the seven days, but for his father and his mother it is forbidden. And know that there are those who wrote that regarding old garments that it is known he wore them prior to the death of his father—he may wear them after the seven days without rending (Bach and Taz, subsection 7). And I do not know the novelty in this, for the Gemara only forbade it within the seven days. And if it is because of suspicion, that they will say he is wearing a new garment—the old one is recognizable to all. And it requires further study.

For all other deceased, if one wishes to bare the shoulder – he bares it. If he does not wish – he does not bare it. But for his father or his mother, he is obligated to bare the shoulder, and he walks thus before the bier until the deceased is buried. And if the son is a great man, and it is not in accordance with his honor that he should walk with a bared shoulder – he does not need to bare it. And so it is stated in Semachot, chapter nine: It happened that the father of Rabbi Akiva died – they bared before him, but he did not bare. And what is baring the shoulder? Rashi explained at the end of the first chapter of Bava Kamma that he tears his garments until the shoulder is visible. And the Nimukei Yosef in the third chapter of Moed Katan explained, and this is his wording: Bares – he is obligated to bring out his arm over the edge of his shirt from the place of the tear, in order to debase himself and show the tear to all. Thus far his words. And it appears that this is the opinion of the Tur, who wrote: He bares his arm and brings out his shoulder outside the tear, and it turns out his arm and his shoulder are revealed. Thus far his words. (For no reason did he challenge the Derishah from Rashi Bava Kamma 16 in subsection 9, for the Tur and Nimukei Yosef do not explain like Rashi. Examine carefully and you will find it easily.) However, our teacher, the Rema, in section 17 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 340, 17) wrote that some say that now, in this time, it is not the custom to bare the shoulder at all, even for one's father and mother. And so we practice nowadays. Thus far his words. For according to our garments it is almost impossible, unless one bares the entire garment as is known. Therefore, everyone waives this honor.

For all other deceased, if one did not hear until after thirty days—he does not perform keriah. And one who has no garment at all, who goes only in a tunic and trousers, or who wears a borrowed garment, or who goes in a garment that is completely torn, and a garment became available to him within seven days—he performs keriah. But after seven days—he does not perform keriah, for keriah is only at the time of intense grief. However, for his father and mother, he performs keriah forever on all the garments he is wearing at the time of the report, even after a year, and this is due to their honor. But if he changes garments afterwards—he does not need to perform keriah, for even after seven days when he changes he does not need to perform keriah, as I wrote in section 14 that the obligation of keriah when changing is only within seven days. And all the more so regarding a distant report. But regarding a recent report—its law is like the day of death.

Just as it is forbidden to mend a tear that may not be mended, so too it is forbidden to turn the upper side of a garment downward and mend it. And even when he sells it to another—that other is forbidden to mend it, for this is the honor of his father and mother, that the tear made for them shall never be mended. Therefore, when he sells it, he is obligated to inform the buyer of this. And if he sold it without specification and did not inform him—the buyer is forbidden to mend it, for behold, he saw the tear and was satisfied, and even though he did not know if the tear was for his father and mother or for other relatives which may be mended—he should have asked. And since he did not ask—he was satisfied. Therefore, he should ask him now, and if he says to him that it is for other relatives which may be mended—then he may mend it. Therefore, it is forbidden to sell this garment to a non-Jew, for behold, he will not obey him and will mend it. And know that even though it is forbidden to mend it, and it is also forbidden to cut around the tear and discard it and place another piece there, as I wrote in section 13, nevertheless, after twelve months it is permitted in such a manner (Bach and Taz, subsection 10).

There is a further distinction regarding keriah between one's father and mother and other relatives: for it has already been explained that the measure of keriah is a tefach, and we learn this (Moed Katan 22b) from what is written regarding Shmuel (II Samuel 1:11): "And David took hold of his garments and rent them" – and there is no taking hold less than a tefach. And if one performed keriah for a deceased person, and in the meantime another person died for whom he is obligated to perform keriah, and he needs to add to that keriah if the second died after seven days – he adds any amount to the tear and has fulfilled his obligation. And if it is within seven days – he must perform keriah of a tefach further from that tear. But when his father or mother dies after the first deceased, even if they died after seven days – he performs keriah until he reveals his heart. That is to say: he requires a completely different tear. And there are several detailed laws in this matter, and they will be explained below in section 26 etc.

