Implied Question: Even though R. Shimon, in the first Perek of Bava Kama (Daf 14b and 15a), does not Darshen the 'Vav' of "Shoftecha"?

Answer: Nevertheless, here he does Darshen the 'Vav' (of "u'Bas").

Explanation: Rashi explains that what the Gemara means to ask is why the Tana Kama says 'es Avihah' (rather than a Lashon of Arusah and Nesu'ah ... ).

Explanation #1: The Gemara explains that the reason for this is because it follows the Lashon of the Pasuk.

Question: All the texts read 'es Avihah bi'Sereifah' (and not 'bi'Sekilah')?

Answer (Part 1): The Gemara is merely explaining the Tana's mistake in stating 'es Avihah bi'Sereifah', since in actual fact, she receives Sekilah ...

Explanation (continued): ... and the Gemara answers that the Tana Kama is merely following the Lashon of the Pasuk, which writes "es Avihah Hi Mechaleles, ba'Eish Tisaref".

Question: The Gemara gives a reason as to why the Tana says 'es Avihah bi'Sereifah', but not why he says 'es Chamihah bi'Sereifah'?

Explanation: We therefore answer that the Gemara means is that it mentions 'es Avihah bi'Sereifah', it is merely following the general Halachah, that a daughter receives Sereifah and a daughter-in-law, Sekilah (covering both 'Avihah' and 'Chamihah').

Precedent: Rav Yosef ask the same Kashya in Zevachim (in Perek Beis Shamai, Daf 45a).

Question: When we Pasken like R. Yossi in Perek Asarah Yuchsin (Kidushin, 42b), regarding 'Asidim Mamzerim Litaher', why does the Gemara not also ask 'Hilch'sa li'Meshicha?'

Answer: Because this ruling has practical ramifications, inasmuch as, as a result, it is not necessary to refrain from marrying into families whose Kashrus is unknown, seeing as R. Yossi is speaking about unknown Mamzerim.

Question: And we can ask the same Kashya in the first Perek of Yoma (Daf 13a & 13b), where the Gemara Paskens like R. Yossi, that the first Kohen Gadol goes back to his Avodah?

Answer: That ruling too, has practical ramifications regarding a president or a community leader who has been removed from his post due to an Oneis, and who later becomes fit.

Question: The problem will remain however, regarding the Gemara in Menachos, 52a & 52b, where R. Yochanan rules like Aba Sha'ul ben Dustai (even though there are no practical ramifications nowadays)?

Answer #1: It therefore seems that it is specifically Rav Yosef who asks the Kashya here and in Perek Beis Shamai, (Zevachim, 45a), but that the other Amora'im do not hold like him.

Answer #2: R. Chayim however, answers that the Gemara only asks the Kashya there where there two points against the ruling - 1. that it will only be applicable in the time of Mashi'ach, and 2. that the ruling entails transgressing an Isur, since the ruling will then not even apply in the time of Mashi'ach , when all the people will be righteous.

Answer #3: It seems to the author of this Tosfos however, that the Gemara only asks the Kashya here, where the Gemara is merely coming to reconcile a problem in the Sugya, as the Gemara concludes; but not where there are Halachic ramifications - even if they will only take effect in the time of Mashi'ach.

Question: We already know that from "Hi", 've'Lo Bo'alah', "Hi", 've'Lo Zomemehah'.

Answer: From "Hi" alone, we would have not have excluded Zom'min, since we need to fulfil "Ka'asher Zamam"; Therefore the Torah writes "le'Achiv", 've'Lo la'Achoso'. On the other hand, were it not for "le'Achiv", we sould have thought that they are only Chayav there where they testify on the Bo'el as well.

Question: How can the Gemara think that R. Akiva retracted from the Gezeirah-Shavah, seeing as, if he did, what does he do with "Bas" "u'Bas", which only comes to preclude from the Gezeirah-Shavah?

Answer: R. Yishmael holds that, according to R. Akiva, "Bas" "u'Bas" comes to prevent us from saying that when the Pasuk sentences a Bas Yisrael to the Din of Sekilah, it is confined to an Arusah but not a Nesu'ah, and we learn that the same applies to a Nesu'ah from "Bas" "u'Bas".