It is possible to perform mountains upon mountains of laws on every point of every letter in the Torah, but only if one devotes himself to it entirely: Eruvin 21b-22a
The Talmud learning a "Derash" analysis, and then asking, "But what is the basic translation? [Pashteih diKra beMai Ketiv?]": Eruvin 23b
"Pilpul": Nedarim 38a; Temurah 16a
Asking why learn from one side, when the other side presents an equally logical argument [U'Mai Chazit]: Eruvin 37b; Megillah 17b, 18a; Temurah 12b; Zevachim 5a-b, 28b
Arguing on the basis of an observed reality: Succah 53b
Eiruv Parshiyot - understanding verses of one section to refer to a different section: Sanhedrin 2b
Learning from the first appearance of an odd word, or only from additional appearances [Dorshin Techilot]: Sanhedrin 3b
Making analysis X, because Y isn't practical: Succah 35a
Choosing between using "Kelal/Perat" and "Ribuy/Miut": Eruvin 27b-28a; Succah 50b; Kiddushin 21b
Do we say that once the Torah teaches a rule regarding one member of a set, the rule is understood to apply to all members of that set, or not [ho'il v'gali gali vs heicha d'gali gali]: Zevachim 7b, 14b
Presenting two different cases from which one might learn lessons for a third case, and then arguing back and forth as to which comparison to utilize ["O Kalach leDerech Zu"]: Menachot 51a; Sanhedrin 4b
How to handle two verses which prescribe details of fulfillment of a mitzvah, if one verse's instruction seems to exclude the second's instruction, but the second verse's instruction allows for fulfillment of both that instruction and the first verse's instruction: Sotah 14b
Understanding a Torah passage to refer to males, specifically, if its language is masculine: Kiddushin 29b; Temurah 2b
Using a verse to indicate what a certain Hebrew word means, as opposed to proving the meaning from popular usage: Kiddushin 6a
Requiring consistency in analysis of a textual anomaly, such that we may only extrapolate from such an anomaly if we do so in every case in which the anomaly occurs: Zevachim 8a
Learning a law for a case involving a masculine term [Velad] from the Torah's use of an extra masculine identifier [Zachar], and a law for a case involving a female term [Temurah] from the Torah's use of an extra feminine identifier [Nekeivah]: Temurah 17b
Not learning for one case from another case which was, itself, learned from a third case [Lameid min haLameid]: Temurah 21b
Foregoing a verse for logic: Pesachim 21b, 25b; Ketuvot 22a; Kiddushin 35b; Sotah 7a; Bava Metzia 61a
Assuming that one who presented a logical argument could not have been relying on a pasuk: Zevachim 36a
Stating that one could offer either logic or a verse as a rationale for an argument [Ee Ba'it Eima Kera, Ee Ba'it Eima Sevara]: Berachot 4b; Zevachim 2a, 7b; Temurah 30b
We could offer contradictory logical challenges in all directions, so we remain with the simple read of the Torah's text [ikka l'mifrach hachi v'ikka l'mifrach hachi]: Zevachim 16b-17a
Considering all species of fauna required for performance of Mitzvot, to be of the titles by which they were known when the Torah was given at Sinai: Succah 13a
A Law Spoken to Moshe at Sinai which is given a link to a verse: Yoma 71b; Succah 6a; Kiddushin 9a; Zevachim 18b
Do we ever find that the case which is taught as an extension of another case is actually more of stricter status than the original: Zevachim 48b-49a
"Dorshei Chamurot - Analysts of Knots of Laws": Berachot 24a; Pesachim 54a
Use of the phrase, "Analyzing a set of verses like a Knot": Kiddushin 22b [2x]
Bringing the same law from two different Verse-Analyses [Mashmaut Dorshin]: Rosh HaShanah 20b; Yoma 60b; Bava Metzia 27a; Zevachim 52b
Use of a Biblical "Zecher LeDavar [Mentioning]" of a rule, without Proof of the rule: Moed Katan 16a, 26b; Sotah 4a; Temurah 29b; Niddah 8b [2x]
