The second is that retribution be carried out at the site of the severing, if this is possible.

The third is that retribution be carried out below the site of the severing but above the joint, with the victim waiving the excess.

But to say, “If you cut at a joint, we cut off your hand; yet if you go beyond it somewhat, we leave your hand intact”—this is far-fetched. The correct view is that, if retribution can be carried out precisely and without injustice, it is obligatory. If it cannot, then there are two ways:

The first is to exact retribution by cutting off the hand, while awarding compensation for the excess.

The second is to exact retribution above the hand but below the site of severing, with the victim waiving the excess if he wishes.

According to the author’s view, however, there is no retribution; rather, he is liable for blood money, which in the case of a hand is half of the full blood money.

Question: Can retribution be exacted for a tooth if part of it has been lost? Yes: the offender’s tooth is filed down until the required extent is reached.

Should this be determined by the actual amount or by proportion? It should be determined proportionally, because the offender’s tooth may be small while the victim’s tooth is large. If it were determined by actual amount, half of the victim’s tooth might equal the entirety of the offender’s tooth; thus, if we took from his tooth by actual amount, the whole tooth would be removed. The reverse is likewise true: if the victim’s tooth is small, we determine it proportionally. Thus, if the portion lost from the victim’s tooth corresponds to half of your tooth, we take half of your tooth. The same applies to the hand: the offender’s hand may be twice the size of the victim’s hand, or even larger. For example, a man may come to a child in the cradle, seize his hand, and cut it off; in that case, the offender’s entire hand is cut off.