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
>