Observation: Later, we will come across an opinion that holds that a Nochri is confined to Chenek.

Implied Question: Then why did Yehudah (quoted in the Pasuk in 'Vayeishev') sentence Tamar to S'reifah?

Answer (Part 1): That was not because this was the Halachah - since strictly speaking, she was not Chayav Misah - either according to the Din of B'nei No'ach, or according to Din Torah ...

Answer (part 2): ... and once they were strict with her, with regard to sentencing her to death like a Yevamah who commits adultery (perhaps Tosfos is referring o a Yevamah who has already performed Yibum, even though Tamar had not yet done so), they gave her the Din of a bas-Kohen, who receives S'reifah, since she was the daughter of Shem.

Clarification: Since the Rabbanan maintain that the Kinuyim (secondary Names) are also included in the warning.

Implied Question: ... and even though the warning issued to B'nei No'ach automatically carries with it the death-sentence (why do we need a special Pasuk to be Mechayev them Misah for Kinuyim)?

Answer: The reason for this is because, since a Yisrael is not Chayav Misah (for Kinuyim), we cannot learn that a Nochri is Chayav Misah from a Pasuk that is written by Yisrael.

Question: How does the Gemara know that R. Yitzchak (Nafcha) argues with R. Meyashe? Perhaps the latter will concede that we include Nochrim from "ka'Ger u'ke'Ezrach", whilst here the Gemara is referring to the Pasuk of "Ish", which can only be established to include Nochrim according to R. Meir?

Answer: Because, were it not for the fact that we include Nochrim from "Ish Ish", we would not include them from "ka'Ger u'k'Ezrach" alone - since by a Yisrael there is no Misah.

Refuted Explanation: When the Gemara will shortly ask what the Rabbanan will learn from "Ish Ish", it is not like Rashi, who explains that the She'eilah goes according to R. Meyashe as well, since according to him, the problem is non-existant.

Correct Explanation: The She'eilah however, goes according o R. Yitzchak, according to the Rabbanan.

Question (Part 1): But we need it ("Ish ki Yekalel"), like we Darshen it in Perek Mi she'Hayah Tamei, according to those who interpret 'Megadef' to mean Oved-Avodas-Kochavim - we need "ki Yekalel" for itself, to teach us that someone who 'blesses' Hash-m receives Kareis (from the Gezeirah-Shavah "ve'Nasa Chet'o" here from "Chet'o Yisa" [in connection with someone who failed to bring the Korban Pesach)?

Question (Part 2): And according to those who interpret 'Megadef' to mean someone who 'blesses Hashem', who we already know is Chayav Kareis (since the Torah specifically writes Kareis by Megadef), we need the Pasuk to be Mechayev Kareis someone who fails to bring the Pesach Sheini?

Answer: What the Gemara is really asking is why we need the actual words "Ki Yekalel", seeing as it could otherwise have inserted "be'Nasa Chet'o" by the Pasuk of "ve'Nokev Sheim ... ".

Clarification: Whereas "ve'Chi Yekalel" comes to teach us Kareis, as the Gemara in Pesachim (93b) explains. So Kinuyin are subject to Kareis ...

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara mentions the warning is ...

Answer: .. to preclude them from Misah, but not from Kareis.

Implied Question: Even though, that Pasuk is written with regard to taking back one's divorcee (after she has been married to another man), an Azharah which does not pertain to Nochrim ...

Answer: ... the Gemara nevertheless brings a proof that the word "Leimor" is written in connection with Ishus.

Implied Question: When we say later, on 59b, that Adam was not permitted to eat meat ...

Answer (Part 1): ... that is confined to killing an animal in order to eat it, but not to where it died by itself.

Answer (Part 2): And it is there that the Torah forbids Eiver min ha'Chai, even if the limb fell of by itself.

Question: The Gemara ought to have included Gid ha'Nasheh, according to the opinion in Chulin, 100b that it was forbidden to Ya'akov, and B'ris Milah that was given to Avraham Avinu?

Clarification (Part 1): The Gemara does not reckon the prohibition of eating meat and that of eating from the Eitz ha'Da'as, since they did not remain forbidden to future generations.

Clarification (Part 2): ... and it refers specifically to Adam ha'Rishon, but R. Yehudah's concedes, that the B'nei No'ach were commanded additional Mitzvos after the Flood ...

Proof: ... since the Gemara states in Chulin, 100b, that, according to R. Yehudah, the Isur of Eiver min ha'Chai will take effect on the Isur Tum'ah because it applies to Nochrim too.