Analyzing a biblical word as it is written [Masoret], or as it is read [Mikra]: Pesachim 115b; Succah 6b, 9b, 32a, 45b; Kiddushin 18b; Makkot 7b-8a; Sanhedrin 3b-4b; Zevachim 37b-38a; Keritot 17b-18a
A verse which is not directly relevant to the specific issue for which it is used, is a "hint [Remez]" and not a "proof": Niddah 8b
[Not] Learning two lessons from the same text: Berachot 15a; Eruvin 58a; Bava Kama 3a; Zevachim 11a, 11b, 37a, 38a
Learning two lessons from the same text, where the verse specifically uses an odd word: Succah 2b
Considering grandchildren to be included in verses referring to children: Kiddushin 4a
Extrapolating priority between mitzvot based upon scriptural juxtaposition: Kiddushin 29b
Asmachta - Association of a non-biblical Law with a biblical link: Eruvin 4b; Yoma 71b, 80b; Succah 6a, 28b; Pesachim 96b; Taanit 27a; Chagigah 4a; Bava Metzia 27b; Tos. Shabbot 114b #4
A verse which is repeated is repeated for some novel lesson which is thereby taught: Sotah 3a-b
Learning from the Torah's specification of a punishment in a case for which the punishment could have been extrapolated from elsewhere: Keritot 2b
Interpreting a verse based on the logical reason for its law [Doresh Taama deKera], as opposed to learning only what the verse makes explicit: Sotah 8a
What happens when we have two equally viable approaches to extrapolation from a sentence: Zevachim 4b
"Gematria" Analyses
Gematria - Analysis of Words by Numerical Systems: Shabbat 70a, 145b, 149b; Eruvin 65a; Yoma 54a; Succah 28a, 45b; Megillah 15b; Moed Katan 17a, 19b, 28a; Nedarim 32a [2x], 32b [2x]; Makkot 23b-24a; Keritot 5b
A form of Gematria known as "ATBaH": Succah 52b
Performing a "Gematria" on a word using the form of the word as it is written, not as it is read: Megillah 15b
The "At Bash" form of Numerical Analysis: Shabbat 104a
"Kal VaChomer" - Learning More Obvious Lessons from Less Obvious Lessons
Deducing a Kal VaChomer on one's own, without a received tradition: Niddah 19b
A pasuk trumps a kal vachomer: Zevachim 3b
The gemara's challenge to circular logic: How could you use a kal vachomer to prove that a lesson learned via kal vachomer may then teach another lesson via kal vachomer? This would be a "kal vachomer ben beno shel kal vachomer!": Tosafot Zevachim 50b "ben"
The Torah writing out something which could have been learned from a Kal VeChomer: Pesachim 16b; Kiddushin 4a, 4b
Using the explanation that the Torah recorded something which could have been deduced from a Kal vaChomer in order to justify an apparently extra text, where a different explanation is possible: Kiddushin 4b
Punishment for a crime may not be deduced based on a Kal vaChomer [Ein Onshin min haDin]: Makkot 5b, 14a, 17b; Temurah 9a; Keritot 2b-3a A warning for a prohibition [azharah] can't come from a Kal VaChomer: Pesachim 24a; Makkot 5b, 17b
Learning a Kal VaChomer from a combination of cases, where each case compensates for a weakness in an argument which would have used it alone [as in "mibeinaya"; this seems to me to be identical with a "tzad hashaveh"]: Kiddushin 5a; Zevachim 10a
A Kal VaChomer can't begin by being stringent on the Chomer part and then adding a leniency to it: Pesachim 27b; Succah 36b
A Kal VaChomer can't be learned from a Law Spoken to Moshe at Sinai: Shabbat 132a
A Kal VaChomer from a Biblical case to a Rabbinic case: Niddah 7b
A Kal VaChomer can't teach a greater stringency from the lenient side to the stringent side, than the literal rule applicable to the stringent case ["Dayo"]: Bava Metzia 41b; Zevachim 43b-44a
A Kal VaChomer which is "Pericha" - weak, due to a question against it: Kiddushin 4b [2x], 16b; Sotah 7a; Makkot 14a
Using a Kal VaChomer where there is a method of analysis which will draw an opposing conclusion: Kiddushin 14a
