אברהם רבקש Avraham Rivkas

The Ra’avad’s Notes on Mishneh Torah – Substantial or Mere Polemic?

Rabbi Avraham ben David (known as Ra’avad “The Third”) wrote extensive critical emendations on nearly the whole of Maimonides’ “Mishneh Torah”. One of the most well-known aspects of the work is the tone of the comments. They tonally tend to harsh bitterness.

The question standing before us today is whether these emendations are a sustained attack on the whole of the work (and its author) or just genuine disagreement on various issues.

Let’s first look at two major examples, shall we?

Ra’avad on Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kilayim 6:1 –

וחיי ראשי לולא כי מלאכה גדולה עשה באסיפתו דברי הגמרא והירושלמי והתוספתא הייתי מאסף עליו אסיפת עם וזקניו וחכמיו כי שנה עלינו הלשונות והמליצות וסבב פני השמועות לפנים אחרים וענינים שונים כו’

He accuses Maimonides of (purposely?) distorting the Torah (or “Megaleh panim batorah [shelo kahalacha]”). And I’m no expert, but it seems the Ra’avad is also on the verge of calling for Maimonides’ excommunication for his crime…

Maimonides, Laws of Repentance 3:7 –

חמשה הן הנקראים מינים כו’ והאומר שיש שם רבון אחד אבל שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה

Five individuals are described as Minim… One who accepts that there is one Master [of the world], but maintains that He has a body or form

Ra’avad ad locum –

 (והאומר שיש שם רבון אחד אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה) א”א ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעות

Ra’avad seems to be saying Maimonides is among the least important of Jews…

As Kessef Mishneh (ad loc.) puts it –

כתב הראב”ד כו’. ויש לתמוה על פה קדוש איך יקרא לאומרים שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה גדולים וטובים ממנו. וכו’.

The Ohr Sameyach (the book, not the Yeshiva!) simply emends the text to read “Me’amanu \ מעמנו (from our nation)”. But no manuscript supports that correction.

Any half-serious student of “Mishneh Torah” has seen many similar comments by Ra’avad (though most are not so severe).

You have probably already decided the Ra’avad’s attacks are personal, huh? Not so fast! Yad Malachi (“Klalaei Harambam” No. 43) attempts to address the topic –

הראב”ד ז”ל בהשגותיו לא כיוון בהם למעט בכבוד הרמב”ם חלילה לרבנן קדישי כוותייהו אלא חשף הראב”ד את זרוע קדשו לחלוק עליו בכח אמיץ בכמה גופי הלכות כי היכי דלא ליסרכו כולי עלמא בתריה ללמוד וללמד בדעות מעל ספר המורה וכיוצא בו (…)

ומכאן תשובה נגד שלשלת הקבלה שכתב כי הראב”ד לא השיגו כאוהב ומבקש דעתו זולתי כאויב ומספר גנות הרמב”ם דליתא כו’

Translation: The Ra’avad in his emendations did not attempt to lessen the honor of Maimonides, perish the thought regarding such great sages. Rather he went to holy battle to disprove various Halachic views in order that the public not blindly follow Maimonides as regards his opinions in “Moreh Hanevuchim”, and the like.

This is the correct response to “Shalsheles Hakabbala” who claimed that the Ra’avad did not correct [Maimonides] as a friend, seeking out [Maimonides’] true intent, but as an enemy, and a libeler…

The Yad Malachi ends off, however, noting that the Ra’avad never even saw the “Moreh Hanevuchim”, and doesn’t ever comment on those views others found so controversial, in “Yesodei Hatorah” and the like. The opposition to the Madda might be the realm of others including Rabbenu Yechiel, Rabbenu Yona, Rabbi Meir Halevi, but not the Ra’avad.

So what’s the score so far?

What we are left with is the convincing comment by Shalsheles Hakabbala, and an attempted rebuttal demolished by its own author. The only point left in place is the sheer incongruousness of the holy Ra’avad doing any such thing. But how can we deny the evidence of our eyes?!

