iiiFnSym 0 1 iiiFnSym 1 2 iiiFnSym 2 3 iiiFnSym 3 4 iiiFnSym 4 5 iiiFnSym 5 6 iiiFnSym 6 7 iiiFnSym 7 8 iiiFnSym 8 9 iiiFnSym 9 10 iiiFnSym 10 11 iiiFnSym 11 12 iiiFnSymT 0 T 1 Differently, Marcuson H. 2016a, 431: “And shall the priests also make restitution with one ox and one sheep?” However, the sign traces before SANGA look rather like the remains of LÚ than of MEŠ. Furthermore, the general meaning of zankilai- is ‘to punish’ and not ‘to make restitution’, which in other passages of the present text is expressed by zankilatar pai- (see, obv. I 10′; obv. I 34′; obv. I 37′–38′; obv. I 56′–57′; obv. I 69′; obv. II 15′; obv. II 33′; obv. II 50′; obv. II 70′; rev. III 45′–46′). SANGA is therefore likely to be interpreted as an acc. sing. object. iiiFnSymT 1 T 2 Differently, Marcuson H. 2016a, 413: “Should they show mercy(?)?”. The phrase "because of the wood" (A-NA GIŠ-ṢI šer) probably alludes to transgressions or negligence in the Pirwa cult involving wood. These might be related to the regular wood offerings mentioned in IBoT 2.131 obv. 15′–28′, ed. Cammarosano M. 2018a, 258–270) or the wooden objects related to Pirwa’s statue (for the latter and Pirwa’s particular fondness of wood, see Christiansen B. 2025b, 146). iiiFnSymT 2 T 3 Although MUNUS.LUGAL ‘queen’ is not proceeded by the determinative D, it likely refers to the goddess called ‘the Queen’, who is frequently mentioned together with Pirwa. For a discussion with further literature, see Christiansen B. 2024a, 24 with note 36. iiiFnSymT 3 T 4 Since the aforementioned offerings are provided for the yearly festival for Pirwa and the ‘Queen’ (see obv. I 21′), the scribe probably wrote erroneously EZEN₄ ITUKAM ‘monthly festival’ instead of EZEN₄ MUKAM ‘yearly festival’. iiiFnSymT 4 T 5 Although the passage is not introduced by the phrase ‘And we interrogated the priest and he (said) the following’ the particle -wa(r)- suggests that the clause is a citation of the priest’s statement. iiiFnSymT 5 T 6 This formula with two succeeding sentences with the verb ME-aš is exceptional in KIN oracles. iiiFnSymT 6 T 7 Similar to obv. I 48′ and obv. II 47′–48′, the passage seems to be a citation of the priest’s statement although is not introduced by the phrase ‘and we interrogated the priest and he (said) the following’. iiiFnSymT 7 T 8 The constellation of the oracle symbols and the following paragraph indicate that the scribe erroneously wrote SIG₅ ‘favorable’ instead of NU.SIG₅ ‘unfavorable’. iiiFnSymT 8 T 9 Similar to obv. I 48′ and obv. II 32′, the passage seems to be a citation of the priest’s statement although is not introduced by the phrase ‘and we interrogated the priest and he (said) the following’. iiiFnSymT 9 T 10 Possibly, the particle of quoted speech in this sentence is due to an error by the scribe.