(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): Even Chadash (eating new grain before the Omer offering is brought).

(Gemara) Question: Which Mitzvos are called 'dependent on the land'?

Suggestion: They are those in which it says 'Bi'ah' (keep this Mitzvah when you come to Eretz Yisrael).

Rejection: It says 'Bi'ah' regarding Tefilin and redeeming a firstborn donkey, yet they apply even in Chutz La'Aretz!

Answer (Rav Yehudah): They are the Mitzvos done with the land or things that grow on it;

Other Mitzvos are obligations on the person, and apply also in Chutz La'Aretz.

Question: What is the source for this?

Answer (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "these are the statutes... in the land" teaches that all Mitzvos apply only in Eretz Yisrael!

Rejection: "All the days that you live on the land" obligates also in Chutz La'Aretz.

Suggestion: Perhaps (all) Mitzvos apply even in Chutz La'Aretz!

Rejection: It says "in the land".

Resolution: We learn from the context. Right after "all the days...", it says "you will destroy all the places (of idolatry)";

Just like idolatry does not depend on the land, and applies even in Chutz La'Aretz, also all such Mitzvos.

(Mishnah): Except for Orlah and Kilayim... (R. Eliezer says, even Chadash).

Question: Is R. Eliezer more lenient or more stringent than the first Tana?

Even though Orlah and Kilayim depend on the land, a tradition from Sinai teaches that they also apply in Chutz La'Aretz.

Does the first Tana hold that Chadash is only in Eretz Yisrael, because when the Torah says "Moshav" ("b'Chol Moshvoseichem", in all your dwellings), this refers to after we inherit and apportion the land?

R. Eliezer argues and says that it applies everywhere, because "Moshav" connotes wherever you dwell.

Or, perhaps the first Tana holds that Chadash applies everywhere, because "Moshav" connotes wherever you dwell? (He taught Orlah and Kilayim, for these are known only through tradition.)

R. Eliezer says that Chadash applies only in Eretz Yisrael, because "Moshav" connotes after inheriting and apportioning.

He says 'even Chadash', i.e. even Chadash is only in Eretz Yisrael, like the other Mitzvos dependent on the land.

Answer: R. Eliezer is more stringent. We may deduce this from Abaye, who said that the first Tana is R. Yishmael;

(Beraisa #1 - R. Yishmael): "Moshav" always connotes after inheriting and apportioning.

R. Akiva: It says "Moshav" regarding Shabbos, and Shabbos applies even in Chutz La'Aretz!

R. Yishmael: A Kal va'Chomer teaches that Shabbos applies even in Chutz La'Aretz.

Even Mitzvos that if transgressed bring only a light punishment, apply also in Chutz La'Aretz, all the more so Shabbos!

Question: R. Yishmael discusses Nesachim (offerings that accompany a Korban). Regarding Nesachim, the Torah says "Bi'ah (coming to Eretz Yisrael)" and "Moshav"!

Correction: R. Yishmael says, whenever it says "Bi'ah" and "Moshav", it means after inheriting and apportioning.

Question: R. Akiva asked from Shabbos, regarding which it says only "Moshevos", and R. Yishmael answered from a Kal va'Chomer!

R. Yishmael should have answered 'I discuss only when it says Bi'ah and Moshav'!

Answer: Indeed, he said so! The Beraisa records a second answer that he gave;

Even if you (R. Akiva) holds that "Moshevos" alone refers to after inheriting and apportioning, a Kal va'Chomer teaches that Shabbos applies even in Chutz La'Aretz.

Question: What do they argue about? (Why does R. Akiva disagree with R. Yishmael?)

Answer: They argue about whether or not Nesachim (about which it says "Bi'ah" and "Moshav") were offered in the Midbar;

R. Yishmael holds that they were not offered; R. Akiva says that they were.

(Abaye): The following Tana (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael) understood R. Yishmael differently (that it depends only on whether or not it says Bi'ah):

(Beraisa #2 - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): In many places, the Torah discusses Bi'ah (coming to Eretz Yisrael). Regarding appointing a king, it specified after inheriting and apportioning. This teaches that wherever it says "Bi'ah", it means after inheriting and apportioning.

The first Tana (of Beraisa #1, according to R. Yishmael) does not learn to other places, for also regarding Bikurim it says after inheriting and apportioning. These are Shnei Kesuvim, so we do not learn from them to elsewhere.

Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael holds that neither Bikurim nor appointing a king could have been learned from the other.

Had the Torah taught only regarding a king, one might have thought that we bring Bikurim immediately, for we enjoy the fruits of Eretz Yisrael immediately;

Had the Torah taught only regarding Bikurim, one might have thought that we should appoint a king immediately, in order to lead us in war.

The first Tana argues with the first reason. Had it taught that we appoint a king only after inheriting and apportioning, even though (a king would be useful beforehand, for) kings normally conquer, we would know that all the more so that Bikurim do not apply until after inheriting and apportioning.

Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael says, had the Torah not taught about Bikurim, we would have learned from Chalah (which applied from the moment we entered).

Question: Since we have a general rule that Mitzvos not dependent on land apply everywhere, why did the Torah need to write "Moshevos" regarding Shabbos?

Answer: One might have thought that since Shabbos is written with the Mo'adim (holidays), Beis Din must be Mekadesh Shabbos just like they are Mekadesh the Mo'adim (and this can only be in Yehudah's portion in Eretz Yisrael). "Moshevos" teaches that Shabbos applies in all dwellings, i.e. it does not need Kidush in Beis Din.

Question: Why did the Torah need to write "Moshav" regarding Chelev and blood?

Answer: One might have thought that since they are written with Korbanos, they apply only when we have a Mikdash and can bring Korbanos. Moshav teaches that this is not so.

Question: Why did the Torah need to write "Moshav" regarding Matzah and bitter herbs?

Answer: Since it says "with (the Korban Pesach) you will eat them", one might have thought that they apply only when we have the Korban Pesach. Moshav teaches that this is not so.

Question: Why did the Torah need to write "Bi'ah" regarding Tefilin and redemption of a firstborn donkey?

Answer (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): In the merit of doing these Mitzvos, we will enter Eretz Yisrael.