1Unless otherwise stated, restorations follow Schwemer 2001: 666f. For lines 3-4, see Sm.1117, rev. 8ˊ-9ˊ (P425755).

2See Schwemer 2001: 667, n.5528 for alternative restorations at the head of the line. The restoration of manzāzu near the end of the line is my own suggestion, based on the parallel cited in CAD Š/2, 62-63.

3For suggested restorations, see Schwemer 2001: 667, n.5530.

4Schwemer 2001: 667 suggests restoring ARAD-ka in the first gap and ak-mis in the second.

5See Schwemer 2001: 667, n.5531 for ideas about restoring the line.

6The restoration is conjectural; compare Schwemer 2001: 667 (as above) and Ebeling 1953: 100, who leaves out the prepositional phrase.

7The restored U is on King's copy but not (no longer?) on the tablet.

8Foster 2005: 638 and Seux 1976: 309 are probably correct in seeing "rain and hailstones" as part of a prepositional phrase that began in the break. Only "lightning (and) fire" are the subjects of the verb in the next line.

9The reconstruction of lines 25-26 follows Schwemer 2001: 667. For a different attempt at the lines, see Ebeling 1953: 100.

10Schwemer thinks there is only room for one small sign at the end of this and the previous line, and thus rejects the reconstructions of Ebeling (KI-ia; 1953: 100) and Seux (à toi, which is presumably, -ka; 1976: 309). He suggests we read a-ta-ta-ma-[a], understood as atâta-mā (2ms predicative from atû, "to find," with an interrogatory particle), and translates: "where are you to be found?" (2001: 668, n.5533). This is possible, but not compelling. I think there is room on the tablet for the signs suggested in the other reconstructions. Note that the next couple of lines require at least two signs in their reconstruction. What to do with a-ta-ta-ma-[x (x)] before the gap in both lines is not at all clear. We expect an imperative (see Ebeling 1953: 101, "zeige dich(?) [bei mir]") or first person verb (see Seux 1976: 309, "je me suis adressé à toi," and Foster 2005: 638, "I invoke you"). In the latter case, perhaps the word derives from amû, "to speak"; see CAD A/2, 86, which identifies our text as a I/4 (?!) from this root. However, none of these options is compelling to my mind.

11King's copy indicates a trace of a sign after KI and before the DINGIR. Like Schwemer 2001: 668, n.5535, I do not see it on the tablet.

12Restorations typically follow Schwemer 2001: 669-671, which are also reflected in Abusch and Schwemer 2016: 319-320 in all but a few cases.

13Schwemer 2001: 669 restores ir-ti-šu in the gap. There is no room for such a restoration in the following line (with the same expression), so one wonders if it should be restored here. Abusch and Schwemer 2016: 320 suggest instead GABA-šu₂.

14Schwemer 2001: 669 restores [mu-ger(?)]-⸢ri, "the one who overwhelms."

15Schwemer 2001: 669, n.5539 restores [sa-ʾi(?)]-⸢i-di, "the one who smites," in the gap.

16The sign before DU may be MAR or RAD. Abusch and Schwemer 2016: 320 conjecture m[uš?-te-zib? ra]d?-du-t[i?, "who [saves the per]secuted" (321), at the head of the line.

17Schwemer 2001: 669 suggests: [... mu]-de-e dan-ni qar-da-me ⸤iš]-[gi-iš(?)], "[. . . who kn]ows the strong, he destroyed the adver[sary]," which is possible. But, do we expect a finite verb here?

18Based on the number of lines at the top of the rev., the bottom of the obv. is missing about 8 lines.

19Schwemer restores [DINGIR.MEŠ(?) GAL?.M]EŠ at the head of the line (2001: 669) and notes Ebeling's restoration as questionable (670, n.5541; as does Seux 1976: 310, n.1): [nap-ḫar DINGIR.M]EŠ, "[all of the god]s" (Ebeling 1953: 102).

20Schwemer 2001: 670 restores [AN-e (u KI-tim)] at the end of the line.

21Schwemer 2001: 670 restores [ana qi₂-bi-ti-ka] at the end of the line.

22The restoration follows the suggestion of Schwemer 2001: 670.

23Schwemer 2001: 670 restores [{d}a-num LUGAL(?) š]u-ut the head of the line. The LUGAL is without a question mark in Abusch and Schwemer 2016: 320.

24Schwemer 2001: 670 restores [{d}EN.LIL₂] at the end of the line.

25Schwemer 2001: 670 restores [{d}e₂-a LUGAL] at the head of the line. Abusch and Schwemer 2016: 320 suggest restoring [iš-ruk-ka(?)], "granted you" (321), at the line's end.

26Schwemer reasonably suggests restoring the line with a verb from ḫalāpu (D) or labāšu (Š).

27Schwemer 2001: 670 suggests restoring p[u?-luḫ-ta(?)] at the end of the line.

28UŠ₁₁ UŠ₁₁ UŠ₁₁ is a short-hand for kišpū, ruḫû, and rusû (see Borger 2003: 258).

29A tiny part of a horizontal wedge on the lower right hand corner of the IA is visible.

30Schwemer 2001: 671 suggests restoring [ina MU(?)], "by name," at the head of the line.

31See Schwemer 2001: 675, n.5570 for the reading and the issues in this line. Like other translators, I have not found sense in these lines.

32Schwemer 2001: 676 restores [MAḪ?].[MEŠ⸥?, "are august," here rather than Ebeling's [kab-tu], "weighty" (1953: 104) or Seux's [DU₁₀.GA], "good." I await a duplicate to solve the problem.

33See Schwemer 2001: 676, n.5573 for the issues in this line. How to understand the first word, which is likely a verb, is not clear. Schwemer rightly rejects King's copy in BMS, which read the third full sign in the line as an IṢ. Subsequent translators restored the line and read [t]u-ša₂-am-iṣ, "you reduced, made small," presumably for [t]ušmīṣ (see, e.g., Ebeling 1952: 104; Seux 1976: 312; and Foster 2005: 639 ["relieved"]; but compare King 1896: 79, [...]-ša-am iz-[...]). The tablet clearly shows a MA. After considering various derivations for [t]u/[t]a-ša₂-am-ma, Schwemer reasonably suggests an emendation: [t]u?-ša₂-am-ma-<aḫ?> (2001: 676), "you cause . . . to flourish." The following sign may be A[B], which is followed by a gap of one (less likely two) sign(s), and then [T]I. Restorations vary: ab-[tu]-ti (mp) or ab-[ta-a]-ti (fp), "ruins" (Ebeling 1953: 104-105; Seux 1976: 312); ab-[la-a]-ti (Seux 1976: 312, his preferred reading) or a[b?-lu?]-ti, "dry (places)" (Schwemer 2001: 676; note Foster 2005: 639). Until a duplicate can adjudicate the options, I tentatively follow Schwemer's reading. One wonders if what is read A[B] might be a poorly formed Ḫ[A]. This would introduce a great range of possibilities for restoring the following noun, [x (x)]-ti.

34Who is "the angry (one)"? CAD S, 92 suggests a deity. How do the two parts of this line fit together?

35The photograph suggests the scribe may have left out the right half (ŠU₂) part of the EN₂ sign. King’s copy suggests the same.