In my paper, just published, Biblical Formatting, I suggest that just as a modern author will use repeated keywords to indicate a bullet effect, so will the Biblical Author use repeated keywords to indicate a bullet effect. In other words the Biblical reader perceived repeated keywords the same way the modern reader perceives bullets. In both cases the bullets indicate to the reader an unspecified contrastive emphasis between the bullet items.

There is an important implication to this that is often overlooked. The unspecified emphasis implied by bullets as used by a modern author is perceived as the intended meaning of the text - it is not exegetical, though, since the emphasis is unspecified it is semi-conjectural. In a similar manner the unspecified emphasis implied by repeated keywords should be perceived as the intended meaning of the text - not as homiletic fancy.

Let us apply this bullets - repeated keywords analogy to verses Ex21-18:25 which discusses categories of damages: And if men contend, and one smite the other with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keep his bed; if he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit; only he
• shall pay for disability,
• and shall provide medical payment ....
• eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
• wound for a wound an inflammation for an inflammation
• A burn for a burn

Note the repeating keyword for which creates a bullet effect. Note further the list of possible damages. The format bullet and paragraph rules require that we see these list items as spanning a spectrum of damage types. Using this basic idea and approach it is easy to see the tort categories involved:

And if men contend, and one smite the other with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keep his bed; if he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit; only he
• [disability] shall pay for disability,
• [medical] and shall provide medical payment ....
• [damage] eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
• [medical,disability,embarassment] wound for a wound an inflammation for an inflammation
• [pain,by itself] A burn for a burn

Advanced Rashi: The Rambam, Laws of Damager and Injurer, Chapters 1 and 2, lists further verses illustrating damage types. In aggregate there are five damage types, all listed above. In Chapter 2 Rambam points out that these damage types are independent and a21itive: In other words

• if a single act has 2 or 3 of the damage types then you pay for each damage type;[Example: an inflammation may only be temporary and consequently only require medical, pain and embarassment payments]
• if the single act has all five damage types, then you pay for all damage types; [Example: Cutting of an arm requires payment for all five categories: damage, pain, medical, embarassment, disability]
• if the single act has only one of the five damage types then you pay only one damage type; [Example: burning finger nails only requires payment for pain]

The Rambam gives many examples illustrating these basic principles. In Talmudic lingo the five damage types are not a package deal--all or nothing--they are not requirements for each other---rather each one may contribute to the entire payment with or without the presence of other damages.

In summary: All these principles are inferred from the careful listing of examples in the Biblical verses and this inference is based on the format principle.