1
The Venice (and Leyden) text here, כפיטם, is unintelligible. The text given here is that of the Genizah fragments and the parallel in Śemaḥot.
2
Reading of the Rome ms. Venice and Leyden: הוה. The text here is the only mention we have of this Amora.
3
The unexplained word ליטור is missing in the parallel Nazir 7:1 (fol. 56a). It probably is a corruption and is best disregarded. It could be from נטר “to act as watchman.” R. M. Margalit assumes that a silent ע is missing, that one should read לעיטור, to annul (a document of indebtedness.) The interpretations of Z. Frankel (Latin latro), J. Levy (Greek ῥητώρ), and M. Jastrow (“to Iturea”) have to be rejected.
4
Reading of the Rome ms. Venice and Leyden: משמשה (both times).