(a) How does Rashi explain this question? To what does he attribute our taking for granted that Tefilin apply in Chutz la'Aretz (even though the Torah writes 'Bi'ah' with regard to them?

(b) What does the Gemara in Bechoros say about Rami bar Chama (or Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak)?

(c) On what grounds is the question valid even assuming that they only observed these Mitzvos mid'Rabanan?

(d) How do we know that Orlah in Chutz la'Aretz is only mid'Rabanan?

(a) What problem do we have with the suggestion that a Mitzvah only falls under the category of 'ha'Teluyah ba'Aretz' if the Torah uses an expression of Bi'ah?

(b) How do we answer this question? What, according to the suggestion, are the two criteria of 'Mitzvos ha'Teluyos ba'Aretz'?

(a) On what grounds do we reject the text 'Avodas-Kochavim bi'Chelal Haysah, ve'Lamah Yatza's, Lehakish Eilehah ... '?

(b) What are the ramifications of what we have just said?

(a) The Pasuk to which the Gemara is referring is the Pasuk in Sh'lach-L'cha "Ki Savo'u el Eretz Moshvoseichem, va"Asisem Isheh ... ". In which connection is this Parshah written?

(b) According to Rashi's interpretation, what is "Moshav" coming to teach us, according to R. Yishmael?

(c) How do we know that the Pasuk is referring to the Korbanos of a Bamas Tzibur and not a Bamas Yachid?

(d) Why can "Moshvos" therefore not mean 'wherever you reside'?

(a) What does "Moshvoseichem" now come to preclude? During which period did they not bring Nesachim on a Bamas Tzibur?

(b) Did they bring Nesachim on the Bamah in Nov and Giv'on (after Shiloh was destroyed)?

(a) We object to Rashi, who cites the Pasuk in Vayakhel (in connection with the construction of the Mishkan) "Lo Seva'aru Eish be'Chol Moshvoseichem" as the Pasuk to which the Gemara is referring, on two grounds; one of them, because the Gemara in Shabbos Darshens something else from this Pasuk. What is that?

(b) What is our second objection, based on what the Gemara will shortly say about the 'Moshvos' of Shabbos?

(c) To which Pasuk in Emor must the Gemara therefore be referring?

TOSFOS DH BE'MAI KAMIFL'GI

(a) Rashi explains the Gemara's question as 'What did R. Akiva see to disagree with R. Yishmael?' Why not the other way round?

(a) From where do we know that they did not bring Nesachim in the Desert?

(b) How does Rashi query this from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh (in connection with the Milu'im) "ve'Zeh asher Ta'aseh al ha'Mizbe'ach"?

(c) How does he resolve the difficulty?

(d) How do we know that they did not bring Nesachim together with their Korbanos Yachid in the Desert?

(a) How does R. Akiva (who maintains that they did bring Nesachim in the Desert) establish the Pasuk in ...

1. ... Tetzaveh?

2. ... Sh'lach-L'cha which comes to render Korb'nos Yachid subject to Nesachim?

(b) What must "Moshvos" in Parshas Sh'lach-L'cha then be coming to teach us?

(c) To which period does this latter Derasha pertain?

(a) What does Rashi say in Parshas Beha'aloscha to explain why the Parshah of Korban Pesach, which took place before the opening Parshah of Sefer Bamidbar (which was said only in Iyar), does not in fact precede it?

(b) Based on which principle does the Torah sometimes record events in the wrong chronological order?

(a) Why, according to the Tana in our Sugya, did they not bring the Korban Pesach throughout their travels in the Desert? What does the Torah, in Parshas Bo, write in connection with the Korban Pesach that causes it?

(b) Then on what basis did they bring the Pesach under discussion?

(c) Which other Korban Pesach did they bring in this manner?

(d) Seeing as they were not supposed to bring the Korban Pesach before Yerushah vi'Yeshivah, why is not bringing it all those years then considered a disgrace on their part?

(a) What alternative explanation do we give to dispense with the previous question? With which Tana might those who hold that they did not bring the Korban Pesach during the forty years because of the disgrace of Klal Yisrael conform?

(b) With regard to which other Mitzvah does he say the same thing?

(c) In that case, why did they not bring the Korban Pesach?

(d) What was then the disgrace?

(a) Why did they not circumcise in Desert?

(b) Then how can Chazal describe this as a disgrace?

(a) How do we reconcile this with what we said earlier that there is more reason for Bikurim to apply immediately ('Bikurim de'Mishanya le'Alter')?

(a) How do we reconcile this with the Sugya in Arvei Pesachim, which learns from 'Moshav' that Matzah applies even nowadays, even though Pesach does not?

(a) Then what do we learn from 'Bi'ah' that is written in connection with Pesach?

(b) But do we not already learn this from the Pasuk in Bo ba'Erev Tochlu Matzos"? Why do we need two Pesukim to teach us the same thing?

(c) How do we know that these Pesukim are not speaking with reference to eating Matzos together with the Korban Pesach?

(a) On what basis does the I'bn Ezra ask how we know that "mi'Mochoras ha'Pesach" means the sixteenth and not the fifteenth?

(b) How does Rabeinu Tam answer the question? How does he interpret the phrase "va'Yochlu me'Avur ha'Aretz" that precedes "mi'Mochoras ha'Pesach"?

(c) When did they then eat the "Matzos ve'Kaluy" that follows it?

(d) What precedent do we have for referring to th sixteenth as "Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zeh"?

(a) The Ri disagrees with Rabeinu Tam. How does he explain the discrepancy between the Pasuk in Mas'ei and the Pasuk in Yehoshua?

(b) How does he prove his point from the Gemara's Lashon 'Me'ikara Lo Achol'?