The style of the Talmud in Tractate Nedarim is different from in the rest of the Talmud: Tos. Nedarim 7a "Tibai"
Different phraseology in Sura than in Neherdaa: Succah 17b, 19a; Megillah 18b
The Talmud mentioning a person's name and the name of his father, and his place of dwelling, in order to show that a certain story involving him was true, and not a parable: Eruvin 63a
Talmudic attention to Grammar
The Talmud analyzing biblical grammatical usage: Kiddushin 2b-3a
Talmudic attention to Mishnaic Structure
The Talmud analyzing a case based on the idea that if the source split the case to deal with a sub-case in one part of the source case, then it should have done so in the rest of the source case as well ["Liflog VeLitni..." ליפלוג וליתני]: Pesachim 17b, 37a; Ketuvot 31a-b; Gittin 11a; Bava Metzia 70b; Zevachim 15a, 39a
In cases where a statement was made it applies, and where it wasn't it doesn't apply ["היכא דאיתמר איתמר"]: Berachot 24a; Eruvin 46b-47a; Pesachim 42a
Discussing the order of Talmudic tractates: Sotah 2a
Asking why a mishnah would, apparently, have changed topic in mid-stream ["מאן דכר שמיה"]: Berachot 2a; Eruvin 68b; Beitzah 8a; Megillah 28b; Gittin 19b; Menachot 50a
If a mishnah may be interpreted leniently or stringently, it should be interpreted stringently: Niddah 5a
Stating that a case in a Mishnah doesn't really belong, but was brought with others ["אינה משנה"]: Niddah 13b
Asking why a mishnah divided up a list of cases ["מאי טעמא לא תני להו גבי הדדי"]: Temurah 22a
Asking why a mishnah was mentioned in a certain tractate, even though its cases were really not relevant: Temurah 22a
Interpreting a mishnah's statement of law to refer to some of the cases in a list of cases it brings, but not to all of them: Temurah 22a
Debating how to read a mishnah's list of authorities who held a certain way: Eruvin 37a
Reading a later case in a Tosefta's list of cases as an explanation of a previous case in the list, and not a new case ["פרושי קא מפרש"]: Ketuvot 73b
Talmudic Imprecision
Where/When numbers are rounded off: Kiddushin 12a
Cases in which a Sage cites a number necessary for some legal benchmark, in inexact form ["Lo Dak"/"Tanna be'Alma Kai"/"Simna be'Alma"]: Succah 8a [2x], 32b; Menachot 50a
Sandwiching generations, so that one refers to one's children as being of one's own generation: Ketuvot 72b
Talmudic Styles of Argumentation
Bringing multiple verses, and explaining how they embellish or broaden a point ["Ve'Omer"]: Megillah 7a, 20b; Kiddushin 36a
Bringing a "Mashal [comparative parable]" to explain a law/idea: Megillah 15a, 25a [2x]; Kiddushin 19b [2x]; Niddah 12a
Arguing out of simple logic ["Sevara Hu," "Ani Adinenu"]: Megillah 19a; Temurah 28a
Bringing a specific example to illustrate a law, in order to teach a tangential principle simultaneously [agav urcheih - note that we also see this principle in mishnah]: Eruvin 104a; Zevachim 19a
Bringing a statement, and then reporting that some recorded it in a question/answer ["Ikka DeRami Lah Mirma"] format: Rosh HaShanah 27b; Succah 16a, 32b; Bava Kama 16a
Bringing a statement, and then reporting that some recorded it in reference to another case ["Ikka deMatni Lah Aha"]: Berachot 8b, 13b; Shabbat 107b, 133a; Eruvin 14b, 90b; Pesachim 45a, 96b; Rosh haShanah 27b, 30a; Succah 34a; Moed Katan 24a; Ketuvot 11b-12a, 16b; Sotah 5a, 9a; Bava Metzia 22b, 32a; Makkot 4b, 8b; Temurah 21a
Bringing a debate, and then bringing a second version of that debate, or a second version of an answer [Lishna Acharina / Ikka deMatni Lah Hachi]: Berachot 25b; Shabbat 69b, 126b, 132b, 157a; Eruvin 14b, 26b, 43a, 61a, 78b; Pesachim 97b; Succah 11a, 14b; Nedarim 18a; Temurah 4b-5a, 6b, 7a [2x], 8a, 8b, 9b [2x], 10b, 11a, 17a, 20a, 25a, 30b, 31b; Niddah 6b, 11a
