UET 6/2, 193a

5' [... in the tr]ack(?) of the bull

6' in [the... ], on the day without moon,

7' on the first day of the month, on the seventh day,

8' and on the fifteenth (of the month) release the sorcery!

9'–13' A torch, mottled barely, sulfur of a maštakal-plant, the 'magic-stick'-plant, the šalālum-reed, tamarisk, a young date palm -

14'–16' The pure ones (= the above material magica) will come along [in order] to re[lease] the house of the man, [so that] the so[rcery(?)] will [c]ome out.

17' Incantation formula.

5': x [...] x x ⌈x⌉ i?]-[n]a? [su?-pu?-r]i? al-pi-im: For this conjectural restitution (different of Cavigneaux/Donbaz), cf. YOS 11, 14a: 2-4.

7': Reading follows Cavigneaux/Donbaz 2007, 332 and confirmed by photo.

8': pa?-še?-er ki-iš-pi-i: since kišpī is certain and the verb pašārum appears probably also in l. 15', reading ZI-ir, as suggested by Cavigneaux/Donbaz is unlikely. (the translation "toile? zīru (qui protége) des sortileges" is also not convincing). The form pa?-še?-er is either the Imp. of pašārum, or the const. of pāširum, "undoer, exorcist", not attested yet in OB (see CAD P, 253, s.v.).

9': ṣa-ḫa-ra-am, from ṣaḫḫarum, "mottled barely", seems preferable to Cavigneaux/Donbaz 2007, 332 (sà-ḫa-ra-am, "faire le tour (de la maison) avec la torche", which is difficult syntactically. Admittedly though ṣaḫḫarum is documented only in late, post-OB records.

14': Reading follows Cavigneaux/Donbaz 2007, 332. A similar enumeration of plants serving as materia magica appears in Mīs pî, see Walker/Dick 2001, 216: 33b-35b, where the nikiptum-plant is also listed (which raises the possibility to read [ni]-ki-ip-tum - instead of [(x) e]l-lu-tum. Still the nominative case goes in favor of the reading of Cavigneaux/Donbaz).

15': Reading follows Cavigneaux/Donbaz 2007, 332 which makes good sense. An alternative reading can also be considered: [^d]É-a wa-ši-pu[-um] (- note the partial parallel to the title ^dEa wāšipu in Mīs pî, Walker/Dick 2001, 212-213: 16: a-a-mu maš-maš // a-bi maš-maš-šu).

16': Cavigneaux/Donbaz 2007, 332 suggestion di-⌈i?⌉-[ḫa-am], "[l'affliction di'u (?)]", is not convincing. The incantation is destined against a general evil that attacks the man's house, not against a personal disease. Reading ki!-i[š-pi-i], "sorcery" (as in l. 8') is more likely in our eyes.