A better theory might be that he feared the “Mishneh Torah” would supplement the study of Gemara, or that Maimonides ought to have quoted his sources. Following is the proof-text often quoted in support of this position:

From Maimonides’ Introduction to Mishneh Torah –

ובזמן הזה תקפו הצרות יתירות, כו’. לפיכך, אותם הפירושים וההלכות והתשובות שחברו הגאונים, וראו שהם דברים מבוארים, נתקשו בימינו, ואין מבין עניניהם כראוי, אלא מעט במספר. ואין צריך לומר הגמרא עצמה, הבבלית והירושלמית, וספרא וספרי והתוספתא, שהם צריכין דעת רחבה, ונפש חכמה, וזמן ארוך, ואחר כך יוודע מהם הדרך הנכוחה בדברים האסורים והמותרים, ושאר דיני התורה, היאך הוא:

 ומפני זה שנסתי מתני, אני משה בן מיימון הספרדי, ונשענתי על הצור, ברוך הוא, ובינותי בכל אלו הספרים, וראיתי לחבר דברים המתבררים מכל אלו החיבורים, בענין האסור והמותר, הטמא והטהור, עם שאר דיני התורה, כולם בלשון ברורה, ודרך קצרה, עד שתהא תורה שבעל פה כולה, סדורה בפי הכל, בלא קושיא ולא פירוק. לא זה אומר בכה וזה בכה, אלא דברים ברורים, קרובים, נכונים, על פי המשפט אשר יתבאר מכל אלו החיבורים והפירושים, הנמצאים מימות רבינו הקדוש ועד עכשיו, עד שיהיו כל הדינין גלויין לקטן ולגדול, בדין כל מצוה ומצוה, ובדין כל הדברים שתיקנו חכמים ונביאים. כללו של דבר, כדי שלא יהא אדם צריך לחיבור אחר בעולם, בדין מדיני ישראל, אלא יהא חיבור זה מקבץ לתורה שבעל פה כולה, כו’

At this time, we have been beset by additional difficulties, etc. Therefore, those explanations, laws, and replies which the Geonim composed and considered to be fully explained material have become difficult to grasp in our age, and only a select few comprehend these matters in the proper way. Needless to say, [there is confusion] with regard to the Talmud itself – both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds – the Sifra, the Sifre, and the Tosefta, for they require a breadth of knowledge, a spirit of wisdom, and much time, for appreciating the proper path regarding what is permitted and forbidden, and the other laws of the Torah.

Therefore, I girded my loins – I, Moses, the son of Maimon, of Spain. I relied upon the Rock, blessed be He. I contemplated all these texts and sought to compose [a work which would include the conclusions] derived from all these texts regarding the forbidden and the permitted, the impure and the pure, and the remainder of the Torah’s laws, all in clear and concise terms, so that the entire Oral Law could be organized in each person’s mouth without questions or objections.

Instead of [arguments], this one claiming such and another such, [this text will allow for] clear and correct statements based on the judgments that result from all the texts and explanations mentioned above, from the days of Rabbenu Hakadosh until the present. [This will make it possible] for all the laws to be revealed to both those of lesser stature and those of greater stature, regarding every single mitzvah, and also all the practices that were ordained by the Sages and the Prophets. To summarize: [The intent of this text is] that a person will not need another text at all with regard to any Jewish law. Rather, this text will be a compilation of the entire Oral Law, etc.

A comment by Ra’avad –

א”א, סבר לתקן ולא תיקן, כי הוא עזב דרך כל המחברים אשר היו לפניו, כי הם הביאו ראיה לדבריהם, וכתבו הדברים בשם אומרם, והיה לו בזה תועלת גדולה, כי פעמים רבות יעלה על לב הדיין לאסור או להתיר, וראייתו ממקום אחד, ואילו ידע כי יש גדול ממנו, הפליג שמועתו לדעה אחרת, היה חוזר בו. ועתה לא אדע למה אחזור מקבלתי ומראייתי בשביל חבורו של זה המחבר. אם החולק עלי גדול ממני, הרי טוב, ואם אני גדול ממנו, למה אבטל דעתי מפני דעתו. ועוד, כי יש דברים שהגאונים חולקים זה על זה, וזה המחבר בירר דברי האחד וכתבם בחיבורו, ולמה אסמוך אני על ברירתו, והיא לא נראית בעיני, ולא אדע החולק עמו, אם הוא ראוי לחלוק אם לא. אין זה אלא כל קבל די רוח יתירא ביה

But that theory is altogether arbitrary. Who says this one remark is a primer and account for all his thousands of other comments?!

By the way, cf. Kessef Mishneh and others for answers to Ra’avad’s statement.

What’s going on? Is the Ra’avad truly battling Maimonides as an enemy? I have come across several contemporary authors who certainly see it that way. They denounce any and all aggressive remarks in Torah study and point to Ra’avad III as their example. “He tried to fight dirty against the Rambam (Maimonides)”, they say, “but guess what? He lost; the Rambam won. We rule like the Rambam in almost every case of a dispute between them! History has made a mockery of him. So there!”

