Article 639 Q.A. According to the well-known Imami jurists, in case of amputation of the hand from the forearm or arm (and with the same criteria for amputation of the leg from the leg or thigh), in addition to half of the full payment, in the excess amount, Arsh is also fixed. has known by examining jurisprudential writings, there are two other views on the assumption of the problem. In a fundamental research and by adopting the descriptive-analytical method, the present essay investigated the existing views and found the popular view to have weaknesses and flaws; On the other hand, there is another point of view on the issue that has been able to attract a significant number of contemporaries. This point of view believes that in the assumption of the problem, only half of the full dowry has been put on the diya and no more Arsh will be given to the victim. According to the authors of this article, this point of view can be the basis of the legislator's action due to its well-documented evidence. The results of the present research, in line with the above-mentioned theory, indicate that the reference to the use of the word iodine as well as the use and inclusion of the word “rejl” can strengthen the above-mentioned point of view; Therefore, it can be said that hand is a noun for all members and foot is also a noun for all members and the common understanding is that each of these members is called hand or foot; Therefore, it is sufficient to prove the payment and the determination of Arsh does not seem justified.