The Venice text here is self-contradictory: י״נהיק. שמואל לא אמר. Hence, the text chosen for the next three words is that of the Rome manuscript.
The Venice text has here a superfluous אמר that is not found in the Rome ms.
Reading of the Rome ms. The Venice print has יוחנן על.
In the Venice print and Leyden manuscript, the reading is כהתם “as there”, which makes no sense. The reading here is from the Rome manuscript; Yerushalmi התה is parallel to Babylonian חייתא “sack, sackcloth.”
The Rome ms. has here an insert: מחלפה שיטתהון דבית שמאי תמן אמרין טהור והכא אמרין טמא תמן (מאוס) [מסוס] ברם הכא בעינו הוא. The word in parenthesis has been corrected following the text of the commentary of R. Abraham ben David (Ravad) to Idiut. “The opinions of the House of Shammai are reversed, there (Idiut) they say it is pure, here (Berakhot) they say it is impure. There it is melted into the body, here it is visible.” Since a similar discussion is given for the House of Hillel, the insertion is part of the Yerushalmi that was lost from the Leyden ms. by oversight.
Name from the parallel in the Midrash. The text here has ר׳ בזירה, an otherwise unknown person.
Insert following the text on Bereshit rabba. The omission in the other sources makes no sense since Rav Huna preceded Rebbi Abbahu. The note “Rav Huna in the name of Rav” is missing in the parallel (Babli Pesaḥim 54a).
Reading of the Rome ms. Venice and Leyden: במעשיו.