A problem with understanding halacha is that the gemara does not deal with it much. sometimes it actually tells you the final pesak decision. But this is not its main interest (which is to figure out the mishna). When it comes to law, the Gemara gives different principles in different places. And it is these places that provide the later (achronim) authorities source material that can give a hint as to why the halacha books of the Rishonim decided in a certain way. However, there is no hierarchy in the principles that is known. If you bring a proof to the Rambam that the law is like the sages against sumchos, you could just as easily bring a proof that the law is like sumchos because halacha is like a plain mishna. When you bring a proof to muktze from one place, you could just as easily bring a proof that the law is like R. shimon that there is no such thing a mutkze except in a rare case that something Is set aside not to be used. The principle of the order of tenaim could be used to overturn the principle of the latest amora, and that can be used to decide against the stama desugia [plain meaning of the subject] _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ A problem with understanding הלכה is that the gemara does not deal with it much. sometimes it actually tells you the final pesak decision . But this is not its main interest (which is to figure out the משנה). When it comes to law, the גמרא gives different principles in different places. And it is these places that provide the later (אחרונים) authorities source material that can give a hint as to why theהלכה books of the ראשונים decided in a certain way. However, there is no hierarchy in the principles that is known. If you bring a proof to the רמב''ם that the law is like the חכמים against סומכוס you could just as easily bring a proof that the law is like סומכוס because הלכה is like a plain משנה. When you bring a proof to מוקצה from one place you could just as easily bring a proof that the law is like ר' שמעון that there Is no such thing a מוקצה except in a rare case that something Is set aside not to be used. The principle of the order of תנאים could be used to overturn the principle of the latest אמורא , and that can be used to decide against the סתם פשט של הסוגיה [plain meaning of the subject]