Yevamos 15a - Agudos and B"S following their opinion

There are many difficulties with this sugya.

1. The gemara 14a asks on the opinion that b"s practiced their opinion regarding the tzaras ervah, how can they do that, what about lo tisgodidu. What is the gemara suggesting that they do instead, can they allow a yevama leshuk just to avoid lo tisgodidu (perhaps chalitzah would have been a solution, but that should also be lo tisgodidu since b"h didn't require it)?

2. Also, why does the gemara ask only on b"s that if they practiced their opinion it would be an issur of making agudos, why not ask the same question on b"h - who says it was b"s that was causing the split, maybe it was b"h?

3. Tosafos 15a d.h. v'sicheich, proves from the gemara that acc. to the opinion that b"s followed the practice of b"h, that is even when b"h was lenient. How can b"s submit and follow b"h to be lenient since they held that it is assur?

4. The rashash points out that rashi 15b states explicitly as the gemara strongly implies, that the opinon who says that b"s did not practice their opinion, that is only to avoid making agudos agudos, but the gemara 14a says clearly that the rationale for not practicing their opinion is that they were sharper and/or don't care about the bas kol?

5. Since the gemara concludes that there is no issur of agudos between b"s and b"h bec. they are different batei dinim (either in 2 cities acc. to abaya and even in 1 city acc. to rava), how can rashi explain that the opinion who says that b"s did not practice what they held was bec. of agudos?

See comment for a mehalech.