(a) Why does the Gemara not ask that even according to the Chachamim, Mora and Mezuzah are ' Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad'.

(a) Rashi explains that the Gemara extrapolates this from the fact that the 'Hekesh' is required to exempt women from Mitzvos Asei she'ha'Zeman Gerama. Which 'Hekesh'?

(b) How does the Gemara extrapolate it from there?

(c) We query this however, due to the fact that we need the Hekesh for itself. If not for the Hekesh to Tefilin, from which two sources would we have learned that women are Chayav to observe Mitzvos Asei she'ha'Zeman Gerama?

(d) We therefore explain the Gemara's inference from the Torah's placing of the Hekesh "Toras Hash-m be'Ficha". Next to which Mitzvah/os ought the Torah to have juxtaposed it to teach us that Mitzvos Asei she'Lo ha'Zeman Gerama are Patur?

(a) How does Rashi explain the question? What ought we now to learn from ...

1. ... Tefilin?

2. ... Matzah and Hakheil?

(b) How could we learn the latter Limud, seeing as Matzah and Hakheil are two Pesukim?

(a) We answer by establishing R. Meir as the one who considered Tefilin to be a Mitzvas Asei sh'Lo ha'Zeman Gerama. So what if he is? How does that answer the question?

(b) From where will R. Meir then learn that women are Patur from Mitzvos Asei she'ha'Zeman Gerama (if not from Tefilin)?

(c) We disagree with Rashi however (see Maharsha), who learns the P'tur from Re'iyah. From where do we learn it?

(d) What do we then learn from Talmud-Torah and Pidyon ha'Ben, from which women are Patur?

(a) This explains the source of Mitzvos Asei she'ha'Zeman Gerama. From where will we learn that they are Chayav Mitzvos Asei she'Lo ha'Zeman Gerama, seeing as Talmud-Torah and Pidyon ha'Ben are only two Pesukim, and this Tana (R. Yehudah) holds 'Ein Melamdin'?

(b) What problem do we have according to Abaye, who learned above 'Ishah, Ba'alah Mesamchah'?

(c) How do we answer that? Which other Mitzvas Asei she'ha'Zeman Gerama are women Chayav?

(d) How do we know that women are Chayav Kidush?

(a) Why is this initially difficult to understand?

(b) How do we answer that?

(c) What is an example of punishment in this context?

TOSFOS DH ISH, DE'BAR MITZVAH HU, IN; ISHAH, LO

(a) Why can this statement not be taken literally? What do we learn from the 'Hekesh' of Eved to Ishah?

(b) Then what does it mean?

(a) About whose beard is this speaking, besides that of a woman?

(b) What is the problem with that?

(c) Perhaps he has other signs of a Saris?

(a) We solve the problem, based on the Gemara in Nidah, which discusses someone who has not shown any signs of a Saris before reaching the age of thirty-five (Rov Shenosav). What distinction does the Gemara draw between before he reaches trhe age of thirty-five and afterwards?

(b) How does that solve the problem?

(a) On what grounds do we query the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'? How might we have known that a woman is not subject to the Lav "Lo Sashchis"?

(b) How do we answer that? Why could we not apply that form of logic, even though we did use it earlier?

(a) What does this mean? What would we have learned had the Torah written "es she'bi'Zekanecha"?

(b) How might we have learned this by means of a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (even though the Torah would have omitted the word "Pe'as")?

(c) How else might we have learned it?

(d) What do we learn now that the Torah writes "es Pe'as Zekanecha"?

(a) What does Rashi comment on this? From what will "Banim Atem la'Hashem Elokeichem" then preclude women (besides Korchah)?

(b) What, according to the current suggestion, is the difference between 'Seritah and Gedidah?

(c) What problem do we have with this suggestion?

(a) How do we resolve the problem? What do we gain by learning "Ki Am Kadosh Atah" with regard to Seritah, even though it is written in a different Parshah?

(b) We cannot learn the other way round (to learn Gedidah from "Banim Atem" and not Korchah, as the Gemara already explains 'u'Mah Ra'isa Lerabos es ha'Gedidah u'Lehotzi es ha'Korchah ... '. What additional disadvantage would there be in learning like that?