?אסמכתא What is the Point of

§ The Master said: “The homeborn” is to the exclusion of women. Is that to say that the term homeborn without the definite article indicates both men and women? Isn’t it taught the term “the homeborn” in that verse comes to include homeborn women, who are obligated in the mitzva of affliction on Yom Kippur. In that case, the definite article comes to include women. Therefore, apparently, the term homeborn, without the definite article, indicates only men. Rabba said: They are each a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the Sages merely supported them with verses. Therefore, it is not surprising that the derivations are contradictory.

The Master said in the baraita: “All the homeborn” comes to include the minors. Didn’t we learn in the mishna: Women and slaves and minors are exempt from the mitzva of sukka? This is not difficult. Here, it is referring to a minor who reached the age of training. Here, it is referring to a minor who did not yet reach the age of training. The obligation of a minor who reached the age of training to perform mitzvot is by rabbinic law, and therefore it is not derived from a verse. Indeed, the obligation of the minor is by rabbinic law as part of his training, and the verse is a mere support alluding to that obligation.

Rather, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the Sages learned the minimum height of a sukka as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: The measures and interpositions and partitions are all halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara questions this assertion: Are measures a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? They are written in the Torah, as it is written: “A land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey” (Deuteronomy 8:8), and Rav Ḥanin said: This entire verse is stated for the purpose of teaching measures with regard to different halakhot in the Torah.

Apparently, all these halakhic measurements are derived from this verse in the Torah and are not halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. And how can you understand it in that manner that all these measures are explicitly written in the Torah with regard to each of the halakhot mentioned above? Rather, they are halakhot that were transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the verse cited is mere support for these halakhot, not a source.

And because of this, when we said, "Sizes are a law of Moshe from Sinai," they challenged us and said (Berakhot 40a), "Why do you say they are a 'law of Moshe from Sinai,' and behold, sizes are hinted about in the verse, when it stated (Deuteronomy 8:8), 'A land of wheat and barley'"; the answer will be that it is 'a law of Moshe from Sinai,' and the sizes do not have a source from which to extrapolate them by one of the ways of reasoning, and they do not have a hint in all of the Torah, but [rather] this commandment was associated with this verse as a [mnemonic], so that it will be known and remembered, but it is not the subject of the verse. And this is the [meaning] of what they said, "The verse is [only] a general association," in every place they mentioned.

73. ... or they use Biblical verses as a kind of fulcrum of interpretation in a method called Asmakhtā, and make them a sort of hall mark of tradition... connecting them with the verse as aid to memory.

The Rabbis are accustomed to always give with their ideas words of the Torah to support them.

Rather this is definitely not a kal v'chomer and rather is an esmachta to support the words of the Rabbis that prohibit work on chol ha'moed.

§ It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: For what reason did the Torah say: Bring the omer offering on the second day of Passover? It is because Passover is the time of grain, the beginning of the grain harvest season, and therefore the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Bring the omer offering before Me on Passover so that the grain in the fields will be blessed for you. And for what reason did the Torah say: Bring the offering of the two loaves from the new wheat on Shavuot? It is because Shavuot is the time of the fruits that grow on a tree, when it begins to ripen, and therefore the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Bring the offering of the two loaves before Me on Shavuot so that the fruits that grow on a tree will be blessed for you. And for what reason did the Torah say: Pour water onto the altar in the Temple on the festival of Sukkot? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Pour water before Me on the festival of Sukkot so that the rains of the year, which begin to fall after Sukkot, will be blessed for you. And recite before Me on Rosh HaShana verses that mention Kingships, Remembrances, and Shofarot: Kingships so that you will crown Me as King over you; Remembrances so that your remembrance will rise before Me for good; and with what will the remembrance rise? It will rise with the shofar.

...

The impurity of idolatry is by rabbinic law. And whenever there are two possibilities with regard to a rabbinic decree, a leniency and a stringency, we juxtapose to establish the lenient possibility, and we do not juxtapose to establish the stringent possibility.

And what did you see that you juxtaposed the cases in favor of a leniency? Perhaps you should juxtapose for a stringency, These proofs are cited merely as support for halakhot that apply by rabbinic law, and consequently, they are interpreted as a leniency, not a stringency.