Tearing 'Keri'a' Upon Witnessing Israeli Cities Which Are Desolate

The gemara in Mo'ed katan (26a) presents a list of events which require the witness or audience to perform keri'a- rending the garment on one's left side.  Though this exercise is generally associated with the death of a relative, the gemara broadens the list to a diverse group of events.  For example, one who witnesses a Sefer Torah being deliberately and maliciously burned or hears a blasphemer, must tear keri'a.  Amongst those obligated to tear keri'a are people who witness Israeli cities which have been destroyed, or who encounter Yerushalayim or the site of the Mikdash in its desolate state.  This week's shiur (in commemoration of Tisha B'av) will discuss this takanah.

     At first glance, we might view this keri'a as very similar to the tearing of garments for deceased relatives.  In the former case the death causes grief which is to be expressed - in part - by the tearing of garments.  It should be noted that the exact relationship between keri'a and aveilut (mourning) proper must itself be examined.  We might contend that keri'a is not an expression of mourning as much a formulation of pain and grief.  Yet we certainly cast this form of keri'a as a RESPONSE to the tragic events which have occurred.  The response might be an expression of mourning or merely a symbol of grief (tza'ar), but nonetheless, the act is an EXPRESSION of certain emotions which a person feels.  Instinctively, we might suggest the very same identity for tearing upon witnessing destroyed Israeli cities.  We assume a person senses the grief and/or mourning and is meant to express these emotions through the act of rending garments.  The gemara cites the example (from Yirmiyahu 41) of residents of Shechem who were traveling southward to visit the Mikdash.  Whereupon discovering the routing of the southern cities belonging to the tribe of Yehuda, they tore the clothing they were wearing. 

     Very little about the gemara's description indicates any other model toward understanding this halakha.  One curious aspect of this halakha however, does appear, and relates to a pasuk which should be recited upon encountering these cities.  Unlike other forms of keri'a, in this context the gemara proposes the recitation of a pasuk during the keri'a ceremony.  Such supplementary pesukim do not appear with regard to any other form of keri'a.  Indeed, we might suggest that as our particular form of keri'a relates to historical events of the distant past, a pasuk is necessary to generate the emotions which exist naturally upon witnessing 'live events.'  Gazing upon the vicious burning of a Sefer Torah provides sufficient trauma that a pasuk does not have to be recited.  Likewise, hearing about the death of a relative is potent enough to cause suffering without need for Scriptural reference.  By contrast, reflecting upon the destruction of Jewish cities in Israel, events which occurred centuries ago, might not evoke the same response unless the attitudes are set by appropriate pesukim.  We might not infer from this rule that keri'a upon cities is structurally different from any other form of keri'a. 

     We might however, suggest an alternative view of this type of keri'a.  We might view it less as an EXPRESSION of mourning or grief and more as a commemoration of what occurred.  For example, the gemara in Babba Batra (60b) rules that when building a new house a square 'amah' should be left unfinished as a memory of the destruction of the mikdash.  We would certainly not refer to this practice as 'aveilut,' and clearly this conduct is triggered by nothing more than the theoretical memory of the destruction of the Mikdash.  Can we view tearing keri'a upon witnessing Israeli cities in a similar light?  Would we define it as merely commemorative and not expressive of a particular emotion?  If so, we might thereby understand the recitation of a pasuk.  This verse is not intended as much to generate personal emotions as much as to honor or mark the historical memory of these places. 

     The immediate ramification of this question would be the stage at which a person becomes obligated to perform this keri'a.  The gemara in Mo'ed Katan (26a) refers to someone who GAZES upon destroyed Israeli cities, suggesting that one who doesn't actually see does not tear.  The continuation of the gemara, though indicates that one who hears and arrives at Tzofim (either a town right outside of Yerushalayim or any lookout sight on the perimeter of Yerushalayim) must tear - suggesting that knowledge and proximity alone would suffice even though actual sight has not been established.  Many Rishonim reinterpret this gemara to refer to one who heard of the collapse of Yerushalayim THE YEAR THAT IT OCCURRED.  In this instance, actually seeing these towns is not required.  After the immediate event though, only vision obligates keri'a. 

The Bach (Orach Chayim 561) maintains that upon reaching Tzofim a mere awareness of location and history obligates tearing.  Even if vision is impaired (the person is blind or something obstructs sight), the tearing is mandated. 

If we view tearing as an expression of an emotional state we might be suspicious of tearing where that state hasn't evolved.  It would be logical to claim that only vision is fully capable of evoking the sense of mourning.  If, however, we view the tearing as a normative way to commemorate and honor these cities, we might obligate tearing upon encountering these cities even if subjectively a state of mourning hasn't been introduced.  (A related question would pertain to a situation in which vision has been established but the proximity of Tzofim has yet to be achieved (see Magen Avraham section 3). 

     Another interesting question surrounds the selection of cities of 'Yehuda' to prompt tearing.  The gemara constantly refers to these cities suggesting that no obligation exists for cities belonging to the Northern tribes.  In fact, by and large this form of tearing is not practiced, in part due to the difficulty in identifying cities which actually belonged to the tribe of Yehuda.  (For a discussion regarding Chevron see the Sha'arei Teshuva).  Why should these cities be selected for this custom?  Our question becomes even more complicated if we view the tearing as a sign of mourning.  Generally, this form of historical Aveilut is reserved for the Mikdash and Yerushalayim (the extension of Mikdash); we never witness mourning applied to the destruction of the Judean cities.  The Levush maintains that these cities were geographically adjacent or close to Yerushalayim and hence by tearing for them we are in effect mourning the destruction of Greater Yerushalayim. 

     Others suggested different reasons for the selection of these cities.  Among these suggestions, the most dominant appears to be the Maggid Mishna's view (based upon a Rambam in Hilkot Kiddush Hachodesh) that of all tribal states only the portion of Yehuda contained the Shechina (see Maggid Mishna Ta'anit 5;16).  Another position maintains that these cities served as the 'seat' of Jewish monarchy and we must address its loss.  These alternate reasons for the selection of these cities might also indicate that this custom is more a commemoration and less an expression of mourning.  If it were the latter, we might find it difficult to accept aveilut for Judean cities - unless of course, we saw them as an extension of Yerushalayim. 

, full_html, The gemara in Mo'ed katan (26a) presents a list of events which require the witness or audience to perform keri'a- rending the garment on one's left side.