Who pays for what? Exodus 21:19

So I know it's been ages, but I need to untangle this verse.

Exodus 21:19.

It continues from verse 18, which might read,

"And if men are fighting, and one strikes (smites!) the other with a rock or his fist and he does not die, but falls to his bed..."

So now we continue with 19a:

"then if he gets up and walks around outside upon a staff, then he (the smiter) is innocent of the smiting..."

And then we get to the weird part, 21:19b.  Five little Hebrew words:

רַ֥ק שִׁבְתּ֛וֹ יִתֵּ֖ן וְרַפֹּ֥א יְרַפֵּֽא׃ (rak shivto yitten verappo yerappe)

• rak means "only not, except"
• shivto is the noun form of the verb y-sh-v (sit, dwell) with a possessive pronoun tacked on the end.  So it could mean his throne, his sitting, his dwelling
• yitten is the 3ms of the verb "to give, put, set"
• And the last two words, verappo yerappe are different forms of the same verb, r-p-', which means "heal".  One is infinitive absolute.  The other is the same tense as yitten, and like yitten, also 3ms (3rd person masculine singular). Together they would ordinarily make it emphatic.  He healingly heals. Certainly heals. Something like that.

So together?  "...he is innocent of the smiting, except he is giving his seat/throne/sitting and certainly he is healing?"

This is not how the Bible translates this, and my lexicons stretch to try to accommodate the years of translators and interpreters.

Apparently when shivto appears with yitten, it does not mean "he gives his seat" (or "his seat gives" - hard to tell subject here) but rather that his sitting is given - it means enforced idleness.  The time off work that our poor smite-ee had to spend at home.

Unless... maybe it's the smiter who is still the subject of "to give"?  "He is innocent of the smiting, except (only not) the sitting he (the smiter) gave."  So the smiter IS liable for the victim's subsequent disability payments?  Aha!

And my old friend the infinitive absolute, which ought to give emphasis to the verb, "to heal" is here used in a different way.   HALOT says the absolute in this verse means "to pay the costs of healing".  WHAT?  Okay, maybe the absolute can mean "healing" but then ... he heals the healing?

Grrrr.....

Okay, I'll try again... "the smiter is innocent except the idleness he gave and the healing he heals".

Hmmm....

This is what the usual suspects have to say:

• then the assailant shall be free of liability, except to pay for the loss of time, and to arrange for full recovery.  (NRSV)
• then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed. (KJV)
• the one who struck the blow will have no liability, other than to compensate the injured party for the enforced inactivity and to take care of the injured party until the cure is complete. (NJB)
• the assailant shall go unpunished, except that he must pay for his idleness and his cure. (JPS)

I have no trouble translating "give" as "pay".  That would be "he is innocent except he pays for the idleness".  But then my infinitive absolute of healing ought to be an absolute of certainty: "certainly he heals" and not payment.  I think HALOT might be wrong on this point.

Does the verse say that the smiter pays for the idleness AND the healing?  or, does he pay for the idleness and ALSO certainly heal?  Heal is a verb, after all... same tense as give/pay.

I think HALOT (The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament) is wrong.  I think the NRSV and the old King James are right.

Our smiter must pay for time lost, and he must completely (certainly) heal.  I suppose it is implied that he also pay for the healing, but I do not think it is directly stated.