H206 LH xviiib 12 i-tam-ma SV(1) – Lexical interchange.^458
e 2 obv. ii 2 na-[ ]
H207 LH xxib 39 im-tu-ut OV(lgrammatical form, or difference in ) – Possible difference in
pronunciation.^459
b 1 im-ta-[ ]
(^) H208 LH xxib 96 (^) i-ma-ad-da-ad (^) OV – C has defective orthography
c ii 3 i-ma-d[a ] for the I/1 present future of √madādu, “to measure.”
(^) H209 LH xxib 97 pí- (^) ḫa-sú (^) OV – Different spelling of the
noun piḫatu, “obligation, duty,” in
c.
c ii 4 pi-ḫa-su
H210 LH xxib 97 pí- c ii 4 pi-ḫḫa-sú a-su OV – Different spelling of the pos-sessive pronominal suffix in c.
(^458) The term √tamû, “to swear,” in the stele is exchanged with another term in manuscript e, though the
exact lexeme is uncertain. Possible synonyms for tamû may be: √našû, “to lift,” also “to offer (some-
thing),” (used intransitively?); or √nâpu, “to make (additional) payment.” Unfortunately neither term fits
the context at all well. The stele reads: awīlum šû ina idû la amḫaṣu itamma u ašâm ippal, “that man shall
swear ‘I did not knowingly strike,’ and he shall make payment to the surgeon.” If the restored term in
manuscript e is read as √našû, then a possible translation is “that man shall offer (the reason) ‘I did not
knowingly strike’ ... .” Assuming √napû is instead to be restored the translation may be “that man shall
compensate (by saying) ‘I did not knowingly strike’ ... .” Perhaps a preferable reading of manuscript e as-
sumes that “na-[ ]” is the remains of the word √napālu, “to make supplementary payment,” which ap-
pears as the I/1 present future ippal later in the same line, perhaps written here as a stative or as a verbal
adjective. Unfortunately this explanation introduces problems with the syntax of the line that prove more
difficult to explain than supposing a lexical interchange. In light of this, counting this variant as SV(1) is
preferred here, though admittedly with reservations. Assuming that the scribe was not in error, the intended
meaning behind the variant in manuscript e at this point remains obscure. 459
According to the present understanding of the layout of the text the form in manuscript b is probably
“im-ta-[ut]” where the medial weak √mâtu, “to die,” has the diphthong preserved in the orthography. G.R.
Driver and J.C. Miles, Babylonian Laws, 112, see the variant in b as part of the preceding line, parallel to
the form imḫassuma in the stele, from √maḫāṣu, “to strike, wound.” Their reading takes the form in b of a
I/1 perfect of √maḫāṣu, and in fact contends that the sign that supports this reading is visible: “im-ta-ḫa-
[su-ma].” However, the sign ḪA is not visible in either the drawing in B. Meissner, "Altbabylonische Ge-
setze," 511, or in E. Bergmann, Codex Hammurabi, 47. That reading is therefore doubtful, especially if
Meissner did not see the sign in 1908, nor Bergmann in 1953, and yet Driver and Mills claim to have seen
it in 1955. R. Borger, Babylonisch-Assyrische Lesestücke, 38, omits the variant entirely.