Correct use of thirteen dimensions

Hello. I don't have a general answer to this question, but it depends on at least two things: 1. The explanation (when there is an explanation one way or the other, it can decide whether to choose a narrow or broad interpretation). 2. The language of the Torah. There are situations in which the language of the Torah implies that there is no example here but a narrowing. It seems to me that the comparison between terifa and nabla is based on interpretation and not on inference. From interpretation it would seem that if in terifa one does not divide between a house and a field, why would they divide in nabla?! It seems to me that terifa and nabla are not written next to each other, so it is likely that this is a comparison from interpretation. Similarly, one can wonder when a certain verse is a special case that is an exception to the rule and when it is an example that actually means to state a complete rule. For example, tzitzit appears next to halals, and from there we learn that esah rejects lat. They could also say that esah does not reject lat, but tzitzit is an exceptional case and therefore it is written in the Torah. Here too, this must be dependent on the explanation and language of the verse. The same is true regarding the sermon that disqualifies women from testifying from the verse "And the two men stood" – which the Gemara omits and does not include women. Even though usually when the Bible says "people" it also refers to women (the scripture equates a woman with a man for every punishment in the Torah). Here it seems that the explanation was misleading. Beyond all of this, there is also tradition. There are sermons that establish laws that we know from the Sinaitic tradition (authoritative sermons). Sometimes a reading is chosen because it fits the tradition.