And there are obligations of keriah for deceased individuals who are not his relatives, but rather relatives of his relatives, as will be explained in siman 374, that one mourns in the presence of his relative for their relatives; so too regarding keriah. And this is not from the essential law of the Torah, but rather such was the custom in the days of the sages of the Gemara. However, now we do not practice this, neither in keriah nor in mourning, and it will be explained there. But according to the law of the Gemara, if his son's son or his son's brother died—for example, if he divorced his wife and she married another and gave birth, or his son's mother and he divorced her as I have written—he is obligated to perform keriah in the presence of his son. And so too he performs keriah for his father-in-law and his mother-in-law in the presence of his wife, but not for her other relatives, for the honor of his father-in-law and mother-in-law is different. And so too she performs keriah for her father-in-law and her mother-in-law in the presence of her husband, but not for his other relatives. And there in siman 374 more will be explained regarding this matter, see there.

And so there is keriah for a deceased person even without any kinship at all. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, commanded (Moed Katan 25a) that one who stands at the time of the departure of the soul of a Jewish man or woman is obligated to perform keriah. For the soul is called "the lamp of the Holy One, blessed be He," and when they see that it is extinguished—for until now it fulfilled His Torah and His mitzvot and now the fountain has ceased—one must perform keriah. And even if this deceased person sometimes committed a transgression out of desire, or sometimes neglected to perform a mitzvah because of the exertion—nevertheless, he is a proper Israelite. But if he was accustomed to committing transgressions even out of desire, there is no need to perform keriah for him. And all the more so for one who converted to Ishmaelite. And some say that if this person was killed by robbers, his relatives mourn for him, for he was atoned for by his killing. And also because he certainly meditated on repentance before his death. And so too for those who separate from the ways of the community—one does not perform keriah for them and one does not mourn for them. But for their children, one mourns and performs keriah. And if those standing at the time of the departure of the soul of minors perform keriah, there is a dispute. But if he studies in a cheder, one certainly must perform keriah for him; thus the great ones agreed. (Bach and Shach subsection 7, and Taz subsection 2. And our teacher Gershom Meor HaGolah sat for fourteen days when his son converted.)

And this is regarding ordinary people. But a virtuous person who died—and what is a virtuous person? One who is not suspected of any transgression, nor of any neglect of a mitzvah, and whose reputation is not disparaged even though he is not a talmid chacham—one is obligated to perform keriah for him even when one did not stand over him at the time of the departure of the soul. And this is when one stands there between death and burial. And a talmid chacham is exempt from this keriah. And there is one who wavers regarding this (Shach subsection 13). And he also did not require that one stand there, but rather even in his own home one must perform keriah (ibid. subsection 12). But some say that this is not what is called a "virtuous person," but rather one who pursues mitzvot, and exerts effort to achieve mitzvot of gemilut chasadim. (ibid. subsection 11, and Bach in the name of the Ramban, and they ruled accordingly). However, our teacher, the Rema, in section 6 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 340:6) wrote that some say one is not obligated to perform keriah for a virtuous person unless one stands over him at the time of the departure of the soul. But one is obligated to weep and mourn for him. And so they have practiced to be lenient. Thus far his words. And even now, they have not practiced these keriah acts.

