at the wrist joint, half the blood-money is due; if it is severed at the elbow, half the blood-money is due; and if it is severed at the shoulder, half the blood-money is due.

Some scholars said: If it is severed at the wrist, half the blood-money is due; but if it is severed at the elbow or shoulder, then, in addition to half the blood-money, an assessed indemnity is due. This applies where the severing occurs in a single act. Thus, if he seized a man and severed his hand at the shoulder, the full blood-money is due. But if he first severed it at the wrist, then at the elbow, and then at the shoulder, each is a separate injury.

In sum, the scholars have held two views concerning this issue:

The first is that there is no difference whether it is severed at the wrist joint, the elbow, or the shoulder.

The second is that if it is severed above the wrist joint, an assessed indemnity is due for the excess.

However, the first view is more correct, because the additional part is consequential. This is like extracting the two jawbones: although the jawbones contain teeth and have a beard upon them, only the blood-money for the two jawbones is due. These are consequential matters.

His statement, “and the two buttocks”: this is the dual of alyah, meaning the part upon which a person sits. If someone injures both of them, the full blood-money is due; for one of them, half the blood-money is due.

His statement, “and the two testicles”: these are a man’s testicles. If both are severed, the full blood-money is due; and for one of them, half the blood-money is due.

His statement, “and a woman’s two labia: for both of them the full blood-money is due, and for one of them half of it.”