Using a Kal VaChomer when one already has a Mishnaic source for a ruling: Niddah 6a
A "Hi haNotenet (Hu haNotenet)" - Turning a Kal vaChomer around, so that it could actually teach a lesson opposite to the one for which it was originally brought - Makkot 2b; Sotah 7a
An irrefutable Kal vaChomer [she'ein alav teshuvah]: Berachot 23b Rabbi Akiva replying to Rabbi Yehoshua: If your halachic statement is a received tradition, I accept it. If it is a result of "kal vachomer" logical deduction, though, then I can refute it thus: Keritot 15b Rav Huna presenting a kal vachomer to deduce a law in order to sharpen his students' minds by challenging it, or in order to inspire his students to be creative, even though the kal vachomer was flawed and the law had actually been learned from a tradition: Zevachim 12b-13a
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via kal vachomer, may also then teach a lesson via kal vachomer for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 50b
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via kal vachomer, may also then teach a lesson via hekesh for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 50b
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via kal vachomer, may also then teach a lesson via gezeirah shavah for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 50b
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via kal vachomer, may also then teach a lesson via binyan av for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 50b-51a
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via Hekesh, may also then teach a lesson via kal vachomer for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 41a, 49b
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via gezeirah shavah, may also then teach a lesson via kal vachomer for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 50b
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via binyan av, may also then teach a lesson via kal vachomer for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 51a
"Kelal UPerat", "Perat UKelal" = Principles followed by Specifications, or Vice Versa, in the Torah
Note: In Kelal-Perat-Kelal, the perat includes specific cases (but excludes most others), and the second kelal expands to include cases which are closely similar to those specific cases.
Kelal and Perat extrapolations are based on the meaning of the Torah's words, rather than textual anomalies [like extra words]: Rashi Zevachim 8b "Ela"
How this principle interacts with the principle that there are Out-of-Order sections of the Torah: Pesachim 6b
Defining a term as a "Kelal" because it includes many cases, even if not all possible cases: Bava Metzia 57b
Learning Kelal UPerat and Perat UKelal where the Kelal and Perat are far apart in the Torah: Pesachim 6b
Example of Kelal UPerat: Makkot 13b, 14a; Keritot 20b-21a; Zevachim 4b
Example of Perat uKelal: Zevachim 29a
Example of Kelal UPerat UKelal: Eruvin 27b-28a; Succah 50b; Kiddushin 21b, 24b; Bava Metzia 57b [2x]; Keritot 6b, 20b-21a; Zevachim 4b, 8b
When there is a Kelal, then a Perat, and then a Kelal, does the second Kelal add to the Perat, with the initial Kelal meant to include cases not excluded by the Perat and latter Kelal, or is the initial Kelal the one which sets the tone: Eruvin 28a
Using a Kelal uPerat uKelal where the first and second kelalim are of different natures: Keritot 21a; Zevachim 4b, 8b
We don't extrapolate from a Kelal if it is not "malei", incomplete: Zevachim 4b
Turning a Kelal Kelal Perat into a Kelal Perat Kelal: Zevachim 44a
"Ribuy/Miut" - Extra words including/excluding Cases from a Rule
Note: In Ribuy-Miut-Ribuy, the miut excludes specific cases (but includes most others), and the second ribui expands to include even some of those excluded cases.
