Or HaChaim on Exodus 21:18/אור החיים על שמות כ״א:י״ח

1 וכי יריבון אנשים, And if men quarrel (fight physically), etc. Why did the Torah have to add the words: "and he does not die?" Surely any reader would have concluded that the situation described is one where the victim did not die!

2The intent of the Torah is to inform us that payments of compensation such as loss of income, medical expenses, etc., are all applicable only if the victim does not die as a result of this fight. This is the reason the Torah only mentions compensation for loss of income after it had described the victim as having recovered sufficiently so that he could get about without help.

3I am not sure that if the victim had been expected to die but recovered instead whether this is to be considered an act of G'd (miracle) or not. We have learned in Chulin 42 that an animal which suffers from certain categories of injuries dies within 12 months. In the event it did not die within this period we consider this as something supernatural, and we do not allow such occurrences to change the status of the animal. Similarly in our case. Do we say that the victim's recovery was miraculous and he therefore does not qualify for the various compensations listed in the Torah just as he would not have qualified for such payments if he had died? Or do we consider the fact that he has recovered as the only criterion in determining the compensation due him? According to Maimonides Hilchot Rotzeach chapter 4,3 anyone who did not die is entitled to compensation even if his recovery was a miracle, medically speaking.

4Subsequently I found the following statement in the Mechilta. "If he does not die but becomes bed-ridden; if, however, the aggressor inflicted the kind of injury which normally results in death, the attacker is free of the obligation to pay compensation." It appears that the author of the Mechilta makes the payment of compensation dependent exclusively on what the attacker had done and how he had done it.

5It appears that the author of this Mechilta holds that the attacker is to be freed from the need to pay for loss of income only if the victim died because the injury he received was lethal. If the victim had succumbed to a non-lethal blow, a situation in which the attacker would not be guilty of the death penalty, he would have to pay the various payments an injured person would have been entitled to. If the attacker did not pay the victim before he died, he would have to make these payments to the estate of the victim.