I say, and with God's success: It is permissible to wipe over a sock that has a small tear; to avoid hardship for the obligated individuals, as socks usually have some tears. This is preferred despite being contrary to analogy, as stated in Al-Bada'i. The analogy would suggest that both a small and large tear should be prohibited, and the reasoning behind the analogy is that when part of the foot is exposed, no matter how small, it must be washed; due to the occurrence of impurity on it; because the sock does not cover the foot completely, and the foot in terms of washing is indivisible. If part of it must be washed, then all of it must be washed. The reasoning for the preference is that the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) instructed his companions (may God be pleased with them) to wipe over their socks while knowing that their socks usually have some small tears. This indicates that a small tear does not prevent wiping; and because wiping is a substitute for washing for convenience, if a small exposure were to be prohibited, then the convenience would not be achieved, as it exists in most socks. The dividing line between a small and a large tear is the size of three fingers of the smallest toe. If the tear is the size of three fingers, it is prohibited; otherwise, it is not. And God knows best.