The Prohibition of Destruction in Tearing More Than a Handbreadth

Is it permissible to tear more than a handbreadth for other relatives (meaning, not one’s parents), or should we be careful not to exceed this measure?

According to the basic law, it is forbidden to tear more than a handbreadth due to the prohibition of destruction. However, it seems that nowadays, when a torn garment has no value and no one keeps or repairs the torn garment, there is no prohibition of destruction in tearing more than a handbreadth. Since, in any case, it is not worth anything.

Gemara, Tractate Bava Kamma, page 91b: "Rabbi Elazar said: I heard that one who tears more than necessary for the deceased is liable for the prohibition of destruction," (according to Rambam, Chapter 6 of the Laws of Kings, Law 10, that the prohibition of destruction in things that are not trees is rabbinic, it should be said that he receives lashes for violating a rabbinic decree, and see there among the commentators that there are those who hold that even Rambam agrees with the Semag and Shaarei that its prohibition is from the Torah).

And it should be said that the prohibition of destruction exists only when there can be benefit for him or others, but something that is lost from the world and has no use for anyone does not fall under the prohibition of destruction. As written in Pitchei Teshuva, Yoreh De'ah, sign 28, section 10: "The main prohibition of destruction is not to destroy something from which a person can benefit, but something that does not cause loss to anyone does not fall under the prohibition of destruction."

However, according to this, there is a serious question about the very act of tearing, for what is not considered destruction in the act of tearing when tearing for the deceased. And the obligation of tearing is rabbinic, and the prohibition of destruction is from the Torah. (Except for the opinion of Rambam mentioned above) it is written in Shiltei Giborim, Tractate Avodah Zarah, page 4 of the Rif's pages, that there is no prohibition of destruction in something that is not completely destroyed. Therefore, it should be considered how we, for whom a torn garment has no value at all, are allowed to tear.

And I have seen that they resolve the law of tearing with another reasoning, which is that since he wants to fulfill his obligation to tear, this is a form of using the garment, and since this is its form of use, there is no prohibition of destruction, as the garments are intended to serve his needs, and this is his need at the moment. And so it is written in Shut Torah Lishma, sign 400, that there is no prohibition of destruction when fulfilling a mitzvah or even a custom. Like lighting garments on Lag BaOmer.