TB Menakhot 72b-73 Why there are two versions of Rashi’s commentary

Yesterday we finished the sixth chapter of our massekhet. It went off topic because it discussed the laws of the ’omer that was offered up on the second day of Passover and the two loaves of Shavuot. Today with dappim TB Menakhot 72b-73 we returned to the discussion about typical menakhot. The Mishnah on daf 72b begins “And these are the meal offerings from which a handful is removed and the remainder of the offering is eaten by the priests: The meal offering of fine flour; and the meal offering prepared in a pan; and the meal offering prepared in a deep pan; and the meal offering baked in an oven that is brought entirely of loaves; and the meal offering baked in an oven that is brought entirely of wafers; the meal offering of gentiles; and the meal offering of women; and the omer meal offering, i.e., the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan; and the meal offering of a sinner; and the meal offering of jealousy, brought by a sota.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Vilna edition of our massekhet contains two versions of Rashi’s commentary. The Schottenstein daf yomi edition explains why:

“The Vilna edition of our tractate contains two commentaries called “Rashi” for chapter 7-10. The first is the commentary that was attributed to Rashi in the earliest printed editions of the Talmud, beginning with Venice 5282. The other is a manuscript version taken from the margin of the Gemara of R’ Bezalel Ashkenazi, the compiler of the Shitah Mekibetzes, who recorded it in his own hand, and who asserted that it and not the printed version is the authentic commentary of Rashi. Indeed, the quotations of Rashi that are cited by Totafos to these chapters are from the manuscript version. There is no manuscript version for the other chapters, and R’ Bezalel Ashkenazi (in at note printed in Shitah Mekibetzes at the beginning of chapter 11) concedes that the printed commentary for those chapters is indeed that of Rashi.

“As to the original ‘Rashi’ commentary to chapter 7-10, R’ Ezra Altschuler, in the introduction to his Takanas Ezra and tractate Me’ilah, cites reasons to believe that it was authored by Rebbeinu Gershom. Similarly, Dikdukai Sofrim notes that this commentary is strikingly similar to that of Rebbeinu Gershom to our tractate, and would seem to have been called from his commentary. The recently published Dikdukai Sofrim to Chullin states that the original ‘Rashi’  was to chapter 7-10 was actually authored by Rebbeinu Elyakim who was a student of the disciples of Rebbeinu Gershom and a contemporary of Rashi. [Rebbeinu Elyakim authored a Rashi-style commentary at almost the Talmud, which only the commentary to Tractate Yoma has come down to us.]”