From the Rome and Genizah mss., missing in Leiden ms. and editio princeps.
From the Genizah ms., missing in Rome and Leiden mss. and editio princeps.
Reading of the Genizah ms., in Rome and Leiden mss. here בכל מקים but correctly in the parallel Roš Haššanah 3:1.
From the Genizah ms., missing in the other two mss.
From the Genizah ms. and editio princeps. In Leiden ms. והיה, an easily corrected mistake.
In the Genizah ms.: בירבי סימון. It is difficult to decide between the readings since neither name appears a second time.
From the Genizah ms. In the Leiden ms. and editio princeps: נֹאמַר כָּל־אוֹתָן אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֶה שָׁנָה מְצוּייָנִים הָיוּ “we may say, all these fourteen years they were identified” (the case simply never happened). There are no conclusive arguments for or against either reading.
From the Genizah ms. Leiden: ומוברין “they move him”; a reading which seems quite impossible since an unknown corpse has to be buried at the place it was found. In the Tosephta, 9:l (both versions), וחופרין וקוברין “they dig and bury”. Editio princeps (from the first hand of the Leiden ms): וּמוכרין “and they sell”, certainly an impossible reading.
Text of the Genizah. The Leiden text is fragmentary here. In the parallel Sanhedrin 1:3, the arguments of R. Simeon and R. Jehudah are switched.
Reading of the Genizah ms. The Leiden ms. switches the two expressions. The entire argument is modelled after one in Peah 6:9, Notes 151–154; it is possible that the Leiden text refers to Peah as “here” and Soṭah as “there”.
A clear misspelling, faithfully copied in editio princeps and some medieval authors. Unfortunately, only the letters פר. are readable in the Genizah ms. The translation presupposes the reading לִסְפָר.
From the Genizah ms., required by the historical context, missing in the other sources.
Reading of the Rome and Genizah mss., missing in the Leiden ms. {The student of R. Jonathan was R. Samuel bar Naḥman; the Amora R. Samuel, student of rabbis Abbahu and Ze‘ira, lived two generations later.}
From the Rome ms. Missing in the Leiden ms. and editio princeps. The addition is good style but not absolutely necessary.
Reading of the Rome ms. Leiden and editio princeps: טריפה.
Reading of the Genizah ms. The other mss. and editio princeps read תמן.
Text from the Genizah, missing in the other two mss. and editio princeps. The text from the Genizah is required since (1) R. Simeon ben Laqish cannot differ with a Tanna without tannaitic support and (2) R. Ila’s statement makes no sense without it.
Reading of the Rome ms. Leiden ms: מתני׳ “the Mishnah”. The Genizah ms. has here only a reference to the other occurrences of this text.
In the Genizah ms: הרוצחן.
Text from the Genizah ms., missing in the other mss. and editio princeps.
Missing in the Leiden ms. here; exists in the other mss. and the text in Ma‘aser Šeni.
Redundant text, not in Ma‘aser Šeni.
In the Leiden ms.: שיני. The text follows the other two mss. here and all sources in Ma‘aser Šeni.
In the Leiden ms.: ומי. The text follows the other two mss. here and all sources in Ma‘aser Šeni.
In the Tosephta, חבטו “he hit him”. This is more fitting for the lictor and this version is used for the translation. (There is no Genizah source any more at this point).
From the Rome ms. Leiden and editio princeps והחזירו “who returned him.”
In the Leiden ms. (not in editio princeps or the Rome ms.) one finds here an insert, a commentary that entered the text from the margin: פירוש הוא זה תרגומא הברה. הברה בלשון מקרא בת. בת הברה היא. שלא הקול ממש היו שומעים אלא הברת קול: “This is a commentary: the translation is echo. An echo in biblical language is called bat. Bat is an echo. For they did not really hear a voice but the echo of a voice.”
In the parallel Thren. rabba 5, the ו is missing. That seems to be correct since the Rav Jeremiah here needs a qualifyer to his name. He is not Rav Jeremiah, the elder authority in Rav’s academy.
This word is not in the parallel in Peah. But since this an oath formula, it is not necessary to delete the word.
Read חֶסֶד both times.
Added from the Genizah text. While the defective Leiden text is also reproduced in Sanhedrin, the Genizah text is confirmed by Rebbi's argument at the end of this paragraph and Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq 6(2).