As for putting a free person to death for killing a slave, or a male for killing a female, the verse neither affirms nor denies this. Nor can either ruling be inferred from it by analogous or contrary implication. For if, when claims are offset, a free person is matched with a free person, a slave with a slave, and a female with a female because their respective blood-money amounts are equal, this indicates that an equal may be put to death for killing an equal, and someone of lower status for killing someone of higher status. There remains the execution of someone of higher status, whose blood-money is greater, for killing someone of lower status, whose blood-money is less. The verse does not address this, for its purpose was not to establish retaliation in the first instance, but to offset claims concerning the slain because their blood-money amounts were equal.

If it is objected:

“The blood-money for one free person equals that for another, and the blood-money for one female equals that for another; but what about slaves, whose values differ?”

The reply is:

Their slaves were of roughly equal value. Moreover, His words,

“A slave for a slave,”

may mean a slave for another of comparable value, just as one says, “A garment for a garment.” Even if one is worth more, that difference is waived. It may also be waived when their values are unknown, as is usually the case. For the slaves killed in these civil conflicts are those who fight alongside their masters, having been raised in their households rather than purchased. Thus, this applies both when their values are known to be equal and when any difference between them is unknown.

For what is unknown is treated as nonexistent. If each of two men destroyed the other’s garment, and neither knew the value of either garment, it would be said, “A garment for a garment.” This is because the difference in value could favour either side: this man’s garment may be worth more