And all this does not apply to a talmid chacham, for regarding a chacham, and even a talmid chacham who is asked a matter of halacha in any place and says it—one rends for him even after burial on the day of the report, if it is within thirty days. And one rends for him at the time of his eulogy. And one rends for him until they reveal their heart. And if he did not rend on the day of the report, and the time of his eulogy has already passed and he did not rend—he does not rend again, even if it is within thirty days, for the time of fervor for a talmid chacham is only either at the time of the report or at the time of the eulogy, for then the fervor is awakened. And the Rambam wrote in the ninth chapter: It is already the custom of talmids chachamim in every place to rend for one another a tefach, even though they are equal in wisdom, such that one of them does not teach his fellow, see there. And the reason is that it is unavoidable that they learn some matter from one another. But our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7: There are those who say that one does not rend for a chacham unless he is his teacher, or that they know of his reports that he innovated, which is the status of his teacher. And so they have accustomed to be lenient in these lands. Thus far his words. And now they are accustomed to be lenient even regarding a chacham of whose reports they know that he innovated. And they have already wondered at this (see Shach, small subsection 17), and they wrote that he holds that we require that he knows a matter of halacha in any place, and now this is not common. And one who fears the word of Hashem will fulfill the mitzvah properly. And he can rend at the hem of the garment, as I wrote in section 4, see there. And those who are meticulous rend at the hem of the garment in the "unter-shlak," and they can mend it immediately.

But for a sage who is his teacher from whom the majority of his wisdom is derived, whether it be Scripture, whether it be Mishnah, or whether it be Gemara—he rends all his garments until he reveals his heart, as for a father and mother. And some say that this is not necessary, but rather he rends a handbreadth in one garment, and he never sews it back together as with his father and mother. And even from a distant report—he rends for him forever as for his father and mother, because with one's teacher it is always a time of intense grief. And this applies when he learned the majority of his wisdom from him. But otherwise, he does not rend for him according to the laws of a father and mother, but rather according to the law of other deceased for whom he mourns. And that is a rending of a handbreadth immediately, and also not upon a distant report. And even if he only learned one thing from him, whether small or great—he is obligated to rend for him. And some say that it also may never be sewn back together even if he is not his primary teacher, and it seems to me that the custom is not so.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 8 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 8): Torah scholars who sit together, and pose difficulties and resolve them for one another and learn together – some say their law is like a teacher who is not primary, and some say their law is like a primary teacher. And some say that one is only required to rend his garments for his teacher who taught him the majority of his wisdom, but colleagues who learn with one another, or if he enlightened his eyes in one matter – it is nothing but a mere stringency. And where it is the custom – it is the custom, and where it is not the custom – it is not the custom. And we do not instruct thus. Therefore, they are accustomed to be lenient in these provinces. Thus far his words. And this opinion holds that what they said in the Gemara regarding this matter – it is nothing but a mere stringency, and not from the essential law (so wrote the Mordechai, and see Beit Yosef).

A nasi is similar to a father and mother regarding baring the shoulder, and regarding tearing from the outside and not from the inside, and that it may never be mended. However, in this time we do not have a nasi, and all those who tear for a deceased chacham, once they have turned their faces from behind the bier – they may tack the edges and mend it the next day. And so too when they tore at the time of the eulogy, the law is such. But for a nasi and for one's primary teacher – one tacks the edges the next day, and never mends it. And for a chacham – one bares from the right, and for an av beit din – from the left, and for a nasi – from here and from here. And for one's father and mother and for one's primary teacher, if he wishes – from here, if he wishes – from here, and if he wishes – he bares both. And it has already been explained that the custom for one's father and mother is to tear from the left side. And so too it has already been explained that we do not practice baring the shoulder at all.

The Rambam wrote in the eighth chapter: One for whom many deceased relatives died at once—he rends one keriah for all of them. If his father or his mother were among them—he rends one keriah for all of them, and for his father or his mother another keriah. For it is not for their honor that they should be included within the keriahs of others. (The Rambam did not write a reason, but it seems to me that this is the reason. And in the Gemara, 26b, they said: Because one does not add to a keriah, etc.—and it is not understood how "addition" applies to this? And it must be said that this is what it means: that just as they are not subject to addition, so too they are not subject to inclusion. And this is what Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak added there, and the difficulty of the Tosafot in the heading starting "Amar" is answered, see there. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

He further wrote there: One who had a relative die and performed keriah for him, and afterward another relative died, if it is within seven days – he performs another keriah. And if it is after seven days – he adds any amount to the first keriah. If a third relative died after the seven days of the second – he adds any amount. And so he continues adding until his navel. Once he reaches his navel – he distances three fingers and performs keriah. If it becomes full in the front – he moves it to his back. If it becomes full on top – he turns it to the bottom. If they told him his father died and he performed keriah, and after seven days his son died and he added – the lower part may be mended but not the upper part. If they told him his son died and he performed keriah, and after seven days his father died – he does not add, but rather performs another keriah, for his father and his mother are not included in an addition. Thus far his words.

