Rav Ashi -> Rav Asi, Ikka -> Ita

Two quick transformations in Sotah 5.

First, in a statement about arrogance, and how it is better to keep your head down, to delay getting harvested, Rav Asi appears in printed texts, both Vilna and Venice.

However, in all the listed manuscripts, it is Rav Ashi.

Second, there is very strange language at the bottom of 5b:

וְאִית דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: רַחֲמָנָא אָמַר ״וְיָצְאָה מִבֵּיתוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ אַחֵר״ — דְּלָא לִיסְתְּרֵיהּ לְבֵיתֵיהּ, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ תִּתְיַיבֵּם נָמֵי יַבּוֹמֵי?!

And there are those who say that say that in answer to Abaye’s question Rav Yosef said: The Merciful One said with regard to a man who divorces his wife because he has found some unseemly matter about her: “And she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife,” indicating that the man should divorce her so that his house not be destroyed by his continuing to dwell with her, and you want to say that she should enter into levirate marriage? How can it be that the same verse instructing the husband to divorce her would also instruct the yavam to marry her? However, there is no reason to exempt her from performing ḥalitza.

That language only appears 5 times in Shas Bavli.

and 20 times in Shas Yerushalmi. However, at least this instance doesn’t seem real. While Vilna indeed has וְאִית דְּאָמְרִי, looking at an earlier printing, Venice, we see it in its contracted form:

That vav aleph apostrophe could equally stand for ואיכא, as we have in the next alternative version of Rav Yosef’s statement on the next page. And ואי’ also appears in Munich 95:

Meanwhile, other manuscripts, Vatican 110 and Oxford 2675, have איכא spelled in full. Presumably, the transformation was ikka → i’ → it, but with a leading vav.