1CAD E 331 suggests that the commentator mistakenly derived šutassuk from esēqu (“to incise”) instead of the correct nasāku (“to throw down”). CAD N2 20, however, does not include the passage sub nasāku (despite suggesting for šussuku in connection with qaqqaru the meaning "to clear the ground"), and on p22f. also not sub nasāqu A, which renders šutassuqu as "to put in order, to make ready, to prepare" (see also p23a, where it is left open whether šutassuk/qu derives from nasāku or nasāqu). AHw 753 lists most of the attestations (but not the one from the commentary) sub nasāqu. The derivation from esēqu suggested by the commentary is not that unreasonable, however, since AMT, pl. 34, 2 (K 6390, Bīt mēseri) mentions the tummu-bītu incantation together with a reference to the drawing of magic circles within a ritual (ll. 1-7, see Wiggermann, Protective Spirits, p. 111-12). Note that A 163(+) (CCP 2.2.1.A.a), the Aššur commentary on “Marduk’s Address” and another Kiṣir-Nabû tablet, includes the rare iṣ-ṣur-tu₂ as well, in an entry that explains giš-hur-ri (ll. 46-47).

2For the house type described here, see Meier, AfO 12, p243.

3Both AHw 1393b und CAD Ṭ 120-21 consider ṭu-bu-su as unclear; a possible connection with d/tuppussû "younger brother, second in rank" remains highly conjectural. karratu in l. 7 is likewise poorly attested. The entry explains obscurum per obscurius.

4AHw 683a translates mušē/īrtu as “Ort des Herabbeugens” (“a place to bow down”) and considers it a kind of window (“eine Art Fenster”). The explanation given for mušē/īrtu in CAD M2 271a (“a demon, lit. she who leans into the window”) fits this context less well.

5The partial duplicate Ass. 13955 ii (CCP 2.1.C), o 14 provides the explanation: [ina^? (x)]tar pa zi n[i?]. The word may be another hapax.

6The exact meaning of barru is unclear (see AHw 107), and whether the explanation ba-ru-<<ru^?>>-nu-u is really to be derived from bārānû remains uncertain as well. Provided the lines are correctly restored, the commentary would explain the words in a sequence that deviates from that in the base text.

7Note the Assyrian subjunctive ending in izzazzūni.

8The restoration suggested by Meier and Reiner for the signs after kī annî, lu gam?-ra-k[u], seems not very plausible; for the time being, the passage remains obscure.

9The two available Šurpu manuscripts render the first word of the line as im-i-ru and i-me-ru, respectively. Reiner does not translate this, but CAD A2 319a is probably right in deriving the word from âru “to go.” The commentator, however, apparently takes it to be a noun, possibly immeru "sheep," and associates it with two very common terms for sacrifices. CAD I 138a lists the passage under imru A "offering."

10The line commented on is again rather obscure. šarāru is also elsewhere equated with alāku, and furthermore with SAG.GÍD.GÍD, inter alia in a commentary from Uruk (for references, see CAD Š/2 57b). The equation in the commentary with ŠÀ.GÍD.GÍD may go back to a mistaken replacement of SAG with ŠÀ; the final šadād libbi (compare ana libbi šadādu) is a literal translation of the individual components of the logogram. The reference to “hitting something” may be an attempt to find a negative meaning in the line, which must indeed refer to some kind of misconduct on the part of the patient.

11Note that the possessive suffix -šu is missing in the Šurpu manuscripts.

12For the Šurpu line, compare Matthew 5:37 and James 5:12; a similar phrase, probably inspired by the verse from Šurpu, is attested in an Esarhaddon inscription (Leichty, RINAP 4, p195 (no. 104), I 21-24). qabītu is otherwise only attested with a preceding lā. CAD Q 3b quotes the commentary entry without offering a translation.

13Meier and Reiner read in l. 44 la qa-bi-[ti/tú], but in light of the Šurpu line commented on (II 15, restored after II 64), a reading lā naṭâtu – which is not excluded by the meager traces – seems to make better sense. Note that KA.NU.GAR.RA is nowhere attested in connection with lā qabītu (see CAD Q 3), while the very similar NÍG.NU.GAR.RA does occur together with lā naṭâtu (see CAD N/2 130b); both logograms are, moreover, attested for nullâtu (see CAD N2 333-34). Compare nullâtu = lā kittu in the Theodicy commentary (CCP 1.4) r 35’.

14The explanation remains unclear; it seems unlikely, but is not entirely excluded, that the line begins with a reference to Gilgameš.

15In the Šurpu commentary CCP 2.1.B from Nineveh (o i 10), šipāru, which is rare and only attested in literary and religious texts, is likewise equated with the more common puḫru.

16The city of Bubê, located in the border region to Elam (note the Elamite gods mentioned in the following line), is poorly known; the deity most often associated with it is Sakkud. The goddess Anunītu was worshipped in Sippar and Akkad; why she is linked in the commentary to Bubê remains unclear. The Eulmaš was the traditional Ištar sanctuary in Akkad.

17The two available manuscripts of the base text have šur-bu-tu₂ instead of šu?-pu?#-te. The three Elamite deities mentioned in this line are also known from the Underworld Vision of an Assyrian Prince (SAA 3, p74, r 25), where they guard an Assyrian ruler, apparently Sennacherib, in the netherworld. Hinz, JNES 24 (1965), 353-54 has argued that the missing divine determinative in napruš indicates a knowledge on the part of the scribe that napru/iš was an Elamite epithet of Ḫumba(n) and meant “great god,” but the commentary clearly considers it a divine name, to be identified with Ea. The names of the three deities are also explained in CCP 2.1.B, o i 1-3, with the same equations but an additional note indicating that they are all Elamite.

18For the colophon, see Hunger, BAK, no. 210. The phraseology used is not entirely clear as to whether Kiṣir-Nabû actually wrote the commentary, but since no other scribe is mentioned, it seems likely that he did. The colophon of the partial duplicate Ass. 13955 ii (CCP 2.1.A) refers to Kiṣir-Nabû as well and is very similar; the syllabic writing a-na a-ma-ri-šú that it provides instead of a-na IGI.DU₈.A-šú indicates that the latter is not to be read ana tāmartišu.