==========

FOOTNOTES:

==========

(1) That is, is the verse considered one of two verses that teach the same thing (Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad) when we have already learned from a different source that a woman is obligated (or exempt) from this type of Mitzvah?

(2) We might have thought that a woman is obligated, since a Hekesh compares this Mitzvah with the Mitzvah of Hakhel.

(3) We might have thought that a woman is obligated, since a Hekesh compares this Mitzvah with the Mitzvah of Matzah on Pesach night.

(4) We might have thought that a woman is obligated, since a Hekesh compares this Mitzvah with the Mitzvah of Mezuzah.

(5) We might have thought that a woman is exempt, since a Hekesh compares this Mitzvah with the Mitzvah of Sukah.

(6) That is, according to the view that holds that Tefilin are not worn on Shabbos or at night, and therefore it is a Mitzvah that depends on a specific time.

(7) That is, according to Rebbi Yehudah (as Rashi writes on 35a, DH d'Havi Simchah). According to the other Tana'im, though, Abaye has already explained (34b) that women themselves are not obligated in the Mitzvah of Simchah, but rather their husbands are obligated to make them rejoice.

(8) So points out Tosfos (35a, DH Mishum).

(9) So writes the Gemara in Sukah (28a).

(10) Apparently, this verse is indeed extra (if we learn that women are obligated in Mitzvos Aseh sheha'Zeman Gerama from a different verse), and therefore it is difficult to understand why Tosfos (footnote #8) does not mention it. Perhaps the reason is because Tosefes Inuy of Yom Kipur is excluded from the punishment of Kares and from being a Lo Ta'aseh, and thus we might have thought that it is a more lenient prohibition, and women are exempt from it even if they are obligated in all other Mitzvos Aseh sheha'Zeman Gerama. (See Sukah 28b, and Teshuvos Rebbi Akiva Eiger 3:80, v'Tzarich Iyun.)

(11) That is, is the verse considered one of two verses that teach the same thing (Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad) if we have already learned from a different source that a woman is obligated (or exempt) from this type of Mitzvah?

(12) If not for the verse, we might have thought that a woman is exempt since a woman does not have the wherewithal to fulfill this Mitzvah (since she is Meshu'abad to her husband).

(13) If not for the verse, we might have thought that a woman is exempt because the verse says "v'Chivshuhah," and it is only the nature of a man to conquer the land (like the Rabanan hold, who argue with Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah).

(14) If not for the verse, we might have thought that a woman is exempt, because a Hekesh compares this Mitzvah with the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah (so writes Tosfos on 34b, DH Nashim).

(15) If not for the verse, we would not have known that one who fulfills this verse is blessed with long life (Shitah Lo Noda l'Mi).

(16) So points out Tosfos (34b, DH Nashim).

(17) So points out the Shitah Lo Noda l'Mi (34b).

(18) Rashi (34a, DH Mah Talmud Torah), however, says that the source is from the verse "le'Vanecha" (Devarim 6:7) (see RASHASH).