And that which he wrote, "if within seven he rends another rending"—this means that he distances it three fingers and rends. And the same law applies that he may add to the first, for so wrote the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 23 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 340:23). And so too regarding a third deceased within seven of the second, and so forever. (See Shach subsection 32. And examine carefully and you will find it easy.) And that which he wrote, "turns it to his back," meaning: and rends from his front. And that which he wrote, "flips it downward," meaning: and the bottom becomes the top, and he makes a neck-opening there and rends. (And this is the intention of the Shach in subsection 34, except that the language is not precise, see there. And examine carefully and you will find it easy.) And if it became full of rendings from all sides—he becomes like one who has no garment and does not rend. (And in the Shulchan Aruch at the beginning of section 23 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 340:23) it is a duplication of words. Rather, previously it is the wording of the Rambam, and here it is the wording of the Tur, see there.)

The Tur and Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 23 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 340:23): If his father or mother died along with one of the other relatives (together)—he first rends for his father or for his mother until his heart, and distances three fingers and rends a tefach for the other deceased. (Meaning: even to add for another upon the rending of his father—is forbidden.) If his father died and he performed keriah, and after seven days one of the relatives died—he adds upon the first rending. (For after seven days it is permitted to add to the rending of his father. And it seems to me the reason is because it is any amount.) And the lower part may be sewn together, but the upper part may not be sewn together. If one of the relatives died and he performed keriah, and afterwards his father or mother died, whether within seven days or after seven days—he distances three fingers and rends from the side at the edge of the garment, for he must separate the front edge. And he rends until he reaches his heart. If his father and mother died as one—he rends one rending for both of them. Thus far his words. For his father and mother are equal, therefore he fulfills the obligation with one rending for both of them. And that which they wrote "for he must separate the front edge"—the intention is not only when the first rending was after the edge. For it is not so, for even if it were at the front edge—he requires another rending for his father or mother (Shach, small subsection 36). And regarding his father and mother, even though there is another distinction, that he must rend all his garments, nevertheless, even in the garment that he rent previously he requires another rending due to their honor, as I have written. And know that the day of a "near report" is like the day of death (Tur).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 24 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 340, 24): If they told him his father died and he performed keriah, and afterward it was found that it was his son—he has fulfilled the obligation of keriah. And this is provided that it became known to him within the time of tokh kedei dibbur. But if it did not become known to him until after tokh kedei dibbur—he has not fulfilled it. However, if they told him "a relative of yours died," and he thought it was his father and performed keriah, and afterward it was found that it was his son—he has fulfilled it even if it did not become known to him until after tokh kedei dibbur. Thus far his words. But the Tur wrote: If they told him his father died and he performed keriah, or if they told him "someone died" without specification and he thought it was his father and performed keriah, and afterward it was found that it was his son, if it became known to him within the time of tokh kedei dibbur of the keriah—he does not require another keriah. After tokh kedei dibbur—he requires another keriah. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Rambam in chapter eight, law 8 (Rambam Hilkhot Avel 8), see there. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, followed the approach of the Ran in Nedarim (Nedarim 86b) because the Rif and the Rosh at the end of Moed Katan stand according to him, see there. And their dispute depends on the explanation of the Gemara there, see there.

But their reasoning must be understood: for what difference is there between if they told him his father died, or if he thought his father died? Ultimately, did he not rend with his father in mind? And indeed, there are some of the great authorities who were stringent according to the opinion of the Tur, that even in an unspecified case he has not fulfilled the obligation after the time of kedei dibbur (Bach and Shach, subsection 37). And only if he rent without specification and did not know who died, and rent for the sake of whoever it might be, then he has fulfilled the obligation even if it became known to him after kedei dibbur, because we say the matter is revealed retroactively that he rent for the sake of this person. For keriya is rabbinic, and regarding rabbinic matters we maintain that there is bereira (ibid.). And it appears to me regarding the reasoning of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, that in truth we do not require keriya lishmah at all, for is there any difference between this one and that one? Rather, when they told him his father died and he rent, and after kedei dibbur it became known that it was his son—it is a disgrace to this deceased person that he explicitly did not rend for his sake. But in an unspecified case—we have no concern with it, for this and that are one and the same.

