[b-hebrew] re Num 32:42

Uri Hurwitz uhurwitz at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 28 17:41:04 EDT 2008

   Also missing in my old Leteris edition, where he notes:  
"He rafah" -'a soft He' as an irregularity.

   The "Lah" persumably refers to KENAT in the F., and should indeed have had a mapiq.

   Simply a scribal error. Notice however  "Ethen" in the previous verse. The MT was based here on a difficult earlier text/s.

   Uri Hurwitz

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 mailing list