Argument for your interpretation: the Yerushalmi's version doesn't have the word ישראל.
Argument against: The Rambam does have it (I checked Rav Sheilat's edition and he doesn't mention any MSS disagreeing). This means the reading is a lot older than MS Munich.
In general, I think this is a case where you have to look in citations in Rishonim and Geonim to judge which girsa is best. MSS gives you the range of possible readings, but don't really tell you which one is more original.
I don't trust Wikipedia, especially the English one. The Hebrew is much better but I still have my disagreements. Regardless, see this article on nefesh achat:
where they claim that the Rambam's ktav yad, he does not have it.
I agree about the range of readings; my additional argument was something of a lectio difficilior argument, of how a weird reading could transform into the word mi-yisrael, and in which direction we'd expect a modification, which stands aside from the range of possible readings.
I'm not sure how this works with Rav Sheilat's edition.
Ok very interesting. The drasha appears in two places:
1) הלכות רוצח ושמירה א:טז
2) הלכות סנהדרים יב:ג
In (1) it has the word ישראל and in (2) it doesn't (same in all MSS). The context doesn't really seem to necessitate the difference, since they are both talking about Jews.
Regarding the actual original version, I think if MSS Cambridge, Parma and Kaufmann all agree then that is pretty much that.
Argument for your interpretation: the Yerushalmi's version doesn't have the word ישראל.
Argument against: The Rambam does have it (I checked Rav Sheilat's edition and he doesn't mention any MSS disagreeing). This means the reading is a lot older than MS Munich.
In general, I think this is a case where you have to look in citations in Rishonim and Geonim to judge which girsa is best. MSS gives you the range of possible readings, but don't really tell you which one is more original.
I don't trust Wikipedia, especially the English one. The Hebrew is much better but I still have my disagreements. Regardless, see this article on nefesh achat:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9B%D7%9C_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%A0%D7%A4%D7%A9_%D7%90%D7%97%D7%AA
where they claim that the Rambam's ktav yad, he does not have it.
I agree about the range of readings; my additional argument was something of a lectio difficilior argument, of how a weird reading could transform into the word mi-yisrael, and in which direction we'd expect a modification, which stands aside from the range of possible readings.
I'm not sure how this works with Rav Sheilat's edition.
Ok very interesting. The drasha appears in two places:
1) הלכות רוצח ושמירה א:טז
2) הלכות סנהדרים יב:ג
In (1) it has the word ישראל and in (2) it doesn't (same in all MSS). The context doesn't really seem to necessitate the difference, since they are both talking about Jews.
Regarding the actual original version, I think if MSS Cambridge, Parma and Kaufmann all agree then that is pretty much that.