<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (Google it), probably the most
accurate girsa of Targumim available, has "l'mis" (the listserve
won't let me attach a screenshot of it, but you can look it up--go
to the "Targum Studies Module"). <br>
<br>
In any case, a lamed before a word can often have a kametz without
it necessarily taking the place of the missing definite article
"ha", especially when it precedes the accented syllable. Examples:
<i>bein mayim lo-moyim </i>(Bereishit 1:6); <i>lo-netzach</i>
(many times, e.g. Yirmiyahu 3:5); <i>lo-zeh</i> (every time it
appears, for example Shmuel Alef 21:12, 25:21), etc. This also
often appears when the lamed is before an infinitive, for example in
<i>lo-ses, lo-ledes, </i>etc. So I think it was probably not a
mistake that changed the meaning of the word. <br>
<br>
Kol tuv<br>
<br>
Ben Kandel<br>
<br>
On 8/29/2010 6:44 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4C7A3A07.1020602@sero.name" type="cite">On
29/08/2010 6:03 AM, Danny Levy wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Indeed there appear to be different
girsaos of Onkelos for l'meis in
<br>
this posuk.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
If you compare several chumashim (of different editions,
obviously, not
<br>
just offsets of each other) you will find several different
girsaos of
<br>
Unkelus. Most people think there's one definitive girsa, because
<br>
they've never done the exercise.
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>