and he died, the master would have, in one of the two positions, the lesser of the compensation for the injury or one-quarter of the blood-money, and in the other, the lesser of one-quarter of the value or one-quarter of the blood-money. If three were in the state of slavery and one in the state of freedom, the master would have the lesser of the two: the compensation for the injuries or three-quarters of the blood-money, in one of the two positions; and in the other, the lesser of three-quarters of the value or three-quarters of the blood-money. If there were ten, one in the state of slavery and nine in the state of freedom, the blood-money is upon them, and the master has his share calculated based on what we have mentioned, according to the difference between the two positions.

Section: If he cut his hand, then he was emancipated, then another cut his leg, then the first returned and killed him after the wound had healed, he is subject to retaliation (qisas) for the heirs, and half the value for the master, and the other is subject to retaliation for the heirs for the leg or half the blood-money. If it was before the wound healed, the first perpetrator is subject to retaliation for the life, not [the hand; because he cut it while he was his slave. If the heirs choose retaliation for the life], the master's right is extinguished; because it is not permissible to be entitled to both the life and the compensation for the limb before the wound heals, for the limb is included in the life regarding the compensation (arsh). If they choose to pardon, he is subject to the blood-money, not the compensation for the limb; because the compensation for the limb is included in the life, and the master has the lesser of the two: half the value or the compensation for the limb, and the remainder is for the heirs. As for the second, he is subject to [the retaliation] for the leg; because the killing interrupted its progression, so it became as if it had healed. If he pardons him [he is subject to half the blood-money. If the second was the one who killed before the wound healed], he is subject to retaliation for the life. Is his limb cut off? There are two narrations. If the heirs pardon, he is subject to one blood-money. As for the first, he is subject to half the value for the master, and he is not subject to retaliation. If the killer was a third party, then the two cuttings have been established, and the first is subject to half the value for his master, and the second is subject to retaliation for the leg, or half