Here’s a quote from Rav Pe’alim’s introduction –

It’s time for some answers:

Writes the Chazon Ish (Yoreh De’ah 150:14) –

כל כונת הראב”ד היתה לתקן את ס’ היד שתהיינה שם כל הלכות של כל התורה מסודרות והרבה פעמים מפרש דברי הר”מ ומבארם ופעמים שמבכר דעת הר”מ על דעתו וכמש”כ בפ”ז מה’ פרה ה”ג ובפ”ה ה”ה שם, ולפיכך הוא משיג אפילו בדברים שהן בשיקול הדעת אף שיש לו לישב גם דעת הר”מ

Translation: The sole intention of the Ra’avad was to improve the [Mishneh Torah] book so that all the laws of the entire Torah would be structured within. This is why he often clarifies Maimonides’ intention and expounds it. Occasionally Ra’avad even prefers Maimonides’ view over his own. Cf. Laws of Parah 7:3, and 5:5 there. This is why he comments even on matters of subjective judgment (“Shikul Hada’as”), although [Ra’avad] could just as easily have resolved the problems in Maimonides’ view.

The Chazon Ish means to address our very problem. He demonstrates the Ra’avad’s intention was to complement the Mishneh Torah, not to demolish it.

This approach is also supported from Kessef Mishneh, Laws of Vows 1:15 –

ובאמת כי נוראות נפלאתי על אדוננו הראב”ד אשר דרכו לבא בסופה ובסערה נגד רבינו במקומות אחרים אשר תירוצם מצוי, ובמקום הזה שבקיה לרגזנותיה, ודבר בנחת לומר שאין דברים הללו מחוורים אצלו ושטעה בפירוש הגמ’ כאילו אין כאן קושיא כי אם חילוק פירוש בגמ’ ושלא נתחוור לו הפירוש ההוא, והדבר ברור לכל מעיין כי דברי רבינו מרפסין איגרא ואין להם שום קיום והעמדה ע”פ הגמ’ בשום פירוש שיפרש.

In other words, Kessef Mishneh assumes the vociferousness of the attacks to be an accurate reflection of the level of true difficulty or disagreement. Understand this well.

Regarding the part about Maimonides’ being a “lesser Jew” (per Ra’avad’s remark on the Laws of Repentance 3:7), the Chazon Ish parenthetically resolves this gracefully elsewhere (Ibidem 62:21, end) –

ומש”כ הראב”ד ז”ל [כפי נוסחת הספרים] וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו כו’ האי “ממנו” ר”ל ממנו עם ישראל

Basically, “Mimenu” can mean both “From him”, and “From us”.

As for Ra’avad’s general “tone”, read the ‘back and forth’ dispute by letter between Ra’avad and Razah (regarding Bava Metzia 98b). It is partially quoted in “Shitta Mekubetzes” (ibidem), as it appears in a separate book known as “Divrei Rivos”  (toward the end) –

אל יקשה בעיניך כל מה שתראה בה כו’

The gist of the Ra’avad’s defense of his attitude is that that is how he normally speaks and he means no offense. The same can be said for nearly all of Ra’avad’s creations.

This understanding also complies with what we know about the Ra’avad’s presumed agreement with Maimonides whenever he does not explicitly differ (as demonstrated further on by Yad Malachi, ibidem). If the Ra’avad is being polemical, why ever would that be the case? [The Chazon Ish himself and others don’t actually impute any such passage as being Ra’avad’s (for obvious reasons) but the general idea of co-authorship is certainly not far from the truth.]

Not incidentally, the Ra’avad was much older than Maimonides (cf. Tashbetz responsa 1:72), and most likely considered Maimonides a student of his. This is strictly Halachically speaking; not that either physically studied under the other’s tutelage.

I should add that the above conclusion also accords with my tradition from my teachers.

Those who have republished Mishneh Torah sans Ra’avad’s comments (such as Mechon Mamre) seem to implicitly view them negatively. Perhaps they ought to reconsider.

For further research, see Rabbi Yosef Kapach’s introduction to Mishneh Torah and the “Mossad” editor’s intro to the Ra’avad’s responsa.

(The translations of Mishneh Torah are directly from Rabbi Eliyahu Touger, here.)

The Added Word

“Ohr Hachaim” is a popular Torah commentary by Rabbi Chaim ibn Attar. At the beginning of Parshas Vayeilech, he writes a comment which seems to be based on a nonexistent word in the text of the Torah.

