Q&A: “Karet / Keritut” Does Not Carry That Meaning for Them
“Karet / Keritut” Does Not Carry That Meaning for Them
Question
In the Talmud in Kiddushin (5a), Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s exposition is brought based on the verse, “and he shall write for her a scroll of severance,” where the verse could have written simply “a scroll of severance” in the shorter form, and it turns out that from the word “keritut” there is something to derive. From here Rabbi Yosei HaGelili learns his exposition. But according to the Sages, “they do not derive that from karet/keritut.” I looked a bit for an explanation of this. That is: why do the Sages really not see this as an extra expression, given that the verse could have written only the shorter form? And on the other hand, why does Rabbi Yosei see it as extra—meaning, what exactly are the sides of the dispute and the differing views? I haven’t found any reference to this. Do you know anything to add about it?
Answer
This is a linguistic question, and I’m not expert in it. Maybe it would be worth taking a look at the Malbim there. I assume the question is whether “a scroll of karet” is a more reasonable expression than “a scroll of keritut,” in which case “keritut” would be superfluous—or not.
In the Malbim on the Talmud he wrote about this, and since that book isn’t readily available, I’ll copy his words here for the benefit of the questioner.
“Twice the word ‘keritut’ is written in the passage: one for itself, and one to teach that the scroll severs her and nothing else severs her. And it asks: from where does he derive that it must be something that severs between him and her? And it answers: from ‘karet keritut.’
It seems that this is the explanation: a verb in the doubled form indicates an intensification and multiplication of the action, as they said: ‘How do we know “distressing distress”? Therefore Scripture says “to distress” and not merely “to bind”’ (Yevamot 3). ‘Why these two forms of “shekakha”?’ (Megillah 16). Balaam was lame in one leg, therefore ‘shefi’; Samson in both legs, therefore ‘shfifon’ (Sotah 10). ‘The Sanhedrin shall not profane’—and not ‘shall not begin’; and many similar examples.
And so here too, the difference between ‘karet’ and ‘keritut’ lies in the doubling in the verbal form, which indicates intensity and force of the action. Since Scripture always uses ‘scroll of keritut’ and not ‘karet,’ it teaches about something that severs between him and her, because that doubled form indicates this. So this derivation is not from an extra word, but from the meaning itself.
And the Rabbis do not understand the word ‘keritut’ as something to be expounded in that way, only as an extra form.”