Zevachim 50B

ונאמר להלן עור ובשר ופרש; מה להלן ⁠– על ידי ניתוח שלא בהפשט, אף כאן ⁠– על ידי ניתוח שלא בהפשט.

And it is stated below, with regard to the bull sin offerings that are burned, the terms skin, flesh, and dung, in the verse: “But the skin of the bull, and all its flesh, with its head, and with its legs, and its innards, and its dung” (Leviticus 4:11). Just as below it is prepared for burning by means of cutting it into pieces but not by means of flaying, as derived by the verbal analogy, so too here it is prepared for burning by means of cutting it into pieces but not by means of flaying. Evidently, a halakha derived via a verbal analogy can then teach another halakha via a verbal analogy.

דבר הלמד בגזירה שוה, מהו שילמד בקל וחומר? קל וחומר: ומה היקש, שאינו מלמד בהיקש ⁠– אי מדרבא אי מדרבינא, מלמד בקל וחומר מדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל; גזירה שוה, המלמדת בהיקש מדרב פפא, אינו דין שתלמד בקל וחומר?!

§ The Talmud asks: What is the halakha as to whether a matter derived via a verbal analogy can teach its halakha to another matter via an a fortiori inference? The Talmud answers: That question itself can be answered with an a fortiori inference: And just as a matter derived via a juxtaposition, which cannot then teach its halakha via a juxtaposition, as proven either from the statement of Rava or from the statement of Ravina (49b), can nevertheless teach its halakha via an a fortiori inference, as proven from the statement that the school of R' Yishmael taught (50a), with regard to a matter derived via a verbal analogy, which can teach its halakha via a juxtaposition, as proven from the statement of Rav Pappa (50a), is it not logical that it should teach its halakha via an a fortiori inference?