Ohr Hachaim (Deuteronomy 31:1, end) –

(וידבר את (כל) הדברים וגו’,) אומרו את (כל) הדברים, להעיר שהגם שהגיע יום פטירתו כאומרו כו’, אף על פי כן היה בו כח היכול דבר כל הדברים הנאמרים מכאן ועד סוף הספר, מה שאין כח בזולתו עשות כן, בין בכח הגופיי בין בכח השכל.

Translation: “And spoke (all) these things etc.” The reason the Torah states “(All) these things” is to make us aware that even though Moshe’s life was ending, as it says etc., nevertheless he had the power to say all the words mentioned from here until the end of the book, something which is impossible for anyone else to manage, whether physically or mentally.

The original verse, in fact, states just –

וילך משה וידבר את הדברים האלה אל כל ישראל.

Moshe went and spoke these things to all Israel.

As can be seen in the Hebrew text copied above, the text as quoted by Rabbi Attar differs sharply from the universal account found in all Torah scrolls. Our version is not “All these things” but simply “these things”. No “Kol hadevarim” to be seen or heard!

This is neither typographical error nor a simple “Slip of the Pen” (see here). Indeed, the entire thought expressed here by the Ohr Hachaim’s author rests on the added word. The publishers, dimly aware of the problem, shed some light on matters by encircling the superfluous “Kol” in parentheses. But did they go far enough? It rather seems they ought to have placed the whole passage in parentheses.

In our time similar errata throughout Torah scholarship might be better suited to a separate, special volume.

Perhaps Rabbi Attar mistakenly transferred the “Kol” at the end of the verse (“El kol yisrael“) to the beginning instead: “Es kol hadevarim (sic)”. The access to printed volumes of the Pentateuch (Chumashim) was far more limited at that period, and Rabbi Attar might have misremembered. Rabbi Attar lived from 1696 to 1743 and worked on “Ohr Hachaim” in Morroco.

I hesitate to jump to any conclusions, particularly since I have not had the opportunity to peruse any new editions or super-commentaries on Ohr Hachaim. I turn to the readers then; what do you know about this? Can you help me out?

Garden Path Sentences

Some more linguistics coming up…

The Aramaic noun ‘Latusa’ literally means a curse. In the Gemara, we often find the noun used as a verb (Layit).

The term can mean either real cursing or just condemning. Cursing always refers to an actual person, while condemnation can be of both persons and ideas.

Throughout Shas one can find the verb of ‘layit’ joined up with either “Alah” or “Aman”, but not both. Alah means on that (object), Aman means whoever (person).

So “Layit ala” is “he denounced… (An idea)”, and “Layit aman” is “he cursed\denounced… (Whoever would do something)”.

Here are some examples of each:

‘Alah’: Ta’anis 29b; Shabbos 120b; Kiddushin 33b.

‘Aman’: Berachos 13b; ibidem 15a.

Only in two places (Yes, I did a computer search) are both used together, and both are on Berachos 29.

The first is on Berachos 29a —

לייט עלה אביי אמאן דמצלי הביננו (במתא)

The second is on Berachos 29b —

לייטי עלה במערבא אמאן דמצלי עם דמדומי חמה

Take the first piece for example. One can say “Abaye condemned Havinenu”, or “Abaye condemned whoever prays Havinenu”. What doesn’t work is: “Abaye condemned regarding it whoever prays Havinenu” (sic). The second case has the same problem.

This is more than just wordiness (see Iggros Chazon Ish 1:30); it’s also vague: Which is correct? Is the act being condemned or are the individuals carrying it out?

The Schottenstein Edition (both English and Hebrew), Mesivta, Soncino, and others, understandably ignore the word “Ala”, going straight with ‘Aman’. They all translate the Gemaras something like this:

1. Abaye condemned\cursed whoever would pray “Havinenu (Give us discernment)”.
2. In the west (i.e. Eretz Yisrael) they condemned\cursed whoever would pray Mincha at the last appearance of the sun.

(Excuse me for not explaining these passages more fully. The job would take forever, and I came down with a case of “Analysis Paralysis” after reading Chidushei Maharam Bennet on 29a.)

As anyone who reads my posts already knows, I am no grammarian, but these phrases look like some quasi-form of Dangling Modifier, or rather ‘Garden Path Sentences’.

My answer is not great, but here goes: By using the non-personal “ala”, the Gemara is toning down the condemnation somewhat. Although it goes on to say the direct “Aman”, the Gemara’s voice is now gentler. I am clueless as to why the Gemara is choosing to be mild.

