What is the ruling if an assailant extracts a tooth after retaliation, and the victim's tooth subsequently regrows?

Primary text

If an assailant extracts a tooth and retaliation is performed, and then the victim's tooth grows back, and the assailant extracts it a second time, the assailant incurs no liability for the second extraction. This is because once the victim's tooth regrew, the assailant became liable for the full compensation (*diya*) for that tooth. When the assailant then extracted the regrown tooth, the victim became liable for the compensation for the assailant's tooth. Thus, each party owes the other the compensation for one tooth, resulting in mutual cancellation (*taqas*).