BM 38425 (Bab. 5)

i' 6'–7': We take UD ZI to stand for ūm(u₄) nīši(zi), where nīši alludes to nīš libbi “arousal”. – taššiqa: Parsing taš-ši-KA from našāku “to bite” is highly unlikely, especially as the vocalization of this verb is virtually always (a/u). Notwithstanding the use of the sign KA – one expects QA – this verbal form must be analyzed as našāqu (i) “to kiss” which fits perfectly in the context (cf. ‘your moth’, as restored in the beginning of the line, and taḫṣinī (< ḫaṣānum) in the following line).

i' 8': A similar syntactic construction as in the previous lines. Here, the hands of the affectionate female protagonist are metaphorically compared to the seed, that is barley, of the land.

i' 11': The ‘beautiful one’ is, so it appears, Bēl, the Lord of Babylon.

i' 12'–13': As the parallel shows, ⸢te⸣-ba-ta-e stands for tebâte (< tebû-Stat.-2 prs. m.) although tebâta is expected. – The last legible sign in this line is URU, as proves the parallel.

i' 14': te-ba-ku offers the better form, as opposed to te-ba-ka in BM 37064: 4'. – The continuation of the line is restored from K 7817 r. ii 1'–2'. – Restoring the end of the line after K 7817 r. ii 1'–2'. We take ṣu-la-ka from ṣulû/ṣullû “supplication, prayer”. – Eru’a is an appellation of Zarpanītu. Following the folk etymology of Zarpanītu as zēr-banītum “beautiful of grain”, the name Eru’a stresses the goddess’ association with grain (see Gesche 2001, 470f., where Nabû is referred to as the firstborn of “Eru’a, the provider of grain”).[1]

i' 15': The restored preposition ultu in the broken beginning of the line is based on the emendation of BM 37064 5': ultu(ta^!) ra-ḫi-<ṣu> šá ⸢ki⸣-{x}-⸢ba⸣-ti^!, where the first sign is not NÍG but – together with what looks like UD – a beginning of a badly copied TA. If this is the case, a fine parallel with the previous line is achieved: ultu maškani // ultu raḫīṣu ša qēmâti. Note the lexical equivalence of raḫīṣu and maškanu (CAD R 76 lex. sec.). – kibātu “wheat” (CAD K 340f.) is the plausible reading, esp. as a parallel to i' 18' reads gìb.ba (BM 37064: 8').[2] Yet, epigraphically and contextually, qēmâtu “grinding women” (CAD Q 209), is not excluded.[3] – The second half of the line rests unsolved.

i' 16': If our reading (^itu!⸢kin^?⸣) and interpretation are correct, this difficult line mentions some kind of a nocturnal orgiastic activity which took place during the bi/ubbulu, the 28^th or 29^th night of the month, before the new moon is born.  – Both Ulūlu and Nisānu (in the parallel BM 46336+ r. i 5') are periods in which the night and the day are roughly equal. – The verb niākum “to have (illicit) intercourse” appears in the ritual tablet BM 40090+ i 1: [rik-su rik-s]u šá si-pit-ti aš-mu-ú-ma in-ni-kan-[nu ú-nam-bi]. For this verb in other love-related compositions, see Wasserman 2016, 36 n.113 and 128.

i' 17': With ḫarimtu certain, sarrī is probably to be derived from sarru “criminal, fraudulent” in substantival use (CAD S 182), not from sarru “grain heaping” (CAD S 184) as in i' 14'. – By the end of the line, after maškani, a slanted wedge remains – perhaps the beginning of LÚ, a reading supported by a-me-li in 7817 r. ii 8'. It is not impossible that this lemma occurs also in the end of i' 14' after maškani.

i' 18': This line modifies i' 15', adding the female designation batulātu “nubile girls”. The image of the threshing and trampling floor where flour is grinded (maškanu, raḫīṣu) have a sexual innuendo, as plowing is a known metaphor for sexual intercourse (Wasserman 2016, 40 and 140). – Based on K 7817 r. ii 10': […m]aš.en.kak, the line probably ends with muškēnu.

i' 19': After the separation line, a new group of incipits comes. – By the end of the line, after irta some form of turru or neʾû is expected.

i' 20: The seesaw-like movement may designate a violent intercourse.

i' 21: lurindu “pomegranate” (one of the variants of lurmû) is a fruit attested in love-related compositions (Wasserman 2016, 121).