From the parallel text in Ketubot 4:6.
The text in parenthesis is the ms. text here; the text in brackets is R. Abun’s original statement in Giṭṭin 1:1. The Giṭṭin text is the only one which makes sense.
The ms. indicates that the reading is either אתנו or את נו. The second reading is acceptable, לֵית אַתְּ הִנּוֹ “you are not he”. In Chapter 10, the reading is תני
Samuel’s father. The story implies that Abba bar Abba did outlive Rav since “the students of Rav” only appear in cases after Rav’s death.
Reading of the parallels in Nazir 3:7, Sanhedrin 5:2. The ms. reading here is בזמנה “in the timing”.
Text from the parallels. Text here: רב אידי “Rav Idi”.
Text from the parallel in Sanhedrin (this sentence missing in Nazir). Text here: המה.
The text in parenthesis is from ms. A only; probably it is copied from above by an unthinking scribe.
From here to almost the end of the Tractate, there is no text from Ms. L available. The text given here is that of the editio princeps. For the rest of this chapter and part of the following, ms. A is available. The remainder of this paragraph is inconsistent there and reads:
וְתַנֵּיי דְּבֵית רִבִּי כֵן. תַּנָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. הוֹלְכִים אַחַר דֵיעוֹת. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָה. שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים וְאִישׁ עָשׂוּ אוֹתָם כִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים וְעֵד אֶחָד. הָדָה אָֽמְרָה בְאִשׁ וְאִשָּׁה. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ מֵאָה נָשִׁים וְעֵד אֶחָד עֵד בְּעֵד אִינּוּן.
“In the House of Rebbi they stated it this way. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: One follows the opinions. How is that? Two women against one man they considered as if there were two witnesses against one witness. What you say refers to a man and a woman. But if there were a hundred women against one [male] witness, they are like one witness against one witness.”
From ms. A, word missing in editio princeps.
In ms. A: אוֹמֵר לוֹ צֵא. לָצֵאת יְדֵי שָּׁמַים. “One says to him go, to be clean before Heaven.” The addition of לצאת may be a gloss.
In ms. A: בשיש, בשאין.
In ms. A: אילא.
Ms. A adds: תַמָּן אָֽמְרִין בְשֵׁם רַב. כָּאן בְְּשְׁנִּשְׁבַּע. כָּאן בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁבַּע. “There (in Babylonia) they say in the name of Rav …” which must mean that this is the received explanation in Babylonia to the exclusion of any other since Rav Jeremiah was a Babylonian. The same language is in the parallel Baba Meṣi‘a 3:3 (fol. 8d), a text from the hand of a different editor.
Here, ms. A and the parallel Baba Meṣi‘a 3:3 have an addition: רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי. אִם בְּשֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע. הָיָה לוֹ לִשְׁתּוֹק וְלֹא לִישָׁבַע. It would seem that this is an extraneous addition from the redaction of Baba Meṣi‘a, since R. Jeremiah is reported below to have another question and his text here is ascribed there to R. Yose.
Added from ms. A and the parallel Baba Meṣi‘a 3:3; missing in editio princeps.
From ms. A and the parallel Baba Meṣi‘a 3:3; editio princeps גזול.
The reading of ms. A is intelligible: וְאִם לָאו לֹא הָיָה לוֹ לִשְׁתּוֹק “otherwise, he should not have to be quiet.”
Reading from ms. A. Editio princeps: לְהוֹרוֹת “to instruct”.
Both in ms. A and in editio princeps the reading is גילה.
Reading from ms. A. Editio princeps: מִסְפָּר “number”.
In ms. A corrected מן הדה “from the following”, the more idiomatic expression.
This sentence is missing in ms. A; the ms. probably is correct since the introduction “she is believed if …” is missing.