side of it. Their statement that the blood money is due for cutting it from the wrist—we say: Likewise, it is due for cutting the fingers separately, and no more than what is due for cutting the fingers is due for cutting it from the wrist, and for the male organ, the same is due for cutting it from its base as is due for cutting its glans. As for when he cuts the hand from the wrist, then cuts it again from the elbow, a discretionary penalty (hukuma) is due for what was cut a second time; because the blood money for the hand was already mandatory upon him due to the first cut, so a discretionary penalty became due for the second, just as if he cut the fingers and then cut the palm, or cut the glans of the male organ then cut the rest of it, or as if two people did that.

Section: If one commits a crime against it and renders it paralyzed (ashalla-ha), its blood money is due upon him, because he has caused the loss of its utility, so its blood money is binding upon him, just as if he blinded his eye while it remained intact, or rendered his tongue mute. If one commits a crime against his hand, causing it to become crooked, reducing its strength, or disfiguring it, a discretionary penalty is due for its impairment. If he breaks it and it heals straight, a discretionary penalty is due for its disfigurement if it is indeed disfigured by that; if it heals crooked, the discretionary penalty is greater, [because its disfigurement is greater]. If the perpetrator says, "I will break it then set it straight," he is not permitted to do so, because it is a second offense. If he breaks it through aggression then sets it and it becomes straight, the discretionary penalty that became due for its crookedness does not lapse, because that became fixed the moment it healed crookedly; this is a second offense, and the second setting is separate from the first. This is not like the case where the sight of an eye is lost and then returns, because in that case it became clear that the light [of the eye] did not actually vanish, but rather an obstruction stood in its way, whereas here the case is different. A discretionary penalty is due for the second break because it is a second offense. It is possible [to hold] that it is not due, because he removed the harm of the crookedness from it, so it was