Prologue:         The process of mourning and grieving is often an arduous one. Parshas Chayeii Sarah details two distinct, different types of mourning, Avraham’s and Yitzchak’s. Avraham's active mourning is noted within the greater context of his preparations for Sarah's burial. The Torah describes the process including his Hesped for his wife. Later, the Torah details the search for Yitzchak's wife and upon discovery of, and marriage to Rivka, the Torah reminds us that Yitzchak was consoled (VaYeeNachem Yitzchak) of his mother's death. One must wonder how the consolation happened? How does one gain consolation after the loss of someone or something dear?

Rav Samson Rafael Hirsch  and the Sfas Emes both note that true Nechama comes from the recognition and reconnection of the trauma brought from the loss of the deceased into the world of the living. It is not the forgetting or the getting past the loss that brings Nechama. Rather, it is the ability to take the lessons of the deceased and show that they continue to remain even after the deceased has departed that represents Nechama. It is the legacy of the deceased that, when maintained, allows those close to the deceased to experience a sense of closure following the loss. Sarah's legacy was, BaOhel. When Rivka re-entered the Ohel, she did not replace Sarah. Rivka’s  Midda was different than that of Sarah. Still, she was able to maintain the legacy of the Ohel. This brought a sense of Nechama to Yitzchak. The feeling of loss was complete as was the sense of closure achieved when Sarah's legacy was maintained through Rivka -- not only in her similarity to Sarah but in the fact that she didn't replace her.

The Rov ztl. (cited by Maran Hagadol Harav Schachter Shlita in his introduction to Shiurei Harav Al Hilchos Aveilus) used to note that there is a strong difference between the Mitzva of Aveilus which is one of practice and the Kiyum (or fulfillment) of Aveilus (mourning) which is an obligation that is based in the heart. This week's Chaburah examines the duties of the heart based in the Mitzva of Kriya associated with Aveilus. It is entitled:

**********

Feeling the Loss

**********

(Thank you to JJ Sussman for clarification of certain texts discussed in this week's Chaburah )

The Talmud quotes the opinion of Shmuel (Moed Katan 24a) who noted that any tear that is not done at the moment one first feels the impact of the loss of his loved one (Shaas Chimum) is not really called "tearing Kriya." The Gemara then asks about Shmuel's own practice. The Gemara notes that when Shmuel heard that his colleague, Rav died, he tore 13 garments of clothing. It seems as if tearing the clothing was a sign that it wasn't Shaas Chimum. But why not? Perhaps the clothing was all torn at the same time??

It seems from this text, that the correct understanding of Shmuel’s position is that one must only tear one garment upon hearing about the loss of a loved one. Once one Kriya is torn, it is no longer Shaas Chimum and additional tearing is unnecessary. Hence the Gemara asked about Shmuel's practice when he tore 13 times and wanted to know why, if the requirement of Kriya is to tear only once? To this the Gemara answers that a death of a Torah scholar is so powerful that each moment he is no longer there and his Torah is quoted, it is as if it is a new Shaas Chimum.

Now, Tosafos notes that if a person could not tear during Shaas Chimum because he lacked the additional garment which didn't arrive until later in Shiva, that tearing is done later. However, how could this be acceptable if later in the week is no longer Shaas Chimum? To this, Tosafos explains that Shmuel's comment refers to a situation where Kriya was already done as we explained earlier.

However, one question remains. How does the Gemara recognize a difference between Shaas Chimum for a Talmid Chacham and Shaas Chimum for another person?  Aren't the emotions over the loss of a person dependent upon the feelings he left on those around him? Aren't these feelings relative and not intellect based?

The Rov ztl. (Cited in Rabbi Koenigsberg's Shiurei HaRov Al Hil. Aveilus Siman 28) suggested that based upon our understanding of the Gemara can lead to a new Chilik (differentiation) between the tearing one does for a relative and the tearing done upon hearing the news of the death of a Talmid Chacham. The tearing done for a relative is done at the moment one hears the devastating news of his loss. This moment, known as Shaas Chimum has a forceful impact, in the moment. However, once the moment passes and the garment torn, pressure is released and Chimum is reduced. Thus, Shaas Chimum requires one to tear Kriya but once.

When it comes to the Talmid Chacham the obligation is different. The Talmud notes (Moed Katan 25a) that the Kriya is done during the eulogy. For it is during the eulogy that the greatness of the person is discussed and the recognition of the loss presented. Hence, the Kriya for a Talmid Chacham is most strong at the time that the impact of his loss is recognized clearest. This period, known as Shaas HaHesped, allows one's sense of loss to grow as the different eulogies further enhance our appreciation of the person who has left us. Thus, as Shmuel  recognized the great loss of Rav, he tore a garment, as the impact of the loss aggreived him more, he tore his garment again.  This led to his tearing of 13 garments, something that cannothappen today as we tend to tear only for relatives and then only B'Shaas Chimum.

Incidentally, the Rambam (Hil. Avel, 9:13) notes that one should not wait to tear Kriya until the eulogy. He feels that the intensity of the loss is greatest when one is there when the soul leaves the body. Thus, one in the room with a dying person (who passes while the visitor is present) tears Kriya even if he will be among those attending the Hesped and the impact will be felt then.