And the reference here is to the Alexandrian method of mending, a type of sewing performed in Alexandria, which is considered to be of exceptional quality and after which the tear is no longer visible.

The Sages taught the following baraita: One who rends his garment in a place that had been loosely tacked together, or from the hem of the garment, or on the gathering, or on the ladder-like stiches has not fulfilled his obligation to rend it. But if he rends it in a place that had been carefully mended, he has fulfilled his obligation, because such a garment is regarded as whole. Rav Ḥisda said: And here, too, the reference is to the Alexandrian method of mending and not to ordinary sewing.

The Sages taught another baraita: One is permitted to turn a garment that was rent on the upper edge upside down and then mend it in a precise fashion. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar prohibits careful mending in this case as well. And if one wishes to sell a garment that he had previously rent in mourning, just as the seller, who had rent the garment, is prohibited from carefully mending the garment, so too the buyer, who purchases it from him, is prohibited from mending it. The seller must therefore inform the buyer that the rent was made on account of mourning and may not be mended.

The Sages taught a baraita: The initial rending is a handbreadth in length, and the extension, if one is obligated to rend his garment for other deceased relatives and he wishes to use the same rent for this purpose, is three fingerbreadths; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The initial rending is three fingerbreadths in length, and its extension is any amount, with no minimum measure.

Ulla said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that the initial rending is one handbreadth in length, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that an extension can be any length. The Gemara comments: That is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: The initial rending is one handbreadth, and the size of the extension is any minimal amount. By tradition, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei when he disagrees with any one of his colleagues.

The Sages taught the following baraita: If they first said to a person that his father died, and he rent his garment, and afterward they told him that his son died, and he added to the same rent, in such a case the lower portion of the rent that had been made for his son may be mended. This is because, after completing the period of mourning, one is permitted to mend a rent made for relatives other than one’s parents. However, the upper portion of the rent may not be mended, as a tear made for one’s father may never be carefully sewn back together.

If, on the other hand, they said to him first that his son died, and he rent his garment, and afterward they told him that his father died, and he added to the same rent, then in that case the upper portion of the rent, which had been made for his son, may be mended, but the lower portion of the rent, which had been made for his father, may not be mended.

If they said to him all at one time that his father died, his mother died, his brother died, and his sister died, then he may make one rent for all of them. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: For all of his other relatives he makes one rent, and for his father and mother he makes another rent, as one must not add to a rent made for his father and mother.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira’s opinion that one may not add to the rent torn for a mother or father? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Because they cannot be added; one has only one father and one mother and cannot add others.

Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. The Gemara asks: And did Shmuel actually say this? But didn’t Shmuel say the principle is that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of the lenient Sage with regard to mourning; yet here he rules in accordance with the more stringent opinion. The Gemara answers: The halakhot of mourning are discrete and the halakhot of rending are discrete, and it is only with regard to the halakhot of mourning that Shmuel rules consistently in accordance with the lenient opinion.

It was taught in a baraita: Until where may he rend his garment, if he continues to rend the same garment for additional relatives? He may continue rending until the point where the garment covers his navel. Some say: Until the point where the garment covers his heart. Although there is no absolute proof for the matter that one may rend the garment until this point, there is an allusion to this matter, as it is stated: “And rend your hearts, and not your garments” (Joel 2:13), thereby intimating that one may extend the rent in his garment only until he reaches the point where the garment covers his heart.

If he tore his garment until he reached the point where it covers his navel, he should not continue rending in the same place. Instead, he should move away a space of three fingerbreadths from the first rent and make a new rent. If the garment became full of rents in the front, he should turn the garment front to back and make a rent on the other side. If it became full of rents above, he should turn it top to bottom and make a rent on what used to be the bottom. But one who rends his garment at the bottom or at the sides has not fulfilled his obligation, as rending may be done only at the top of the garment. The High Priest, however, who is prohibited from rending his garments in mourning, may tear his garment at the bottom to mark his mourning in a symbolic manner.

Rav Mattana and Mar Ukva disagreed about the following issue, and both of them stated their respective opinions in the name of Shmuel’s father and Levi. One said: During all seven days of mourning, if the mourner hears that another relative of his passed away, he makes a new rent; after seven days of mourning he merely adds to the first one. And one said: During all of the first thirty days he makes a new rent; after thirty days he merely adds to the first one.

Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to this: According to the one who said that during all seven days of mourning he makes a new rent, why is it not enough to add to the first one? It is because he may not tack it until the end of the seven-day period of mourning, and therefore if he adds to the rent it will look like a continuation of the previous tear. But then, with regard to that which the Master said in the baraita: After a woman rends her garment, she may tack the tear immediately, would you say that here also she may add to the first rent for a new bereavement during the seven-day period of mourning?

The Gemara answers: There the woman is permitted to tack the rent due to the woman’s honor, as it would be dishonorable for her to be seen wearing torn garments. However, halakhically the rent is considered as if it still exists, and therefore she must make a new rent for a new bereavement and not merely add to the previous one.

Rabbi Zeira asked further: According to the one who said that all thirty days of mourning one must make a new rent rather than add to the existing tear, why does he say this? It is because during the thirty days one is not given permission to properly mend the garment, and so it still appears to be torn. But then, in a case of a rent made for one’s father or mother, for which he is not given permission to ever properly mend it, would you say that he should so too be forever barred from adding to the rent for a new bereavement and is instead obligated to make a new rent?

The Gemara answers: There he may not properly mend the rent due to the honor due to his father and mother. Essentially, however, the tear is considered as if it had been sewn up after the thirty-day period, and therefore the son may extend it in the case of a new bereavement.

The Sages taught the following baraita: One who goes out before the deceased in a rent garment that he had previously torn over another bereavement, thereby giving the appearance of having rent his garment for him, steals from the dead, as he did not rend a garment for him. And he similarly steals from the living, who see him and think that he made the tear in honor of the deceased, when in reality he is deceiving them.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the case of one who says to his fellow: Lend me your cloak and I will go and visit my father because he is sick, and he goes and finds that his father has died, he rends the cloak and may then mend it in the proper manner. And when he returns home, he returns the cloak to his fellow and pays him the value of the rent, i.e., the depreciation in the value of the cloak that resulted from the tear. The assumption is that the lender considered the possibility that the sick father might die, and lent the garment anyway, understanding that he might have to tear it. But if one did not inform his fellow that he was going to visit his sick father, he must not touch it, as he was not granted permission to tear the garment belonging to someone else.

The Sages taught the following baraita: When a relative of a sick person dies, those around him do not inform him that this relative died, lest he lose control of his mind due to his emotional state and his grief exacerbate his physical health. And other people may not rend their garments in his presence, so that he will not know that one of his relatives passed away. And we silence the women who weep in his presence, so that he will not know that his relative is no longer alive.

And the relatives rend the garment of a minor child when there is mourning in his family in order to arouse grief. Although a minor is not required to rend his garments, this will add to the grief of those who see that even the garments of children are rent. And one rends his garment for his father-in-law or mother-in-law, although he is not required to mourn for them, due to the honor of his wife, to show her that he joins in her mourning.

And Rav Pappa said: A Sage taught in Evel Rabbati: A mourner should not place a young child in his lap because the child will bring him to laughter, and he will be disgraced in the eyes of other people because he laughed while in mourning.

§ The mishna taught: And the consolers provide the first meal after the burial only while the mourner sits on an upright bed and not on one that is overturned. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who goes to the house of the mourner, if he is confident in his friendship with him because they are close friends, they provide him with the meal of comfort while both he and the mourner sit on overturned beds. And if he is not confident in his friendship with him, both he and the mourner should be fed on upright beds.

The Gemara relates that something unpleasant happened to Rava, i.e., one of his close relatives died, and Abba bar Marta, who was also known as Abba bar Minyomi, entered to visit him. Rava stood the bed upright, treating him like any other person who came to comfort him. Abba bar Marta overturned the bed because he saw himself as being on very familiar terms with Rava. Rava said: How lacking in sense is this Torah scholar. Rava had shown from the outset that he did not consider Abba bar Marta to be a close friend, yet the latter ignored this message and viewed himself as being exceptionally close to Rava.

The Sages taught a baraita: If one who was going from place to place learned of the death of a close relative, so that he must now observe the rites of mourning,