In both mss., the middle of the Mishnah is indicated only by a few words. Ms. L: וכנס היבם מן. Ms. A: יכנוס ח̇ ייב̇ הייבום. The full text, translated in small print, reads: יִכְנוֹס אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. מֵתָה הַיְּבָמָה יִכְנוֹס.
Missing in the L text here, taken from the parallel in Halakhah 4:10. Most of the text is in ms. A.
Reading of ms. A. In ms. L: ר׳ יודה, unknown as Amora.
Reading of ms. A. Ms. L: כשיהא.
Missing in ms. A; devoid of sense in the context.
Reading of ms. A and the first hand of ms. L. Miscorrected text in L: הוי.
Reading of ms. A. Ms. L: מה.
Reading of ms. A; ms L: הא.
Reading of ms. A. Ms L: חליצה אינו קניין.
Reading of ms. A. Ms. L: אחותו.
The word is missing in the Mishnah and is deleted in ms. L by the corrector; therefore it is missing in the editio princeps. It is found in ms. A. From Halakhah 3:4 it is clear that the word was omitted from the Mishnah by a scribal error (cf. א. שכטר, המשנה בבבלי וּבירושלמי, מוֹסד הרב קוּק, י-ם תשיט) and was wrongly eliminated from the text.
It is clear that one must read פטור instead of קיניין. The next sentence is missing in ms. L; it is clear that the scribe of ms. L already had the error before him since ms. A also reproduces it. The sentence in brackets is only in ms. A, it is missing in ms. L since its scribe left out a sentence from קיניין to קיניין. It is unlikely that the insertion in A is a deliberate correction.
In the ms.: ביר׳, a copyist’s error (not caught by the editors).