1We expect something like muš-te-šir, "who administers justice to," at the head of the line but there is no room for it. Perhaps SI.SA₂? Ebeling restores an invocation of Shamash, {d}UTU (1955: 144).

2For the action in this line, see CAD Ṣ, 165-166.

3Several signs look to be written over a poorly executed erasure.

4The personal name determinative is missing in Ebeling's copy. The 15 looks like 14/KU₃ in Ebeling's copy. See the collation notes in Mayer 2008: 104 (reference via eBL). For such personal names, see CAD P, 513.

5I am not sure what to do with ana KUR₂ ina KUR in this line. I wonder if the phrase is a scribal usage to mark something like "to change when complete" (ana nakāri ina kašādi) because it does not fit the context well and the next line seems to have been squeezed into the text. Ebeling attempts to fit it into the context (1955: 147), "(dessen) der, indem er in Feindschaft sich nahte."

6The script is much smaller in this line, which is also slightly indented.

7After the identification of evil, we expect the stock phrase of first person predicatives, pal-ha-ku-ma ad-rak u šu-ta-du-rak, "I am afraid, I am scared, and I am terrified," instead of the nominative adjectives that we have here. Compare, e.g., the text of Nabu 2, attested in LKA 40a (P413952), obv. 14-18.

8What is read as KI-ka here is a mistake. The scribe may have been thinking of language such as rēmu gimillu bašû ittīka, "mercy (and) favor belong to you," and wrote the wrong signs. Looking at the tablet, I wonder if the scribe wrote a couple of signs and then erased them incompletely. However we explain that matter, the two second person predicatives, one at the end of the last line and one at the head of the present one, seem out of place. (Note the duplicate lines in Sm.1155, obv. 9ˊ.) It seems to me that this scribe has made a bit of a mess in lines 14-20.

9Ebeling suggests reading/restoring the end of the line as follows: ana [pūhīya addinu], "(which) [I gave] as [my substitute]" (1955: 146). The above reading follows a suggestion in CAD B, 319. If there is a ritual transfer going on here, as suspected, then the name here would be different than the name in obv. 13. The vertical wedge taken here as the personal name determinative does not look to be the beginning of NENNI, as suggested on eBL. The obverse looks to have one line blank (or a significantly indented line) before the lower edge.

10Ebeling treated this line as part of the obverse and then indicated that the rest of the obverse is broken (see KAR 258 and Ebeling 1955: 146). This line, however, is written on the corner of the lower edge of the tablet. The line looks to parallel VAT 14035: 6ˊ (= KAL 4, no. 8 = P499668).

11The first sign in the line looks like a LU (compare the first sign of the following line). Ebeling's copy seems to suggest that he saw a broken ŠA (but I see no trace of the required Winkelhaken; compare the sign of the following line). Ebeling's transliteration gives both signs: lu ša (1955: 146), which perhaps mistakenly inscribes his own vacillation on the correct reading. Ebeling also indicates a single ruling below this line. But the faint line is more likely the scribe's guideline and not a section marker. Compare the single rulings indicated below.

12Maul and Strauß (2011: 37) have proposed reading NE, a logogram for fever (ummi) or fire (išāt), at the head of the line. I owe the reading am-si to CAD Š/1, 417, which makes better sense in context. Rinsing something with water over an item which is to receive a transfer is a common ritual act.

13Ebeling's copy indicates uncertainty about the reading of the first sign, though his transliteration confidently gives the reading u (1955: 146). It looks to me like the scribe mistakenly wrote the sign twice, u u.

14Ebeling's copy shows a ŠAR sign instead of ṢI; his transliteration indicates a scribal mistake here, ṣi(!)-bit (1955: 146). However, what is on the tablet looks to me more like a ṢI than a ŠAR.

15The word munattu indicates both the time of waking and the condition of being awake (CAD M/2, 200). For a recent discussion in light of secondary literature, see Lenzi 2023: 134.

16It looks to me like the scribe accidentally wrote the sign for 7 twice instead of 7 ŠA₂ = NINDA. Ebeling does not read the signs in question in the middle of the line (1955: 148). See CAD S, 227 for NINDA se-⸢e-pi⸣. The sign after KU/ZI₃/ŠE₃ could be a malformed EŠA, in which the scribe left out the A and ŠE element before simply writing NIR. If we read ZI₃.EŠA then we have a fine flour being specified as an ingredient of the bread. The final word is unclear to me. Ebeling (1955: 148) suggested reading ḫas-sa₃-te, translating "[7 Brote] der klugen (Frauen)(?)," but I have no idea what that is supposed to mean here.

17The reading before the break and the restoration follows Ebeling 1955: 148 (in essence), apparently affirmed in CAD T, 416. I cannot confirm the reading with the photographs I have of this area of the tablet. The surface before the break is extremely abraded.

18See CAD Z, 149 for the reading of the beginning of the line.

19I follow Ebeling's reconstruction tentatively (1955: 148); see differently, CAD Z, 111, which puts the image of the male in the next line. I think it is more likely that the text moves from male to female rather than the reverse.

20The material from which the image is made may be lost in the gap at the head of the line. Ebeling suggests the image is to be placed at the patient's head (1955: 148), specified in the second gap of the line.

21I follow Ebeling's restoration tentatively (1955: 148).