And I have a proof for this reasoning from Masekhet Semachot chapter nine, as it was taught: If they said to him his father died and he performed keriah, and it was actually only his mother—he has fulfilled his obligation. If they said his mother and he performed keriah, and it was actually only his father—he has not fulfilled his obligation (the Gra reads "he has fulfilled"). If they said his father died and he performed keriah, and it was actually only one of his relatives—he has fulfilled his obligation. If they said one of his relatives, and it was actually only his father—he has not fulfilled his obligation. Thus far his words. And from this baraita we have learned that kavanah is not required at all. Rather, they touched upon it for the sake of honor, for when he intended for a minor—he has not fulfilled the obligation of a major, and vice versa—he has fulfilled it. And regarding his father and mother, it can be said that his father is greater than his mother, as it is found in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 31a). And it can also be said that they are equal. (According to this, the two versions fit well. Examine it and you will find it simple.) However, even though according to our Shas it is not so, for from his father to his son he has not fulfilled his obligation, nevertheless regarding the matter of kavanah it can be said that they did not disagree. Therefore, for the law, there is a proof for our teacher, the Beit Yosef, from Semachot as I have written.

If one had a sick relative who fainted, and they thought he died and he performed keriah for him, and it was found that they erred and he was alive, and afterwards he died—if he died within the time of "tokh kedei dibbur" of the keriah, he does not require another keriah, for any "tokh kedei dibbur" is like the speech itself, and it is as if he performed keriah after his death. And if not, he requires another keriah. And the first keriah is nothing, as it was not performed over a dead person. And if they told him his father died and he performed keriah, and also observed some days of mourning, and afterwards they told him he did not die and he ceased the mourning, and they returned and told him that at the first time he indeed died as the first ones said—he has fulfilled the obligation of keriah, for he performed keriah over a dead person, and he intended to perform keriah over a dead person, but afterwards a false report developed regarding the matter, and what is that to us? And regarding the matter of mourning, it will be explained in siman 396. But if he was alive then, and died after this—he is obligated to perform keriah another time, for it is after "tokh kedei dibbur."

A minor who suffers a bereavement—one rends for him because of the grief of the soul, in order to increase the lamentation. And it is obvious that when he has reached the age of chinuch, we train him in keriah as with all the mitzvot. And there is one who says that we also train him in mourning (Derishah and Taz, subsection 15). But it is not so, for in this there is a neglect of Torah study, which is not the case with keriah (Nekudot HaKesef, Dagul Mervavah). And it is also implied in siman 396, see there. And the day of tidings is like the day of death (Taz, ibid.). And one who rends on Shabbat for his deceased, even though he has desecrated Shabbat—for this is not a destructive act since he is obligated in keriah it is a constructive act (Shabbat 105b)—nevertheless, he has fulfilled the obligation of keriah. And this is not a mitzvah coming through a transgression, for the transgression is not in the essence of the garment but in the time. Therefore, if he stole a garment and rent it—he has not fulfilled the obligation of keriah, for the transgression is in the essence of the garment. And we do not rend for an infant less than thirty days old. And even on the thirtieth day itself we do not rend for him just as with mourning, as I wrote in siman 374, unless it is known that his months were complete, meaning that he had intercourse and separated, for then we mourn and rend even when he dies within thirty days. However, if he fell from the roof or a lion ate him and the like, the opinion of the Tosafot in Bechorot (Bechorot 49a, s.v. "met") is that we mourn for him on the thirtieth day, see there. And likewise we rend for him.

One does not perform keriah on Yom Tov, even on the second Yom Tov of the Diaspora, and even relatives who are obligated to mourn. And all the more so other people who are required to perform keriah according to what has been explained. And it appears to me that even according to those who hold in siman 399 that the mourning of the first day is practiced on the second Yom Tov, nevertheless keriah is not practiced. For the reason regarding mourning is because the first day is a Torah-level mourning, as I have written there. But keriah, according to everyone, is Rabbinic, and they only supported it with a Torah verse.

