1)

(a)Yisrael ate from the new crops of Eretz Yisrael for the first time - on the sixteenth of Nisan of the fortieth year after leaving Egypt.

(b)When the Pasuk in Beshalach writes that Yisrael ate the Manna until they reached the edge of Eretz Kena'an - it refers to Arvos Mo'av (which was not part of Eretz Yisrael).

(c)We reconcile this the earlier part of the same Pasuk, which says that they ate the Manna until they reached "the inhabited land" - by establishing the former with regard to the last fall of Manna (which took place when Moshe died on the seventh of Adar), and the latter ...

(d)... because that last fall of Manna lasted for forty days).

2)

(a)The problem with the Pasuk which states that they ate the Manna for forty years is - that seeing as it only began falling thirty days after they left Egypt (on the sixteenth of Iyar), they ate it for thirty days less than forty years.

(b)The Tana resolves the problem however, by pointing out - that the Matzah cakes which they took out of Egypt tasted like Manna, in which case, to all intents and purposes, they really did eat it for forty years.

3)

(a)Given that Yisrael crossed the Jordan River on the tenth of Nisan, we can prove that Moshe died on the seventh of Adar - because the Navi records how Yisrael wept for him for thirty days, and how three days later, on the tenth of Nisan, they crossed the Yarden. Now if one counts thirty-three days, working backwards from the tenth of Nisan, one arrives at the seventh of Adar.

(b)And we know that he was also born on the seventh of Adar - because the Pasuk writes in Vayelech "ben Me'ah ve'Esrim Shanah Anochi ha'Yom", from which we extrapolate that Hash-m fills the days of Tzadikim, to ensure that they live full lives (to die on the same day that they were born).

(c)The other Pasuk teaches us the same principle is the Pasuk in Mishpatim - "Es Mispar Yamecha Amalei."

4)

(a)Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa lists three Mitzvos that were commanded as soon as Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael - Chadash, Kilayim and Orlah.

(b)They were not applicable earlier - because Yisrael did not grow crops in the desert.

(c)We assume that if Chadash was commanded then, the other two must have been commanded too - because ...

1. ... Kilayim has three stringencies over Chadash ...

2. ... whilst Orlah has two.

(d)The Chumrah that applies to Kilayim, but not to Orlah, is - 'she'Isuro Isur Olam' (that the Isur itself never becomes permitted).

5)

(a)The two Chumros that are common to both Kilayim and Orlah over Chadash - are that 1. they are both Asur be'Hana'ah, and 2. the forbidden fruit never becomes permitted.

(b)The distinction that Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon draws between Mitzvos that Yisrael were commanded to observe even before they arrived in Eretz Yisrael and those that were commanded to observe only afterwards is - that whereas the former extended to the fruit of Chutz la'Aretz, the latter was confined to that of Eretz Yisrael.

(c)The only two exceptions to the latter, according to him, that apply even in Chutz la'Aretz, even though they were given only after they entered Eretz Yisrael - are the cancellation of debts at the end of the Shemitah-year and the sending away of Jewish servants at the beginning of the Yovel.

(d)Bearing in mind that before and after entering the land is synonymous with Mitzvos that are 'Chovas ha'Guf' (personal Mitzvos) and those that are 'Chovas Karka' (connected with the land), the problem with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon's classification of Hashmatas Kesafim is - that, seeing as it has no connection with the land, it does not belong in the latter part of his statement.

6)

(a)We establish Rebbi Elazar be'Rebbi Shimon, who classifies the cancellation of debts together with the Mitzvos that were commanded after they entered the Land, like Rebbi, who learns from the Pasuk in Re'eh "ve'Zeh Devar ha'Shemitah, Shamot" - that the Torah compares Shemitas Kesafim (the cancellation of debts) to Shemitas Karka, teaching us that when the latter applies, the former applies too, but not when it does not (i.e. nowadays).

(b)This explains - why Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon inserts Hashmatas Kesafim in the latter part of his statement, together with the Mitzvos that are connected to the land.

(c)Rebbi learns from the extra phrase there "Ki Kara Shemitah la'Hashem" - that the comparison of Shemitas Kesafim to Shemitas Karka does not extend to location (because we extrapolate from this Pasuk that Shemitas Kesafim applies in Chutz la'Aretz, too.

7)

(a)The releasing of Jewish servants in the Yovel, like the cancellation of debts, is a personal obligation, which has nothing to do with land. Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon nevertheless classifies it together with the Mitzvos that were commanded after they entered the Land - because the Torah writes "u'Kerasem D'ror ba'Aretz" - implying that it has the Din of a Mitzvah that is connected with the land.

(b)In fact, he learns from the Pasuk "Yovel Hi" - that it applies everywhere, even in Chutz la'Aretz ...

(c)... and the Torah writes "u'Kerasem D'ror ba'Aretz" to teach us - that it only applies in Chutz la'Aretz when it applies in Eretz Yisrael (but not nowadays).

8)

(a)The Mishnah in Orlah writes 'ha'Chadash Asur min ha'Torah be'Chol Makom, Orlah Halachah, veha'Kilayim mi'Divrei Sofrim'. The source for the first part of this statement is the Pasuk "be'Chol Moshvoseichem".

(b)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel interprets 'Orlah Halachah' as 'Halachos Medinah' - meaning that the people themselves adopted this as a Chumra.

(c)Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan interprets it as - 'Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

9)

(a)The Mishnah in Orlah forbids Safek Orlah in Eretz Yisrael. Besides a Safek whether a particular is more than three years old or not, Safek Orlah might also mean - fruit that was picked from a field in which young trees and old ones were growing, and one does not know from which of the trees the fruit in question was picked.

(b)The Tana permits Safek Orlah in Syria, despite the fact that David ha'Melech captured it - because, for one reason, his capture of Syria had the Din of a private conquest, which does not become part of Eretz Yisrael automatically.

(c)The Tana rules - that one is permitted to purchase Safek Orlah in Chutz la'Aretz from someone who is selling fruit outside the field, provided he does not see him actually picking fruit from that field.

10)

(a)The Tana there forbids buying from someone who is selling vegetables outside a vineyard in Eretz Yisrael, if vegetables are growing in the vineyard (a contravention the laws of Kilayim). In the same case in ...

1. ... Syria, he permits it.

2. ... Chutz la'Aretz - he even permits purchasing from the Nochri who picked the Kilayim in front of him (provided he does not pick the fruit himself).

(b)Ula asked Rav Yehudah, why, if, as he claims, Orlah in Chutz la'Aretz is only Asur mid'Rabanan, the Tana in Orlah is more stringent regarding Orlah (forbidding him to buy from a Nochri who picked the Kilayim in front of him) than he is regarding Kilayim (where he permits it). This is not a problem according to Ula himself - since he considers Orlah to be a Halachah, which is obviously more stringent than Kilayim, which is only an Isur mid'Rabanan.

(c)Rav Yehudah replied - that the Mishnah does indeed need to be amended; either one must learn in both cases 'Zeh va'Zeh Yored ve'Loke'ach' or 'Zeh va'Zeh Yored ve'Lokeit'.

(d)Mar Brei de'Ravna adopted - the lenient approach, so that both sections read 'Zeh ve'Zeh Yored ve'Lokeit (u'Vilevad she'Lo Yilkot be'Yad').