Reading of the Rome ms. Leyden and Venice: ילמד. The Leyden text implies that one discusses the position of R. Yose the Tanna, “R. Yose might understand the text …” But the parallel with R. Jonah shows that R. Yose here is the late Amora, colleague of R. Jonah, and both discuss the position of R. Yose the Tanna in the Mishnah. This not only shows that the Rome version is correct but it strongly supports the position of Maimonides (in his Code, Ma‘aser Šeni 10:3, and the third version of his Commentary) that R. Yose in the Mishnah explains the rule and is not a lone dissenter.
Reading of the Rome ms. Leyden (corrected) זמודה, Leyden uncorrected and Venice ומודה “and agrees”.
The text given here is that of the Rome ms. The text of the first hand of the Leyden ms. is almost identical: אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה עִיקַּר עָרְלָה צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ וְאֵין עִיקַּר עָרְלָה פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ שָּׁנִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי עִיקַּר רְבָעִי צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ כָּל־שֶׁאֵין לוֹ שָׁנִים אֵין לוֹ עָרְלָה אֵין לוֹ רְבָעִי; the text of the first corrector isאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה עִיקַּר עָרְלָה צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ וְאֵין עִיקַּר עָרְלָה פָּחוֹת שָּׁנִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי עִיקַּר רְבָעִי צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ כָּל־שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עָרְלָה אֵין לוֹ רְבָעִי. It seems clear that the corrector could not understand the text because of the missing שלש in the last sentence; his correction can be disregarded.
Reading of the Rome ms., word missing in the Leyden ms.
From the parallel in Nazir (Note 137); the text here reads רבי יוסי.
From the parallel in Nazir (Note 137); the text here reads רבי פדיה. It seems that Bar Pedaiah shared his uncle Bar Qappara’s open disdain of the patriarchate which caused him never to be ordained. In the Babli (Ḥulin 98a), the statement is by R. Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Qappara. The opinion of R. Assi is not mentioned there.
From the parallel in Nazir, missing in the Rome ms.
Sifra Qedošim Parašah 3(2).
From the parallel in Nazir and the Rome ms.
In the Rome ms., ממאה, from the missed previous sentence. This makes it likely that the missing sentence (Note 144) was in the common Vorlage of both mss.
Dittography; the text in parentheses is not in the Rome ms.
Reading of the Rome ms. Leyden and Venice have unintelligible שסיפקו.
Here, a phrase is missing which appears in Terumot 5:9: אַף טוֹחֵן הוּא בַּתְּחִילָּה וּמַתִּיר. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר.
Text in Ševi‘it and Rome ms., missing in Leyden ms. and Venice print.
Reading of the Rome ms. and the parallel in Avodah Zarah. Leyden and Venice: מתניתא.
In the Leyden ms. פורח “it flies”; already corrected in the Venice print.