executing his right, so it is similar to if he had inflicted a hashimah (broken bone) wound and instead exacted a mudihah (an incision exposing the bone) wound. This differs from when he cuts from the wrist (ku'), because in that case, he was able to exact his full right, so it was not permissible for him to deviate to something else. Does he have a government (arbitration for damages) regarding the middle of the palm? There are two opinions: one is that he does not, because he would be combining retaliation and compensation (arsh) in one limb, which is not permitted, just as if he had cut from the wrist. The second is that he has the compensation for the middle of the palm because it is his right which he was unable to exact, so its compensation becomes mandatory, like everything else of this nature. If he chooses the blood money, he receives half of it, because cutting the hand from the wrist does not necessitate more than half the blood money, so anything less is even more deserving. Third, cutting from the wrist: he may cut his hand from the wrist because it is a joint, but he may not cut the fingers because that is not the site of the crime, and he should not exact retaliation from a site other than the actual one when it is possible to do so from the site itself. Fourth, cutting from the middle of the forearm: he may not cut from that location because it is not a joint, and we have already mentioned the report regarding this. He receives half the blood money and a government for what was cut of the forearm. Does he have the right to cut from the wrist? There are two opinions, as we mentioned regarding the one who cuts from the middle of the palm. For the one who permits him to cut from the wrist, there are two opinions regarding the obligation of the government for what was cut of the forearm. It is also inferred that there are two opinions regarding the permissibility of cutting the fingers. If he cuts them, he has no government for the palm, because he could have taken it as retaliation, so he may not claim its compensation, just as if the crime were from the wrist. Fifth, cutting from the elbow: he has the right to retaliation from it because it is a joint, and he may not cut from the wrist because he is able to exact his right fully and retaliate from the site of the crime, so it is not permissible for him to deviate to something else. If he forgives in exchange for blood money, he receives the blood money for the hand and a government for the forearm. Sixth, cutting it from the upper arm (adud): there is no retaliation in it, according to one of the two opinions. He receives the blood money for the hand and a government for the forearm and a portion of the upper arm. The second opinion is that he has the right to retaliation from the elbow. Does he have a government for the excess? There are two opinions. Does he have the right to cut from the wrist? This allows for two opinions.