Not bringing a debate if it was already argued out in a different context ["Ifligu Bah Chada Zimna איפלגו בה חדא זימנא"]: Succah 15a; Yevamot 110a; Ketuvot 61b, 71a, 73a; Kiddushin 13b; Bava Metzia 15b; Menachot 41a; Niddah 11b, 12b, 18b
Not mentioning a case if it already appeared in a Mishnah: Beitzah 11b
Stating a rule which is extrapolated from a sage's statement, as though he had stated it verbatim ["Chada Michlal Chavertah"]: Eruvin 20a; Megillah 29b; Menachot 41a; Niddah 11b
Whether a rule may be considered exception-less automatically, if the rule was/wasn't stated with an exception, already [Lilmod "min haKelalot"]: Kiddushin 34a
If they needed to specify that X is the Law, then there must have been an antithetical opinion ["Halachah, Michlal DePeligi"]: Shabbat 106b, 113a, 136a; Eruvin 12a, 81b; Pesachim 100a; Rosh HaShanah 34b-35a; Yevamot 108a
"Now that we are on the subject, I'll say something else on the topic": Bava Metzia 16b
Bringing an extra item "Kedi" - For no real purpose: Kiddushin 5b; Nedarim 14a; Bava Metzia 27b; Rashi Keritot 28a "kodem"
The Talmud doesn't ask from a Baraita, if it has a Mishnah: Eruvin 93a; Rosh HaShanah 28b
Bringing two conflicting Baraitot, and then trying to resolve which one is of later origin [and hence is more reliable]: Menachot 52a
Adding extra definition in the Talmud to teach a side-point: Pesachim 46a
One sage asks and then answers his own question [הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה]: Eruvin 91a; Megillah 3b; Ketuvot 44b; Nedarim 43a-b; Kiddushin 9b, 23b, 26a
One sage bringing a citation and then explaining its application or contradiction himself ["הוא תני לה והוא אמר לה"]: Eruvin 10a; Kiddushin 19a
A sage responding to a question, "There are two answers to this": Shabbat 77a, 115a, 122b, 153b; Kiddushin 5b, 13b; Temurah 20b, 22a
Stating a question first as a question between Talmudic sources, and then between biblical verses [איכא דרמי קראי אהדדי]: Makkot 9a
Asking a single question from which two questions could be answered, rather than ask one question and then need to ask a follow-up question: Zevachim 30b
Learning unknown laws from the biblically stated laws for similar cases [ילמד סתום מן המפורש]: Yoma 59a; Zevahcim 53a; Temurah 16a-b
Learning the law for a case from the law for an impossible case [אפשר מדאי אפשר]: Succah 50b; Temurah 16a-b, 18b
One sage extrapolating a set of laws from one verse, and then another sage extrapolating the same set of laws from a different verse [והאי תנא מייתי לה מהכא]: Temurah 17b, 28b
Presenting two answers to explain why a statement is wrong [שתי תשובות בדבר]: Temurah 20b
A sage presenting the rationale for both his view and the view which disagreed with his view: Eruvin 8b
Giving an extremely improbable case as the explanation of a Mishnaic statement: Temurah 21a
Rejecting a potential explanation/justification of a sage's view, because another sage in the Talmudic discussion was a student of that sage, and did not suggest that explanation/justification: Temurah 25b
A sage bringing a statement of his Rebbe (as his own), against his own opinion ["הא דידיה הא דרביה"/"ליה לא סבירא ליה"]: Shabbat 103b; Eruvin 11a-b, 35b, 36a, 38b; Rosh HaShanah 34b; Megillah 20a; Niddah 8b
Offering one explanation out of several possible explanations ["חדא מתרי תלת טעמי"]: Zevachim 10b
Resolving a sage's apparently contradictory statements by saying that he learned something new in between the first and the second ["הא מקמי דשמע והא לבתר דשמע"]: Eruvin 41a-b
