1See note on the word qunātu in the introduction.
2See CAD E 100b for other attestations of red-brown elkulla-plant.
3The equation of ZAL with lazāzu may be drawn from the plant list Uruanna, since a similar equation (using ZAL.ZAL rather than just ZAL) is attested in one of its manuscripts, CT 37 27 iii 13 (reference from CAD L 114b). The restoration of the final sign follows Frahm (2011: 69 with n. 327), who suggests that the use of an antonym may have been inspired by the “la” in lazāzu.
4This equation is also attested in a commentary on the lexical list Aa (CCP 6.1.9.B o 16').
5The explanation is otherwise unattested; the restoration and translation follow Frahm (2011: 69 with n. 327), who suggests that le-gu-[u₂] is a Sandhi writing of lā egû.
6As noted by Frahm (2011: 94), this entry seems to be drawn from the plant list Uruanna 3: 251-252, and the same entry appears in another therapeutic text commentary, CCP 4.2.R o 11.
7The commentator seems to have used a known phrase to explain a hapax legomenon.
8The tuḫlu-plant is equated with the maštakal-plant in Uruanna 1 3f (reference from CAD T 454b).
9In Uruanna I 388ff, both the illūru-plant and the nuṣābu-plant are equated with ayyar hurāṣi, “gold flower” (reference from CAD I/J 88a). The equation found here ([il-lu-ur] ⸢EDIN*⸣ : a-a-ar₂ ⸢EDEN⸣ : u₂el-li-⸢pu⸣ […]) can be found in CBS 562 r 7′ (cited in Jiménez & Adalı, ZA 105 (2015) p. 186 fn. 56). Another attestation for the rare illūr-ṣēri is found in BAM 115, rev 9′ [reference courtesy of Henry Stadhouders].
10The nuṣābu-plant is mentioned in the same passage of Uruanna that mentions the illūru-plant, the subject of the commentary in the line before (reference from CAD I 88a and N/2 353a).
11The traces of the first sign of the explanation fit a sign that begins with the element MUNUS. Although ŠU ŠU.DINGIR.RA seems to be a formula otherwise unattested in the medical corpus, it could reflect the view that ŠU.DINGIR.RA was a disease rather than a cause/sender of a disease. Such a view of ŠU.DINGIR.RA – as a disease rather than a divinity – seems to have been typical of therapeutic texts (Heeßel 2007: 122). But cf. the spelling of the title of the base text in the rubric (r 9'), which suggests that ŠU GIDIM was viewed as a divine punishment rather than a disease. Alternatively, the second ŠU may be a scribal error (dittography).
12The tentative reading of the gloss as šek-nu is courtesy of Henry Stadhouders.
13The tentative restoration is based on an entry in the lexical list Antagal Fragment b i 1 f (reference from CAD Š/3 209a).
14For attestations of the phrase GIG gišMA.NU see CAD Ḫ 199b and Schuster-Brandis AOAT 46 (2008) pp. 410-411. The equation, which is otherwise unattested, may be due to the phonetic similarity of hirṣu with kirṣu. The colon that connects the base text with its explanation is written with three wedges instead of the more usual two.
15The TI is written over an erasure. According to Henry Stadhouders (privatim), “ra-an-qí represents the nasalized form of raqqî; since ḫibištu is known for being used in perfumes and unguents we here obviously have an unorthodox spelling for raqqû ‘oil presser, perfume maker’; so ḫ. erēni is explained as the ‘pine of the perfume maker’.”
16The equation should be KAŠ₃ ḪUŠ.A = šīnātu ruššētu (see CAD R 427-428). As noted by Henry Stadhouders (privatim), the scribe may have been led astray because ḪUŠ can have the reading ezzētu. On “red urine” in therapeutic texts see CAD R 429a.
17The first equation is attested in Ura 18 169f = MSL 8/2 124 (reference from CAD Q 51a); the second is attested in Antagal 8 97, albeit in reverse order (reference from CAD H 120b).