But on Chol HaMoed one rends for each individual according to what he is, if he is present at the time of the departure of the soul, or if he is a kosher person or a sage, for each one according to his law. However, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 31 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 340:31) that there are those who say that it is not the custom to rend on Chol HaMoed except for one's father and mother. But for other deceased—one rends after the festival. And in a place where there is no custom, one should rend for all of them. Thus far his words. Because such is the essential law. And even according to the custom, this is when mourning will apply to him after the festival, but if he heard a "near rumor" on Chol HaMoed, in a manner that after the festival the thirty days will have passed, in every place he is obligated to rend on Chol HaMoed, and regarding mourning, he practices on Chol HaMoed in matters that are private, as I wrote in siman 399. And one who did not rend, and walks in a rent garment before the deceased, showing himself as if he had rent—behold, this person robs the living and the dead, for he deceives everyone.

One who says to his fellow: "Lend me your garment, and I will go in it to visit my father who is ill," and he did not warn him not to make a tear in it if he should need to tear, and he went and found that his father died—he tears it, for presumably the lender understood and accepted this. And he mends it, for even though a tear for one's father is forbidden to be mended, since it is not his—he mends it and returns the garment to him, and pays him the value of the tear by the amount the garment was depreciated through this. But if he did not inform him that he would go to visit a sick person—behold, he is forbidden to touch it for tearing. And if he tore—he has not fulfilled the obligation, and he is a thief. And one who lends his fellow a garment to go in it to the house of a mourner, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 35 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 340:35) that he is not permitted to take it from him until the days of mourning pass. And in Choshen Mishpat siman 341 he ruled: so that he may go and return. And they are two opinions (and see Shach subsection 51). There are obligations of tearing that are not for the deceased: for one tears over bad tidings, such as if the majority of the people gathered for war and they heard that they were struck down before their enemies, even if only a minority of them were killed. Or if they went into captivity, which is harder than the sword, as it is stated in Bava Batra (Bava Batra 8b). And the obligation of this tearing is explicit in Samuel (II Samuel 1:11), as it is written: "And David took hold of his clothes and tore them etc., for the people of the Lord etc. because they had fallen by the sword." And they mourn all day, and he does not baste it until the next day. And it is never mended. (See Shach subsection 52. And it requires further study, as he wrote in the Dagul Mervavah.)

One who hears the blessing of the Name, and even a blessing of a substitute name, and even if they said it in a foreign language—it is like a substitute name and he is obligated to rend. And specifically when he hears it from an Israelite, even if he has converted to an Ishmaelite. And even one who hears from the witnesses how so-and-so blessed—he is obligated to rend. And the witnesses do not need to rend another time, for they already rent at the time they heard it from the blesser. And likewise, one who sees a Sefer Torah that was burned by force in contempt, or they cut it into pieces, or they erased it; or tefillin, or even one Megillah from the Prophets or from the Writings—he rends two rendings, one for the parchment and one for the letters. And specifically when they burn or destroy them by force, and like the event that occurred when Yehoyakim burned the Megillah. And there is no difference who is the one doing so, an Israelite or a non-Israelite. But if a fire fell and they were burned—there is no need to rend. And so too anything similar to this. And the same law applies if, Heaven forbid, they burn or destroy by force books of the Gemara and the poskim—the law is also as has been explained. And likewise, one who sees the cities of Judah in their destruction, or Jerusalem, or the Beit HaMikdash—he is obligated to rend. And the details of the laws regarding this are explained in Orach Chaim siman 561. And all these rendings, it is permitted to hem them, to stitch them, to gather them, and to make them like a type of ladder-stitch. And not on that same day, but rather on the next day. But they may never be mended. And the explanation of these matters we have explained in section 6 and section 7, see there. (And it is brought in the Gemara 26b that this which we hold that the law follows the lenient opinion in mourning, this is only regarding mourning and not regarding rending, see there.)