Retraction regarding Vilna Shas Editing
I think I slipped up...
Over Shabbat, I was thinking about my post
where I contrasted Rav Schachter’s discussion of the editing process by Rav Shlomeleh Vilna of the Vilna Shas
reporting a testimony from his descendant, that he corrected the galleys based on simply reading the gemara, Rashi and Tosafot, based on his memory; and what it states about his process on Wikipedia, namely that “he pored through various manuscripts to verify and establish an accurate version of the Talmud without the mistakes so prevalent in previous editions of the Talmud.”
I considered this to be a contradiction, and traced down the source of the claim (a Yated Neeman article by Yated Neeman Staff, which doesn’t exactly but kind-of says this, and as put together by the wikipedia editor Rachak, presumably this blogger).
But thinking about it more, these claims aren’t necessarily contradictory. There are different parts of the editing process. The first is establishing the correct text, perhaps handwritten on paper. And for that, perhaps Rav Shlomo HaKohen of Vilna, or perhaps others working with him, didn’t just rely on the earlier printed text (such as the 1525 Venice printing), but also manuscripts. Then it would need to be formulated for the printing press. And they would show him the galleys to proof. To again cite Wikipedia:
Galley proofs or galleys are so named because in the days of hand-set letterpress printing in the 1650s, the printer would set the page into "galleys", metal trays into which type was laid and tightened into place.[5] A small proof press would then be used to print a limited number of copies for proofreading.[5] Galley proofs are thus, historically speaking, galleys printed on a proof press.
From the printer's point of view, the galley proof, as it originated during the era of hand-set physical type, had two primary purposes, those being to check that the compositor had set the copy accurately (because sometimes individual pieces of type did get put in the wrong case after use) and that the type was free of defects (because type metal is comparatively soft, so type can get damaged).
Once a defect-free galley proof was produced, the publishing house requested a number of galley proofs to be run off for distribution to editors and authors for a final reading and corrections to the text before the type was fixed in the case for printing.
It was at this point, proofreading the galleys, that the testimony exists that he did so from memory. And that memory could well be of other printed texts, or manuscripts that he had seen before.
Which goes to show that, even as you shouldn’t necessarily trust Wikipedia, you shouldn’t necessarily trust Josh. I apologize from the error.