Example of Miut/Ribuy/Miut: Succah 50b; Kiddushin 21b, 37a
Examples of Ribuy/Miut/Ribuy: Eruvin 27b-28a
Examples of "Ribuy Achar Ribuy" - an Extra 'Inclusion' in a Verse following another Extra 'Inclusion': Pesachim 23a
Examples of "Miut Achar Miut" - an Extra 'Exclusion' in a Verse following another Extra 'Exclusion': Megillah 23b; Makkot 9b; Menachot 67a
Using a Ribuy/Miut/Ribuy where the first and second ribuyyim are of different natures: Keritot 21a [see Bach "Bet"]
"Binyan Av"
For a Sin Offering to come before a Burnt Offering: Pesachim 59a
For the structure of the Rosh HaShanah prayers: Rosh HaShanah 32a
For the structure of the Rosh HaShanah blasts of the Horn: Rosh HaShanah 34a
For defining the term "Ed [witness]" as one witness or as a set of two witnesses: Sotah 2a-b
Requiring that a korban chatat of any kind undergo shechitah in the northern part of the azarah: Zevachim 48b
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via Hekesh, may also then teach a lesson via binyan av for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 50a
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via gezeirah shavah, may also then teach a lesson via binyan av for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 50b
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via kal vachomer, may also then teach a lesson via binyan av for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 50b-51a
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via binyan av, may also then teach a lesson via kal vachomer for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 51a
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via binyan av, may also then teach a lesson via gezeirah shavah for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 51a
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via binyan av, may also then teach a lesson via hekesh for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 51a
"HaTzad HaShaveh - Meh Matzinu" = Learning from Non-Equivalent Cases, where there is Common Ground [also: "teitei chada mitarti"]
Examples: Shabbat 132b; Kiddushin 5b [2x], 21a; Bava Kama 6a-b; Bava Metzia 4a, 61a; Makkot 4b, 19a; Temurah 21a; Keritot 26a-b; Zevachim 4a, 5a-b, 8a-b, 10a-b, 10b, 11a, 12b, 15b-16a, 16b
Example of learning from a "tzad hashaveh" combination of three cases: Zevachim 16b
Questioning the ability to use "haTzad haShaveh" if the teaching cases have aspects which are more strict than the cases for which the lesson is learned: Makkot 4b
Questioning the logical strength of a "Tzad haShaveh" because, "If I point out the flaws in X proof then you use Y proof, and vice versa!": Zevachim 10a-b
Questioning the use of a Meh Matzinu because of insufficient common ground: Zevachim 44a
"Gezeirah Shavah" = Use of Similar [Odd] Phraseology in Separate Sections of the Torah [pleonasm]
Requiring a tradition to use a Gezeirah Shavah: Niddah 19b; Rashi Shabbat 97a "Ve'Ela", Tos. Shabbat 97a #1
Determining precedence between a Gezeirah Shavah and a Hekesh (see below): Rosh HaShanah 34a; Zevachim 48a
Dividing cases which are "Mufneh" - Free for analytic borrowing - from both instances and from only one instance: Shabbat 131a
Examples of Cases involving "Mufneh" - Freedom of the words for analysis:Shabbat 131a; Rosh HaShanah 7a, 8b, 9b; Chagigah 9a; Yevamot 104a
Use of the term "Gezeirah Shavah" to refer to a rabbinic equation of concepts, rather than a biblical linkage of verses: Beitzah 12b
R' Yannai, R' Simai, Abbaye and Rav Ashi commenting on the remarkable significance of lessons learned from a Gezeirah Shavah: Keritot 5a
Whether a gezeirah shavah may be done halfway [gezeirah shavah l'mechetzah], deducing some lessons, but not all possible lessons, from the linkage of topics: Nedarim 7a; Zevachim 48a; Keritot 22b
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via gezeirah shavah, may also then teach a lesson via gezeirah shavah for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 50a-b
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via gezeirah shavah, may also then teach a lesson via hekesh for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 50a
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via gezeirah shavah, may also then teach a lesson via kal vachomer for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 50b
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via gezeirah shavah, may also then teach a lesson via binyan av for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 50b