Does anyone have a better answer?

P.S. This is not the venue for addressing practical Halacha on the Havinenu prayer or late Mincha. To investigate further, cf. Tosafos; R’ Chananel; Orach Chaim 110 (and Biur Halacha ad. loc.), etc. on Havinenu, and Pri Chadash Orach Chaim (end of Chap. 89) regarding late Mincha.

The Vowels in G-d’s Name

You are happily learning Tanach (scripture), and suddenly you bump into a vague combination of G-d’s names; something like this (Samuel B 7:22) —

עַל כֵּן גָּדַלְתָּ אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה כִּי אֵין כָּמוֹךָ וְאֵין אֱלֹהִים זוּלָתֶךָ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְנוּ בְּאָזְנֵינוּ.

Outside Israel, your early teachers probably told you to ignore all and every permutation of orthography in G-d’s Four-Letter Name. Follow tradition and read “Adonoy” \ “Adonai” (called “Adnus”), they said. This doesn’t always work, however, and this here is a prime example.

We have ourselves a clear mention of Adnus followed by YHVH. Should we read the verse as “Adonoy Adonoy”? Reading this way doesn’t even make sense in the context. What are we supposed to do?

If you possess some experience, you are aware that G-d’s Adnus name is repeated only twice in scripture. You may also remember how the piece in question was read in the synagogue for Torah or Haftarah. Then again, how can the Reader himself recognize what to do? No, there’s no rule that when preceded by Adnus, it is read as Elokim. Is there some way to always tell for sure?

Yes. Some of you are already familiar with it, but many might not be – until now.

YHVH is usually pronounced as “Adonoy”.

When preceded by another letter (כלב), the Adnus spelling is explicit (Patach, Cholam, Kametz), with a silent Aleph, cf. Joshua 22:22, Psalms 11:1, Genesis 4:3 —

 אֵל אֱלֹהִים יְהֹוָה אֵל אֱלֹהִים יְהֹוָה הוּא יֹדֵעַ וְיִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא יֵדָע אִם בְּמֶרֶד וְאִם בְּמַעַל בַּיהֹוָה אַל תּוֹשִׁיעֵנוּ הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה.

לַמְנַצֵּחַ לְדָוִד בַּיהֹוָה חָסִיתִי אֵיךְ תֹּאמְרוּ לְנַפְשִׁי {נוּדִי} הַרְכֶם צִפּוֹר.

וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ יָמִים וַיָּבֵא קַיִן מִפְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה מִנְחָה לַיהֹוָה.

Still, most mentions of the Four-Letter Name of G-d, YHVH, are laden with the vowel points: Shva, Cholam, and Kametz. There is a good reason for this.

The original Adnus is actually supposed to begin with a Shva. Since the Alef of Adonoy cannot be voweled with a Shva, it is given a Chataf-Patach instead. In its YHVH form, it reverts back to the Shva. Kametz never appears two consonants away from the accent: אָדון is fine; אָדוני is not.

By the way, this demonstrates the abysmal ignorance of Bible critics and some Christians who separate G-d into several deities based on the varying names, when in truth the spelling reveals that they are one and the same. In fact, the Kabbalists actually combine the two names for mystical purposes.

Some Cursedian sects already pronounce the name as “Jehovah”… (Their full names may definitely be blotted out!)

The vowels are always guideposts!

Take another example (Psalms 71:16) —

אָבוֹא בִּגְבֻרוֹת אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה אַזְכִּיר צִדְקָתְךָ לְבַדֶּךָ.

Look closely at the vowels on YHVH. We see a Chataf-Segol, a Cholam, and then a Chirik. Can you think of any other word containing the same spelling? That’s right; YHVH now holds the precise diacritics for the word “Elokim”. This tells us not to read this as Adnus, but as Elokim.

OK, your turn! How do we read these verses (Samuel B 7:29, Ezekiel 28:6)?

וְעַתָּה הוֹאֵל וּבָרֵךְ אֶת בֵּית עַבְדְּךָ לִהְיוֹת לְעוֹלָם לְפָנֶיךָ כִּי אַתָּה אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה דִּבַּרְתָּ וּמִבִּרְכָתְךָ יְבֹרַךְ בֵּית עַבְדְּךָ לְעוֹלָם.

לָכֵן כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה יַעַן תִּתְּךָ אֶת לְבָבְךָ כְּלֵב אֱלֹהִים.

