Reading of R. Simson of Sens and R. Solomon Cirillo. The Venice print has “התנן”, which is certainly incorrect.
Text of the Rome ms. here and the Venice print in the parallel Giṭṭin 8:3, fol. 49c. Venice print here: אדם זוכה לחבירו במציאה. The verse reads ואני בעניי.
Reading of the parallel in Baba Meẓi‘a. The Venice print has here בשם which makes no sense since this is clearly a report of a dialogue.
Reading of the Rome manuscript, quote from the Mishnah. Venice: רבן שמעון בן גמליאל.
Reading of the Rome ms., Sifra Qedošim 1:10, and the Babylonian Talmud (Šabbat 23a). Venice: קנויה.
Reading of the Rome manuscript. The Venice print has: במחלוקת “in disagreement.”
This is the text of the Leyden manuscript before correction and of the Rome manuscript. But the corrected text of the Leyden manuscript and the Venice print reads פטוּרין. However, the parallel in the Mishnah Ḥallah 3:3 in all sources reads חייבין. According to the text the two parts of the Mishnah are completely parallel. According to the Venice print, the two statements “but after the time of tithes” and “and the treasurer finished it” are identical and one of them is redundant.
במרוח is the text of the Venice print here, במחלוקת the text of all sources in Ḥallah 3:3.
Reading of Rome and R. Solomon Cirillo manuscripts. Venice print and Leyden ms.: ליתן.
Reading of the Rome manuscript. Since all other occurrences show that R. Ḥizqiah was R. Jeremiah’s student, the reading here of the Venice print/Leyden ms. “R. Jeremiah, R. Ḥizqiah” must be a scribal error. In the next paragraph, the Venice print also has the reading given here.
Reading of the Rome ms.; the Venice print has “R. Jehudah”; no R. Jehudah is ever mentioned as opponent of R. Simeon ben Laqish.