[b-hebrew] Num. 32:42

David Hamuel davidhamuel at sbcglobal.net
Mon Jul 28 16:39:37 EDT 2008

 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



LAH (lamed, he) may mean the same thing as LO (lamed,
alef; no). See, for example, the commentary to
Num.32:42 By Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (Meir Ben
Baruch, the Maharam of Rothenburg).  Also see Minhat
Shay by Norzi page 325 (Hebrew Title).

Zech 5:11 -- There's no dagesh in the letter bet that
follows, since there's no mappik in the letter he. 
So, he meant to build the shrine but never did it.

Ruth 2:14 -- Instead Boaz said to her; Boaz didn't
speak with her directly.

Num. 32:42 -- Instead renaming it Nobah after himself;
 it wasn't really called Nobah 


David Hamuel
Type Designer 
Biblical Hebrew,  Grammar & Cantillation Expert

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list