Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

   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
>