You get the idea. But some editions don’t realize this (or are designed for fools). Here’s a quote from the introduction of the Koren English translation of 1982 —

THE NAME OF THE LORD: In all other editions the name of the Lord JHVH is printed with nikkud (vowels) which may mislead the reader to read this name as it is strictly forbidden to do. The name of the Lord has to be read in “Adonoot”. In the Koren edition the name is printed without vowels: this eliminates the possibility of the forbidden reading and emphasizes the holiness of this name.

They still follow the same rule in 1992 (the Hebrew IDF edition) —

שם הוי”ה בא בספר בלא ניקוד, כדי למנוע חילול השם על ידי קריאה לא נכונה, לפי הניקוד.

I think most versions of scripture leave the vowels as is, but I presently lack other editions nearby to compare. Based on an informal survey I conducted, this is a mystery to even some scholars. I even found pocket editions of Psalms introduced with a guide to assist the reader in the correct vocalization of several “complex” instances of G-d’s names appearing in Psalms!

A Slip of the Pen

Not every mistake is the printer’s fault. Some carry the author’s “handwriting” on them.

The Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 180:1 says one should not remove the tablecloth and bread until after Benching.

Magen Avraham en site says as follows —

 (אין להסיר), דהברכה אינה שורה אלא כשיש שם דבר כענין אלישע ושונמית.

“This is because blessing does not rest except where there is something, as seen by Elisha and the Shunamis”.

Now if you examine the account of Elisha seemingly referred to by the Magen Avraham, you will notice it happened with the wife of Obadiah, not the Shunamite women. A wife of Elisha’s deceased student was in debt, and he performed a miracle by filling borrowed vessels with oil. The point being, had no oil been present, to begin with, the miracle could never have occurred. Refer to Kings B, beginning of Chapter 4.

The story with Shunamis happens immediately afterward, in which Elisha revives a different women’s dead son (Kings B 4:8-37).

It seems like the Magen Avraham harmlessly confused the two stories.

But the Pri Megadim (ad. loc.) held otherwise. After raising the above problem, he surmises the Magen Avraham’s intention is as follows:

By saying “Elisha”, the Magen Avraham indeed refers to the story with the oil. By saying “and the Shunamis” he means to quote the source for the second law in the Shulchan Aruch; the one saying one should leave over some of the food as a sign of blessing. See, there was a third anecdote at the end of the chapter (ibidem 42-44), in which it mentions leaving over some leftovers of the food. This happened after the Shunamis story.

His theory seems quite forced and doesn’t fit the actual language used by our edition of the Magen Avraham. Besides, if that was the intent, wouldn’t that require the Magen Avraham to put the “the Shunamis” phrase under new heading and numbering?

We apparently have ourselves a “Slip of the Pen”(Lapsus Calami in Latin).

One of my Rabbis once told me he saw an older print of the Meiri’s commentary on the following Mishna in Pesachim (49a) —

ההולך לשחוט את פסחו ולמול את בנו כו’

Rabbi Menachem Meiri’s version, however, stated: “One who goes to slaughter his son and circumcise his Paschal Lamb”…!

The above is almost certainly not a printer’s error because a printer’s thought processes do not contribute to that kind of switch.

Here’s an example of a more complicated lookalike of an L.C. found in the Mishna Berurah 54:9:

יש ליזהר כשלומדים משניות יאמרו בסוף הלימוד המאמר דר’ חנניא בן עקשיא וכדומה כדי שיהיו יוכלו (יכולים) לומר עי”ז אח”כ הקדיש דרבנן

“One ought to be meticulous when learning Mishanyos to quote the remark of Rabbi Chananya son of Akashia or the like so that they are they may be (permitted to) thereby say the Rabbi’s Kaddish afterward”.

What happened here is pretty obvious. Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan (known as the Chafetz Chaim) wavered between “they are permitted” and “they may”. His editorial indecision combined with a lack of proofreading led to both his ideas being memorialized…

Nevertheless, newer editions of the Mishna Berurah simply note a correction at the foot of the page. Zero explanation of the typo’s “Anatomy” is given. Nor do they bother presenting any proof or explanation for their own rendering. Go figure. I detected many other incidents just like it in the Mishna Berurah. Are certain editors more prone to the (real or imaginary) “Hashakafa” aspects of considering such things? No Halacha is being altered (yet)!

The applied lesson for editors is clear.

Not every mistake really happened at the printer, and noticing [and fixing] them requires an open mind.