The color image strongly suggests that the mark in question is not ink. A געיה right next to סילוק like that would be extraordinary, by the way, though no appeal to expectations is needed to dismiss this possible געיה.

BHQ has no געיה here. I happen to think that this is the best transcription of μL here, but I don’t know whether BHQ arrived at this transcription on purpose or by accident. Did the editors of BHQ consider, but ultimately decide against, the faint possible large געיה? Or did they simply ignore μL entirely, supplying the consensus pointing, which has no געיה?

See my entry on נכר in 34:19 for further discussion.

U — M — μL (page 407B, col 1, line -5 (5 counting from bottom of column)):

μA (Aleppo) (page 279v, col 2, line 13, word 4):

μY (Cambridge 1753) (page 83A, col 2, line 15, word 2):

[p] ← prev   next → [n]