The second view distinguishes between a deficiency in the cause itself and a factor specific to the killer. If it is due to a factor specific to the killer, legal retaliation is due from the accomplice; but if it is due to a deficiency in the cause, it is not due from the accomplice, and only blood-money is due. This is the position of the school.

The third view is that there is no legal retaliation at all, even against the accomplice, because there is uncertainty concerning the killing: did it occur through one from whom legal retaliation may be exacted, or through one from whom it may not?

If he instead elects to claim financial compensation, half the blood-money is binding upon him.

His statement, “If he instead elects to claim financial compensation, half the blood-money is binding upon him,” means that if two people participate in killing someone, one of whom is subject to legal retaliation while the other is not, but the heirs of the slain say, “We do not want legal retaliation,” then the one who had been subject to legal retaliation must pay half the blood-money.

If someone were to ask: Why does he not pay the full blood-money? For if he does not pay the blood-money, he will be executed; thus, this blood-money is compensation for his own life. What is the answer?

The answer is: No, because we execute him only because the killing cannot be divided; it is not because his entire life is liable. Therefore, if they elect financial compensation, half the blood-money is binding upon him.