> the form HF$IBBO:LIYM in Genesis 41.24. Is there a specific reason
> for there being no daghesh in the shin? Is there an explanation for
> such a difference in tradition and what is the significance of the
> BHS reading?
The BHS footnote implies that it's a peculiarity of manuscript "L" (B19a);
note that the footnote says "mlt" instead of "nonn" ;-)
I'm not aware of any phonological reason why the consonant _shin_
would be given a "guttural" treatment in this context...