the limb that was required to be cut off in banditry, such as if the retaliation was required for his left hand after the obligation to cut off his right hand in banditry, then is the other hand to be cut off for banditry? There are two views, based on the two accounts regarding cutting the left hand of a thief after cutting his right; if we say: it is cut off there, it is cut off here, otherwise not. If he stole and took wealth in banditry, his right hand is cut off for whichever of them was earlier. If the banditry was earlier, his right hand and left foot are cut off in one sitting, and they are cauterized. Is his left hand to be cut off for the theft? There are two views; if we say: it is cut off, his recovery from the amputation for banditry is awaited, because they are two hadd punishments. If the theft was earlier, his right hand is cut off for the theft, and his foot is not cut off for the banditry until his hand heals. And is his left hand to be cut off for the banditry? There are two views.

Section: If he stole and killed in banditry, but did not take wealth, he is killed inevitably and is not crucified, and his hand is not cut off, because they are two hadd punishments involving killing, so the one lesser than killing is subsumed into it. He is not crucified, because crucifixion is a completion of the hadd of the highwayman when he takes wealth along with the killing, and that was not found. These are two hadd punishments, each one of which is separate from the other, so when they coincide, they overlap. If he killed a group in banditry, he is killed for the first one inevitably, and the diyah (blood money) is due to the guardians of the others, because his killing was necessitated by the killing of the first, and it became inevitable such that it cannot lapse, so the rights of the others are fixed as diyah, just as if he had died.

Section: If two upright witnesses testify against a man that he waylaid them and someone else, and took their property, their testimony is not accepted, because they have become adversaries to him due to his waylaying them. If they say: "We testify that this person waylaid so-and-so and took his property," their testimony is accepted, and the judge does not ask them: "Did he waylay you along with him or not?" because he does not ask them what they have not claimed against him. If the one for whom they testified returns and testifies against him that he waylaid him and took his property, his testimony is not accepted, because he has become an enemy to him by his waylaying him. If two witnesses testify that these people accosted us on the road and waylaid so-and-so, their testimony is accepted, because it was not established that they were adversaries by what they mentioned.