What is the ruling if both wounds prove fatal when inflicted by two different people?

Primary text

There is no retribution against the first person, as he cut the hand of a slave, but he owes half the blood money of a free man because the injured party was free at the time the injury settled. The second person owes retribution for the life if both cuts were intentional, as he is complicit in intentional homicide, similar to an accomplice of a father. It is argued that no retribution is due for the life because the soul departed due to the fatality from two cuts, one necessitating retribution and one not, based on the ruling regarding an accomplice of a father.