A Sage bringing the opinion of another Sage in one part of the Mishnah, but disagreeing with another of that Sage's ideas in another part ["סבר לה כוותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא"]: Succah 33b, 54b; Nedarim 11b; Bechorot 7a (2x); Temurah 3a, 13b
A sage bringing one sage's opinion in his own voice in a Mishnah, and another sage's opinion in his own voice in a Baraita: Temurah 15a
A Sage arguing with another Sage in a Mishnah, "Even according to your approach לדבריך": Beitzah 3b; Bechorot 18a-b; Temurah 18b; Niddah 8b
A Mishnah including a head-to-head debate: Temurah 7b, 12a
A sage arguing in the second part of a Mishnah as well as the first, but his initial argument is brought anonymously, and only the second part is actually mentioned as his: Temurah 18b
Questioning a statement based on clinical evidence to the contrary ["והא קא חזינן"]: Eruvin 29a
Asking, "Didn't we already answer this in a different discussion, elsewhere [ולא אותביניה חדא זימנא]?": Eruvin 30a; Pesachim 102a
Saying, "Didn't he say that already elsewhere [והא אמרה חדא זימנא]?": Eruvin 55a-b; Zevachim 43a
A sage would not make a flat statement regarding a matter which is disputed between the Tannaim ["לימא כתנאי אמרה לשמעתיה?!"]: Eruvin 87a
Talmudic emphasis on linking later debates to earlier debates
Linking a Talmudic Sage's statement to that of a Sage of the Mishnah ["כי האי תנא"]: Kiddushin 30a
The Talmud doesn't come to teach what was known from a Mishnah: Pesachim 101b, Rosh HaShanah 8a, Ketuvot 17b
The Talmud establishing a debate of later Sages, to be like a debate of Sages of the Mishnah [כתנאי]: Eruvin 3a, 12a, 17a, 31a, 35a, 37b, 41b-42a, 42b, 64b, 68b, 80a, 87b, 96b-97a, 100a, 104b-105a; Megillah 7a, 10a; Nedarim 12b, 35a; Kiddushin 6a; Makkot 11b-12a; Menachot 42b, 50b; Niddah 16a; Temurah 4b, 8b, 11a, 25b
Establishing a debate of Mishnaic Sages to be along the same lines as a debate of other Mishnaic Sages [הני תנאי כי הני תנאי]: Eruvin 13a, 71a-b; Niddah 16a
Establishing a debate of Talmudic Sages [Amoraim] to follow along the same lines as a debate of other Talmudic Sages: Eruvin 5a
The Style in Talmudic Case-Structure
The Talmud not mentioning a certain figure in a case, because he was alongside a figure of overshadowing greatness: Rosh HaShanah 22b, Gittin 5b
Asking a question with a case which actually contains two questions [חדא מגו חדא]: Temurah 9a-b, 9b-10a
Only the lighter and more obvious case is brought, and then the less obvious case is extrapolated: Bava Metzia 31a
Not extrapolating lessons from an anecdote, because that event simply happened in a certain way: Rosh HaShanah 14b
Presenting two consecutive statements, where the second one explains the logic of the first ["מה טעם"]: Beitzah 14a; Kiddushin 19a; Sotah 8a; Menachot 42b
The Talmud doesn't bring cases of ridiculously foolish behaviour, in teaching rules ["וכי בשופטני עסקינן"]: Bava Metzia 40a
The Talmud doesn't bring cases of wicked behaviour, in teaching rules ["וכי ברשיעי עסקינן"]: Bava Metzia 40a
On the Nature of the Talmud
On the Nature of Talmud which discusses issues beyond the law: Yoma 75a
All Laws, no matter how tenuous their textual base, are considered "Gufei Torah" - of the Central Bodies of Torah: Chagigah 11b
Exaggeration in a Talmudic statement [Guzma] to make a point: Eruvin 2b; Beitzah 4a; Bava Metzia 38a; Tos. Shabbat 119a #1
Specific Terminology of the Talmud
Using "Assur" to refer to a prohibition for which transgression is punishable by Divine Ex-Communication: Yoma 74a
