The catalog describes the book as follows:
The author was born in 1687 and was noted for his many books regarding the foundation of the Hebrew language . . . The author corresponded with many Torah luminaries regarding his subject of expertise. His first book, Binyan Shlomo . . . [a]s a young scholar he spoke sharply against many sages who preceded him by hundreds of years. As the years passed, the author regretted his sharp language and printed a unique apology in which he notes the names of the sages whom he did not properly honor. This list features at least five leading Torah scholars from previous generations. To the best of our knowledge, this leaf is not extant today and is not listed in the C.D. of the Bibliographic Project. The book itself was never reprinted and is very rare today. To the best of our knowledge, this is the only known copy with the apology leaf.
R. Yehezkel Landau the Noda be-Yehuda, stood with R. Yisrael Lifschitz [regarding the controversy surrounding the infamous Get of Cleves], who was in conflict with the head of the Frankfort bet din, R. Nathan Maz and R. Shelomoh Hena [sic] the author of the Binyan Shelomo. Since R. Landau agreed with R. Yisrael Lifschitz, the enemy of R. Shelomoh Hena, [Hena] banned the work of the Noda be-Yehuda.
Carmilly then quotes a passage from the Hida's work Shem ha-Gedolim in support of the above statement:
And because of this [fight about the Get of Cleves], when the book Noda be-Yehuda was published the Goan, author of Binyan Shelomo and his bet din prohibited anyone from reading [the Noda be-Yehuda]. The Noda be-Yehuda, however, took the opposite view and he said I tell anyone who is reasonable to go ahead the Binyan Shelomo, to look and see ערות האר"ש השמנה הוא אם רזה (a word play implying that there isn't much in the Binyan Shelomo).
I erred in my ways when I disagreed with the authors. I was too verbose and, at times, I insulted the authors . . . therefore I come to ask forgiveness: from the prince Don Isaac Abarbanel when I wrote that "he speaks without logic and his words make no sense," and in another place I wrote about him that "this statement [of the Abarbanel] is because of his lack of knowledge and that he didn't understand what was being said" . . . Regarding the Ibn Ezra I wrote "he didn't subject this statement to logic"
While this apology my be tongue in cheek, it seems to have appeased many or, at the very least, many thought Hanau's next book didn't suffer from the same lack of respect. In R. Yehezkel Katzenellenbogen's approbation to Sha'arei Torah, Hamburg 1717, he notes that while Hanau had in his prior work been too harsh with his language in "Sha'arei Torah, [Hanau] speaks with the appropriate measure of respect as I [R. Katzenellenbogen] have carefully checked."