Halacha

It seems to me that the explanation in the parable of the severe side is an insufficient example of the dispute over all the first ones in strength and bravery (and it is possible that it is like a terrible imaginary crow's nest). The idea there is brilliant, but in my opinion it does not stand the test of the sources, and even in the explanation it must be refined. I extended it in its place, namely column 346, and I will return here with a touch of nuance. If here it is out of place and out of time, I will keep it for my own use and offer it when the time comes.

A. In Sota 29, a different generation parables the severe side, although the meld also has its own severe side, that is, they paraphrase the severe side over an equal side that began with a lighter and heavier side, although in this there is no basis for the parable to think that the common factual characteristic of the two melds does not exist in the meld. [And in the Barmamba in Ketubot Lev 1, I saw that Rashi cites in the Sanhedrin that a severe side is only interpreted if there is no severe side in the teaching, and this fits your view, and the Ramban there makes a similar question difficult for him from Pesachim and Meishev. And the above-mentioned Mesuta]. On the face of it, this is a settled question.

B. It is very, very far to say that someone who interprets a severe side nullifies many of the studies in Shas (which arise in the search for “repetition of the law.” And I will detail the contents of the issues if necessary) such as Zebachim 15:2, which teaches that a stranger who received the blood of the sacrifice is an idol, on what the side from a person with a defect or masturbation is, and halachic interpretations. Kiddushin 20:2 requires a verse that dedicates a field of land to the redeemer of the half-breeds, because there is what is the opposite of selling a field of land and selling a house in walled cities [and more] and halachic interpretations.
And whoever interprets a severe side in every place and place where the halachic interpretations come from, should study these laws or what to do with the verses that come out of this study, and yet the Gemara does not calculate according to his method anywhere. But certainly this is not a fixed method, but in each study a separate judgment. And this is great evidence in my opinion, because what is done in an explanation that takes four appearances of ‘sed hamor’ in the Shas and explains that they are all halachic interpretations, and ignores other appearances (perhaps many more) of halachic interpretations in which a severe side did not appear.
And another figure of evidence in Menachot 6:2, Rabbi Yehuda has a similar side with halakhic interpretations, and Rabbi Shimon does not accept the teaching, and the Gemara discusses what they disagreed about and hangs the dispute on something quite dubious, and why did Rabbi Yehuda not say that the severe side is not frivolous, as she said in the case of Makot 4, which she dissected into parts, and Rabbi Shimon said that the severe side is frivolous.

3. And I bring further evidence from the New Testament that this is not a system, and it is from the words of the Amora Rabbi Ula. In Ketubot Lev Sa'a, the severe side is interpreted according to Deula, while in Bk. Pah A'a Ula learns from his heart that the severe side is with halakhic interpretations and does not interpret the severe side [and also in Makot 4:2, Ulla, according to Dr. Yehuda, does not interpret the severe side]. We have learned that every study is according to its subject and no one holds a fixed method to interpret a serious side everywhere or not to interpret it anywhere.

D. And what is the problem, mother? Sabra. Even according to your method, the halachic does not interpret a serious side. That is, the interpreter, even though he is in the position of a defender, cannot invent that there is a common factual characteristic for two different severities and that it does not exist in the learned, but he must act in a father's construction and assume that if there is a common factual characteristic in the learned, then it also exists in the learned and therefore the learned will also accept the new law. And this explanation is so understandable that it cannot be thought that the interpreter disagrees with it.