Argument: In the Yerushalmi here, Chachamim argue about whether or not one must tear for hearing a Nochri curse Hash-m.

Some say that Ravshake was a Yisrael Mumar, but one need not tear for hearing a Nochri;

Some say that he was a Nochri [so we learn that one must tear for hearing a Nochri].

Also the Bavli in Sanhedrin (60a) brings an argument about this. The Yerushalmi says that Reish Lakish used to tear for [hearing a Nochri's] blasphemy.

Explanation (Tosfos): E.g. he heard from the witnesses who say this [the curse exactly as it was said];

If he says "Yosi (a euphemism for Hash-m) should strike Yosi", they do not tear for this. Also Sanhedrin 56a connotes like this.

Question: If so, we should learn that all tears may not be sewn back from [the Gezeirah Shavah] Keri'ah- Keri'ah!

Answer: Perhaps he holds that it is not reasonable to say so.

Question: Yikra'eha (he tore it) with a scribe's razor connotes the entire Megilah!

Strengthening of question: In the Yerushalmi, the text does not say "the Azkaros (names of Hash-m)."

Citation: The Yerushalmi's text says that Melech Yisrael burned it by force [and with malicious intent].

Assertion: One cannot ask that we should say that he is exempt until there are all three (desolate cities of Yehudah, Yerushalayim and the Mikdash).

Question: We should say that it was an extra matter (they were not obligated to tear), for the verse says that their beards were shaven and they were wounding themselves through scratching [which are not obligatory]!

Answer: We cannot say that we do not learn at all. Rather, we learn only tearing.

Support: Above (21a) we say "granted, you properly learn tearing. However, you may not learn that it must be standing."

Citation (Yerushalmi): What is Ichuy Alexandri? It is when the place [where it was torn] is not recognized.

Maseches Semachos explains that it is sewing back all that is needed.

Question: I did not hear whether or not one may sell it to a Nochri;

Granted, the buyer may not sew it normally. If he is a Nochri, it is permitted.

Implied question: The seller must inform the buyer [that he may not sew it normally]!

Answer: That is so that the buyer will not transgress. We are not concerned if the Nochri sews it.

Answer: It seems that it is permitted. This still requires investigation.

Explanation: Just like the seller is forbidden" is according to the first Tana, without flipping [the top of the garment to be on bottom], and according to R. Shimon ben Elazar, even through flipping.

Pesak: Regarding their argument, it seems that the Halachah follows the first Tana. Also Rabeinu Avraham explained like this.

Question: I do not know the source to argue with what we said above (22b);

We learned a Tefach from "va'Ychazek", and holding always refers to at least a Tefach.

Explanation: R. Yosi holds like this (like Ula), and the Halachah follows R. Yosi against R. Meir and R. Yehudah (Eruvin 46b).

Also, R. Yosi is a Machri'a (intermediate opinion. The Halachah always follows a Machri'a.)

Citation (Maseches Semachos): If they told someone that his father died, and he tore, and really, his mother died, he was Yotzei;

Citation (ibid.): If they told him that his mother died [and he tore], and really, his father died, he was Yotzei;

Citation (ibid.): If they told him that his father or mother died and he tore, and really, another relative died, he was Yotzei;

Citation (ibid.): If they told him that another relative died, and he tore, and really, his father or mother died, he was not Yotzei.

Citation (Yerushalmi): If they told him that Reuven died, and he tore, and really, Shimon died, he was Yotzei.

Citation (ibid.): If they told him that Reuven died, and he tore, and then they told him that he was alive at the time, and [after he tore] he died, a Tana says that he was not Yotzei.

Citation (ibid.): Similarly, if he tore for his father, and it was found that his son died, if he died immediately, he need not tear [again];

Citation (ibid.): What is considered immediately? It is Toch Kedei Dibur.

Support: It says similarly in Nedarim 87a.

Question: What does he add to the reason that the Beraisa gave?

Answer #1 (Rabeinu Avraham, citing Rabbeinu Shmuel [the Rashbam]): The text of the Beraisa does not say "because we do not add."

Question (Ri, in Tosfos): How does Tosefes apply [according to the opinion below that Keri'ah is until the heart? He already exposed the heart!]

Answer #1: We can say that he holds like the opinion that Keri'ah is until the navel. (He tears past the heart for the other Mes.)

Answer #2: "Until he exposes the heart" (for a parent) is not as much as until the heart. (He tears for the other Mes until the heart.)

Answer #3: I prefer to say that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak teaches "because Tosefes does not apply", i.e. one must tear until the heart;

If he did not tear until the heart, since he did not do like he was obligated, he says that Tosefes does not apply.

Consequence: According to my Perush, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak holds like those who say until the heart.

Retraction: Even according to the one who says until the navel, we can resolve like I explained, that granted, one need to tear for a father or mother only until he bares the heart...

In any case, if one tore more, this is better, for honor of his father. 'Bal Tashchis' does not apply. (Even if he tears more, it is considered to be for his parent.)

Reference: In Horiyos (12b) it explains what he tears, below or [the collar near] the neck. (Rav says that he tears the bottom of the garment. Shmuel says that he tears below the collar.)

Rashi's opinion: This applies to all of them, whether he tore first for his father, or he tore first for another relative.

Question: What is his source? The Gemara connotes that this is only when he tore first for his father or mother!