Someone who sees the cities of Judea or Jerusalem itselfin their destroyed status for the first time in thirty days must tear keriah (please note that I have abandoned the "q" for kuf that so many readers complained about). Upon seeing the desolate Temple Mount, one would have to add to that tear. In honor of Yom Yerushalayim and our celebration of Shabbat Yerushalayim (we are welcoming our own Dr. Isaac Chavel as Scholar in Residence, who will speak three times about issues of Jerusalem, in Tanakh and in Jewish History; weencourage everyone to attend as many of these stimulating talks as they can), we will discuss these issues of keriah somewhat further.

Regarding the cities of Judea and Yerushalayim, it is no longer clear whether we are required to tear at all. R. Moshe Feinstein, ztllh"h (who dealt with this issue on several occasions) , was of the opinion that there were two possible reasons to tear keriah over a city: 1)the fact of its being destroyed, or 2) its being controlled by a non-Jewish power. That means, for just about all of Yerushalayim and many cities in Judea, that there would be no requirement to tear at all. Those cities that are (now, or in the future) under Arab rule, might still require keriah.

Another ruling of R. Moshe’s makes the likelihood of actually tearing keriah relatively small. R. Moshe took the view that one only has to tear keriah when seeing the desolation from a distance of less than a half an hour’s walk. Viewing those sights from farther than that counts as a viewing to absolve the oblihgation upon future viewings, but does not obligate the person to tear keriah. Since by and large we get to such cities by car, we would generally be able to see them well before the distance of a half an hour’s walk. For the Temple Mount, which is clearly still be-hurbanah, desolate and under non-Jewish rule, R. Moshe would want us to be careful to see it from afar first, thus freeing us of the obligation to tear (or, of course, going and tearing).

R. Moshe rejects two other methods for avoiding the requirement to tear one’s clothing, timing one’s viewing of the sight for Friday afternoon or Shabbat itself. Some believe that since Friday shares some of the festive aspects of Shabbat, including the obligation not to cause oneself distress, there is no obligation to tear on Friday after midday. R. Moshe claims that the obligation of keriah does not include the need to feel distress. Without going into his proofs, his reading of the gemara was that keriah is required as a sign of outward expression, but does not necessitate a concomitant inward expression. I found this particularly interesting because several years ago, I had made that claim about mourning in general to Prof. Gerald Blidstein, a student of the Rov, ztllh"h, and he showed me that the Rov explicitly disagreed. In one of the yahrzeit shiurim, the Rov noted that if one were to sit shiva for seven days but not feel a pang of sorrow over the person’s passing, it is impossible to imagine that person fulfilled their obligation. It seems that we have a debate between two giants as to how obligatory the corresponding inward emotions of such acts are.

Others make sure that their first visit to the Kotel come on a Shabbat (a personal practice of mine, but which R. Moshe rejected). Since keriah is prohibited on Shabbat, presumably this viewing would free one of that obligation for during the week as well. R. Moshe rules that it does not, without real explanation. He notes the Magen Avraham’s view that one born in Yerushalayim (who therefore has seen the city from before he was obligated in keriah) would not have to tear even when reaching adulthood, since he had seen the city when patur, and thirty days had not elapsed. The parallel logic would suggest that seeing the Mount on Shabbat would be similarly patur. Perhaps R. Moshe believed that viewing these sights on Shabbat was not a case of a viewing that was patur, but a viewing where keriah was not a relevant category. If so, it would explain his view that if I then see the ruins of the Temple on Sunday, my seeing it yesterday (a time when keriah was not an issue) does not count to free me of the obligation of keriah.

In yeshiva, I learned a more technical (but I believe halakhically effective) method of avoiding the obligation of keriah, selling or giving one’s clothing to a friend. Since the clothing does not belong to the person seeing the ruins, that person is not allowed to tear keriah while wearing them. At the same time, that person has now seen the ruins of the Temple, so that if the next sighting comes within thirty days, there would be no obligation to tear. To use this method requires that we fully pass ownership of the clothing to someone else, either by hagbahah, picking up the object, or halipin, the buyer acquiring the object by giving the seller an object of his own.

Why are we so free with ha`aramot, legal fictions, in the case of keriah? One piece of the answer, I believe, is that clothing is more valuable currently than in times of y ore. The gemara assumes that people will need to replace their clothing once a year, suggesting that tearing clothing was less traumatic than it is for us. In such situation, it might be that legal fictions become more acceptable, although that topic needs further discussion. Shabbat Shalom.

Daf Yomi