At the very end of yesterday’s daf, Nazir 50b, there was a strange teiku. Thus:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אַדָּא לְרַב פָּפָּא: מִמַּאי דְּהַאי מִקִּשְׁרֵי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו וּלְמַעְלָה לְרֹאשׁ? דִּלְמָא לְמַטָּה מִדִּידֵיהּ, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מְלֹא פִּיסַּת הַיָּד? תֵּיקוּ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the basis of the question directed toward the opinion of Ḥizkiyya. Rav Shimi bar Adda said to Rav Pappa: From where do we know that this amount specified by Rabbi Meir: From his finger joints and above, means toward the ends of the fingers? Perhaps it is referring to below it, toward the arm, in which case it is exactly the same as Ḥizkiyya’s amount: A full palm of the hand. If so, this baraita presents no difficulty to Ḥizkiyya at all. No answer was found, and the Gemara says that the question shall stand unresolved.
Generally speaking, teiku is used for an איבעיא דלא איפשטא, an inquiry which wasn’t resolved. For instance, Berachot 8a:
בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: בֵּין פְּסוּקָא לִפְסוּקָא מַהוּ?
Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the ruling with regard to leaving between one verse and the next verse? Is one permitted to leave during a break in the Torah reading while the verse was translated into Aramaic?
תֵּיקוּ.
An answer to this question was not found, so the dilemma stands unresolved.
Yet here, it isn’t an inquiry / “dilemma”. It is a suggestion / attack on the premise of a question. The word teiku doesn’t seeem appropriate.
Tosafot say we should remove the word.
אמר ליה רב שימי - שנוייא הוא ממאי דהאי מקישרי אצבעותיו ולמעלה היינו לראשי אצבעותיו דפרכת מינה דלמא למטה דקרי עיקר אצבעות מקום שמחוברין לה ליד ולמעלה דקאמר היינו לצד הגוף עד פרק הזרוע דהיינו ממש פיסת יד לא גרסי' תיקו:
The alternative would be that this is yet another instance of the strange and unique language employed in masechet Nazir and Nedarim. Here is a collection of such statements by Rishonim that the language employed in unique. The first listed instance, from Tosafot on Nazir 2a, regarding the word leima and another word:
והשתא האי לימא אינו כשאר לימא שבגמרא שכן הוא עומד ודכוותה איכא לקמן (נזיר דף כט:) לימא הני תנאי כי הני תנאי ועומד . כן וכדמפרש:
However, let us explore the idea that we should eliminate the word. Both Vilna Shas and the Venice printing do have teiku here.
Similarly, Munich 95:
However, Vatican 110 omits it, with the text immediately transitioning to teno rabbanan:
Note also that there is an initial vav in the word following, ואיזהו on Nazir 51a, where the printed texts and Munich 95 simly have איזהו. Perhaps we could argue for orthographic similarity sparking a spurious teiku, either from the preceding or following phrase.
That is, the ת”ר looks like a תיר which resembles תיק and then separate off the the ו from ואיזהו. Then, dittography. Alternatively, the end of פיסתיד can look like a shortened תיק.
Finally, what do we know of Vatican 110? It is from Germany or France, in 1381, thus I think after Tosafot’s commentary.
But it still might preserve the original Talmudic text, rather than being influenced by Tosafot to remove the word.