Question

In honor of my teacher and rabbi, the great Rabbi, may he live long and well,
a0
a0
A few comments and fine points on the Talmud and Rashi in Ketubot 25–41.
a0
A) Ketubot 25:
a0
Rashi, s.v. “or on the presumption that he is an adult” — “as we say elsewhere (Gittin 59b): Rav would read first among the priests, even though he was not a priest.”
a0
“a Levite read after him” — and if he is not a priest, a Levite does not read after him, as we say in tractate Gittin, etc.
a0
Now, at first Rashi wrote, “as we say elsewhere,” and at first glance it seems his intent is to Gittin 59b (and so too the note in parentheses indicates). However, one who looks there sees that the Talmud does not mention Rav; only Rav Huna is mentioned there. Seemingly, then, Rashi’s “elsewhere” refers to the Talmud in Megillah 22a; see there.
a0
And it is a bit difficult: why did he not refer to Gittin, as he did in the immediately following comment?
a0
a0
B) Ketubot 37a.
a0
Rashi, s.v. “rather she goes free through tooth and eye” — “a maidservant whose master blinded her eye and she thereby went free—how would she originally have known that she would go free, such that she would guard herself regarding the use of the wad during intercourse?”
a0
Here Rashi chose “eye” even though “tooth” is mentioned first in the Talmud. And in truth, regarding the Talmud itself, it is difficult: why did it say “tooth and eye,” when in the section of Mishpatim “eye” is mentioned first? This requires further analysis.
a0
a0
C) Ketubot 40:
a0
“As for depreciation, we evaluate her as though she were a maidservant being sold:
How do we assess this? The father of Shmuel said: We estimate how much a person would want to give for the difference between a virgin maidservant and a non-virgin maidservant for his use. What practical difference does a non-virgin maidservant for his use make? Rather, between a non-virgin maidservant and one who is not non-virgin, to marry to his slave. And what practical difference does that make for his slave? In the case of a slave from whom his master derives satisfaction.”
a0
It begins with “virgin” and ends with “one who is not non-virgin,” and seemingly there is a big difference between them, since “virgin” means a woman who has virginity, whereas “not non-virgin” means she has not had intercourse, but a woman injured accidentally could certainly be called “not non-virgin.”
a0
Now, Rashi wrote, “to let him taste the experience of a virgin,” which implies that she has virginity. However, one could say “the charm of a virgin,” meaning a woman who has not had intercourse—see Rashba above on 11a, that in the case of a woman injured accidentally, even though she has no virginity, her charm has not been nullified, since no act was done to her by a man.
a0
a0
D) Ketubot 41.
a0
“As it was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Even for humiliation and depreciation he does not pay based on his own admission, for it is not in his power to depreciate the daughter of so-and-so. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: It is understandable if it is to her liking—but what if it is not to her father’s liking? If it is to her father’s liking—but what if it is not to the liking of the family members? If it is to the liking of the family members—what then? Is it possible that there is not one person overseas to whom it is not pleasing?”
a0
I did not understand. First, why do we care that there is some distant relative overseas who is not pleased by it? And furthermore, it is a bit difficult—what would make us think there is such a person? From the language of the Talmud, “Is it possible that there is not one person,” etc., it sounds as though this is certain.
a0
With great respect,