The Genayzm Auction House recently auctioned off a copy of the Sefer Chochmas Manoach.
The catalogue description is quite complete as seen below:
Auction 17
Sunday, Mar 3, 12:00
Chochmas Manoach. First Edition. Prague, 1612
First and very rare edition of comments and chiddushim on Shas by Rabbi Hendel Manoach ben Rabbi Shmarya.
The sefer Chochmas Manoach was written as a supplement and continuation of the Maharshal’s landmark sefer Chochmas Shlomo, hence the name of the sefer Chochmas Manoach. In his preface, Rabbi Hendel’s son describes that after the new edition of Gemaros were printed in Cracow with the Maharshal’s corrections as noted in Chochmas Shlomo, many errors still remained in print, and his father sought to rectify this by completing the Maharshal’s work.
Aside from the author’s notes on Shas, the sefer also contains numerous chiddushim and references to Talmudic sources, in a similar style to that used by the Maharshal. The present sefer encompasses Maseches Brachos and the complete Sidrei Moed, Nashim and Nezikin. Maseches Psachim also contains a commentary on the Haggadah.
Chochmas Manoach was enthusiastically received by many scholars and due to its imperative importance, it was attached to all the Vilna Shas Editions.
Rabbi Hendel Manoach ben Rabbi Shmarya (circa 1540-1612) was a prime disciple of the Maharshal. He was a prolific author who put out numerous sefarim and responded to many teshuvos; his signature appears alongside other illustrious Torah luminaries as the Maharam of Lublin and Maharsha. In his latter years, he was involved together with his colleague Rabbi Yehoshua Falk Katz in arranging the divorce of a woman from her husband who had become an apostate. The episode, which later gained notoriety as the “Get of Vienna”, stirred great controversy among the Jewish world; the majority of Gedolim sided with Rabbi Manoach.
Prague, 1612. First Edition. Page Count: 147 leaves. Page Size: 18.5 cm. Condition: Good, with minor stains. Leaf 18 has a small tear in the margin. The sefer was decoratively printed with illustrations, borders and embellishments. The final leaf has a full-page copperplate engraving of Dovid Hamelech with his harp. Impressive new leather binding.
The description includes the fact that the Chochmas Manoach was so important, that it was included in the back of the Vilna Shas and in all subsequent reprintings of that Shas:
Chochmas Manoach was enthusiastically received by many scholars and due to its imperative importance, it was attached to all the Vilna Shas Editions.
This fact was repeated in the “support box” while the Sefer was being auctioned off:
Support: This sefer was deemed so important that it was included in the Vilna Shas.
Support: It has since been included in every subsequent edition of Shas.
However, this is only partially correct. Chochmas Manoach was included in the back of the Vilna Shas but in a very abbreviated manner, leaving out two key features of the Sefer. It could almost be said העיקר חסר מן הספר.
Let us look at Eiruvin as an example.
Here is the way it is presented in the Vilna Shas (1881). It references the fact that the Sefer was printed only one time, and that was in Prague in 1612.
The best way to analyze whether this is a true copy of the Chochmas Manoach is to look at a specific section of Eruvin. I chose four blatt, Eruvin 6a-9b
Here is the way it is presented at the back of the Vilna Shas:
As you can see, there is one comment included from 6a, and one comment from 7a. No comments are included for all of Daf 8 or 9.
Here is the way this section of Eruvin is treated in the original Chochmas Manoach.
The only comments carried over by the Vilna Shas were this one on 6a
And this one on 7a
The Chochmas Manoach really had three elements
1. Corrections in the text of the Cracow 1602-05 edition of Shas (כצ״ל )[i]
2. Some Chidushim[ii]
3. Diagrams which were left out of the Cracow edition and in the earlier Bomberg editions
The first printed Maseches Eruvin was one by the Soncino family in Pesaro, Italy 1514(?). Its source was a group of manuscripts containing the texts of the Gemara, Rashi and Tosfos. That edition included the diagrams that were part of Rashi’s commentary.
Here is an example of Rashi on Eruvin 6a in the Soncino imprint
The Gemara discusses the case of the מבוי עקום, literally a bent alley. This is a mavoy (alley) shaped like an “L” that opens to the Reshus ha-Rabim at both ends. Both Rav and Shmuel agree that this mavoy is open on both ends to the Reshus ha-Rabim, but they disagree on its halachic treatment. As I mentioned, the word ‘akum literally means “bent”. But, how do we know it is actually an “L” shaped mavoy? Probably from the picture which we find in the classic Vilna Shas.[iii] It is similar to the diagram in the Soncino edition.
It shows an “L” shaped mavoy with the notation that this mavoy opens up to the Reshus ha-Rabim at each end. Rashi does not say that it is an “L” shaped mavoy, only “מבוי עקום ושני פתחיו לרשות הרבים – a mavoy ‘akum is one that has both of its openings facing the Reshus ha-Rabim. Rashi does, however, add a critical word which adds to our understanding of the term, and that is the word “ka-zeh” (like this, or in this context, as described below). Underneath the word ka-zeh, in the Vilna edition, is the diagram with the “L” shaped mavoy, and now we know how Rashi explains this term in the Gemara.
The Bomberg edition of Venice (1522) used the Soncino edition as its source but due to technical reasons, did not include any of the diagrams. The Maharshal “corrected” the second Bomberg edition (1528) which looked like this.
Maharshal in Chochmas Shlomo included the picture that was missing:
The picture was also missing in the Cracow edition which Chochmas Manoach “corrected”, but instead of being satisfied with the diagram in the Chochmas Shlomo, Rav Hendel drew it like this:
There is quite a difference in detail. It is apparent that Rav Hendel felt the diagram needed to be drawn differently.
All this is missing because of the manner in which Chochmas Manoach is presented in the Vilna Shas. The textual emendations may have been left out of the Vilna Shas, because by the time it was printed, they had been incorporated into the text. I think it is also understandable why the Vilna Shas did not include all the diagrams drawn by the Chochmas Manoach. It probably had to do with issues of space. But you can get an idea of what was lost.
[i] From the Genazym description: In his preface, Rabbi Hendel’s son describes that after the new edition of Gemaros were printed in Cracow with the Maharshal’s corrections as noted in Chochmas Shlomo, many errors still remained in print, and his father sought to rectify this by completing the Maharshal’s work.
[ii] From the Genayzm description: Aside from the author’s notes on Shas, the sefer also contains numerous chiddushim and references to Talmudic sources, in a similar style to that used by the Maharshal