Should we truly emend from "Gemara"?

About a week ago, on Bava Batra 134, the Vilna Shas had “Gemara”, where manuscripts and even other printings had “Talmud”.

A bit earlier, in an article about Bava Batra 130, I noted the same phenomenon, that the Vilna Shas had Gemara but the other texts, including the printings (see image in preview link below) had Talmud.

So today’s daf seemed similar, where it said Gemara in Vilna and therefore Artscroll, but the Koren text had Talmud. Bava Batra 145:

Artscroll’s Rav Square Brackets in footnote 33 notes that this text of “Gemara” throughout the amud should really be Talmud, but it was changed by medieval censors — and check Dikdukei Soferim.

However, I am not convinced that this is the case.

First, if it is medieval censors that are bothered by it, why were they not bothered by the previous instances, where “Talmud” lasted even into the earlier printings?

Second, take a look at the three instances of Gemara / Talmud on the page.

What this means is that the first instance of Gemara / Talmud, about the owner of wheat, was specifically about “Gemara”, which can mean tradition. Indeed, see how it appears elsewhere, in Berachot 64a, about keen analytical skills vs. tradition,

מִדְּרַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף. דְּרַב יוֹסֵף סִינַי וְרַבָּה עוֹקֵר הָרִים, אִצְטְרִיכָא לְהוּ שַׁעְתָּא. שְׁלַחוּ לְהָתָם: סִינַי וְעוֹקֵר הָרִים, אֵיזֶה מֵהֶם קוֹדֵם? שְׁלַחוּ לְהוּ: סִינַי קוֹדֵם, שֶׁהַכֹּל צְרִיכִין לְמָרֵי חִטַּיָּא. אַף עַל פִּי כֵן לֹא קִבֵּל עָלָיו רַב יוֹסֵף, דְּאָמְרִי לֵיהּ כַּלְדָּאֵי: מָלְכַתְּ תַּרְתֵּין שְׁנִין.

This may be derived from an incident involving Rabba and Rav Yosef, as Rav Yosef was Sinai, extremely erudite, and Rabba was one who uproots mountains, extremely sharp. The moment arrived when they were needed; one of them was to be chosen as head of the yeshiva. They sent the following question there, to the Sages of Eretz Yisrael: Which takes precedence, Sinai or one who uproots mountains? They sent to them in response: Sinai takes precedence, for everyone needs the owner of the wheat, one who is expert in the sources. Nevertheless, Rav Yosef did not accept the appointment, as the Chaldean astrologers told him: You will preside as head of the yeshiva for two years.

So it means expertise in sources. That means that Gemara is the better text. Only one source manuscript messed it up and turned it to Talmud, following the other instances of Talmud in the subsequent passage. That is Florence 8-9. This is the description of this manuscript, from “Menachem Katz, The Complete Manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud, Version 2”:

Ms. Firenze 8-9 Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, II.1.8–9 (3.[b]) Cat. no. 468 Two volumes are written on parchment. The complete manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud – Version 2 (2019) Introduction: The Friedberg project for Talmud Bavli variants - 'Hachi Garsinan' -35- The first volume comprises 314 pages containing most of tractate Bava Kama and tractate Bava Metzia. The second volume comprises 349 pages that contain most of tractates Bava Batra and Sanhedrin and tractate Shevuot. Ashkenazic manuscript from before the mid-13th century. The scribe was "probably an ignorant scribe who didn't understand what he wrote and therefore there are many errors…" (D.S. Sanhedrin, p. 4). The manuscript was influenced by Rashi's commentary but in some places the manuscript preserved a unique and apparently original reading. The Mishna was copied at the beginning of the chapters. (According to: Friedman, haSocher; Ms. Firenze; M. Sabato, Sanhedrin)

So I don’t think we should rely upon it over the others.

Meanwhile, for the other instances, again, the medieval manuscripts on the site all have “Talmud”. Again, it is just the rather late Vilna Shas that differs.