[b-hebrew] Num. 32:42
him at vadimcherny.org
Sun Aug 3 07:46:53 EDT 2008
Could it be that hey in lah is similar to hey in Shulamita from the Song
She's ha-Shulamita, not a proper name but "the one who belongs to
Shlomo" with hey relating the direction-like (aspiring) possession.
Consider the difference between v.v. 41 and 42: ethen vs. lah. To name
villages, the author uses preposition ethen. IMO, hey in lah is
destinative suffix (like in baita) rather than feminine. 32:42 goes
about multiple objects, so single feminine lah is unlikely. IMO,
bnoteiha refers to built-up area rather than strictly villages, thus
destinative suffix. Just a guess for the lack of a better explanation.
Yigal Levin wrote:
> Dear All,
> Does anyone have any idea why there is no mappiq in the last letter of the word LH, third word from last in Num. 32:42? The mappiq is missing in both BHS and in the Aleppo-based Breuer prints.
> Yigal Levin
More information about the b-hebrew