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via Hekesh, may also then teach a lesson via gezeirah shavah for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 49b
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via kal vachomer, may also then teach a lesson via gezeirah shavah for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 50b
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via binyan av, may also then teach a lesson via gezeirah shavah for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 51a
"Hekesh" - Linkage of Verses
Whether a warning for a prohibition can come from a Hekesh: Pesachim 24a
On issues of Rabbinic origin, Hekesh is used leniently if given the option: Shabbat 83b
Whether a Gezeirah Shavah (see above) or a Hekesh has precedence: Rosh HaShanah 34a; Zevachim 48a
Determining which hekesh to make, based on which potential analog has more points of similarity to the original: Zevachim 28b
Determining which hekesh to make, or whether one may make one at all, based on similarity of the subject words [veShav haKohen/uVa haKohen]: Eruvin 51a; Succah 43a; Makkot 13b; Menachot 45b
Whether a linkage may be done halfway [hekesh l'mechetzah], deducing some lessons, but not all possible lessons, from the linkage of topics: Nedarim 7a; Keritot 22b
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via a Hekesh, may also then teach a Hekesh lesson for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Makkot 19a-b; Zevachim 41a, 45a, 49b, 55a
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via Hekesh, may also then teach a lesson via gezeirah shavah for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 49b
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via Hekesh, may also then teach a lesson via kal vachomer for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 41a, 49b
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via Hekesh, may also then teach a lesson via binyan av for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 50a
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via gezeirah shavah, may also then teach a lesson via hekesh for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 50a
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via kal vachomer, may also then teach a lesson via hekesh for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 50b
Whether the law for a given case, which was learned from another case via binyan av, may also then teach a lesson via hekesh for a third case, regarding korbanot and regarding other subjects: Zevachim 51a
Analysis of Adjacent Texts [Semuchin]
Source of the power to make such an analysis: Berachot 10a
Examples: Berachot 21b; Pesachim 28b; Succah 40b; Taanit 26b; Moed Katan 28a [2x]; Sotah 2a; Makkot 23a; Rashi Zevachim 7b "b'yom tzavoto"
Analyzing adjacent paragraphs in the Torah: Kiddushin 20a
Distinguishing between semuchin in the first four books of the Torah and in Devarim: Berachot 21b
"Ba Lidon biDavar heChadash" - A text which was dealing with one topic, and then strayed to teach a novelty
Example: Temurah 13b
"Machria" - A 3rd, Compromising Opinion
This method only works if the Machria is a true Compromise, and isn't simply expressing a 3rd opinion: Pesachim 13a, Tos. Pesachim 21a #1
Where the Machria is from a later generation: Rashi Pesachim 21a
"Davar SheHayah BeKelal VeYatza" - An Item which left its group to be mentioned individually
Examples: Pesachim 120a; Bava Metzia 27a, 27b; Zevachim 13a, 46a-b, 49a; Temurah 13a; Keritot 2b
Even if one cannot deduce a lesson from the group to the item that left the group, perhaps we could deduce lessons from that item back to the group: Zevachim 49a-b
"Migo" - Since X could have been done/said, Y is valid
One Migo can be used on a case, but two can't be combined: Bava Metzia 9b
A "Migo" argument in which one says, "I could have committed X illegal act": Keritot 11b, 12a [and see Tosafot Bava Kama 40b]
"Im Eino Inyan" - This biblical sentence cannot apply to its own case, but teaches a lesson about another
"Davar haLamed mei'Inyano" - Biblical statements are understood based on context
Do we believe that biblical statements must be understood based on context: Keritot 4a-b
Example: Bava Metzia 60b-61a; Keritot 4a
Miscellania
Seventeen hundred Talmudic analyses were forgotten during the mourning period for Moshe, and Atniel ben Kenaz re-taught them: Temurah 16a
"daku bah rabbanan b'ha milta v'okmuha akra" - The sages examined and found a biblical basis for a certain legal principle: Bava Metzia 65a
