due to the victim’s condition. This issue requires reflection and careful consideration, for both views are strong.

If a one-eyed person gouges out the eye of a person with two sound eyes—the eye that is not equivalent to his own—retaliation is not carried out against him, due to the lack of equivalence.

His statement: “For cutting off the hand of a person with only one hand, half the blood-money is due, just as in the case of anyone else.” A person with only one hand is one who has no hand besides that single hand. If someone comes and cuts off that remaining hand, he owes only half the blood-money. The difference between this and the case of the eye is that, in the case of the eye, he has removed all sight; whereas the remaining hand can be used only with half its normal benefit. Hence the common saying: “One hand cannot clap.” Since half the benefit was already absent in the first case, half the blood-money is due.

His statement, “just as in the case of anyone else,” means: like one who is not missing a hand, for in the case of one who is not missing a hand, a hand entails only half the blood-money.

Issue: What is the ruling when someone whose leg has been amputated has his remaining leg cut off?

The author’s words indicate that he is entitled only to half the blood-money, because when his first leg was cut off, he lost half his ability to walk. Thus, half the benefit was lost, and a person with only one leg is not like one with two legs.

If it is said: The person missing a leg could walk with a cane, but after this injury he is unable to walk at all. The answer is: This is true; nevertheless, the offender removed only half the benefit, so he owes only half the blood-money.