(Mishnah): Peros of Chutz la'Aretz that entered Eretz [Yisrael] are obligated in Chalah;

If they went from here (Eretz Yisrael) to there (Chutz la'Aretz), R. Eliezer obligates and R. Akiva exempts.

Earth of Chutz la'Aretz that comes in a boat to Eretz [Yisrael] is obligated in Ma'aseros and in Shemitah.

R. Yehudah says, when is this? It is when the boat is Gosheshes (touches the ground; some say, it is less than 10 Tefachim above the ground).

A dough kneaded with fruit juice is obligated in Chalah, and it may be eaten with Tamei hands (it does not receive Tum'ah).

A woman may sit and separate Chalah [with a Brachah] when naked, because she can cover her Ervah [when she squats], but a man cannot.

(Gemara - Mishnah): Peros of Chutz la'Aretz...

It is written "El ha'Aretz Asher Ani Mevi Eschem Shamah'' - there (in Eretz Yisrael) you are obligated. You are not obligated in Chutz la'Aretz.

(Beraisa): This is R. Meir's opinion, but R. Yehudah says, Peros of Chutz la'Aretz that came to here, R. Eliezer exempts and R. Akiva obligates.

What is R. Eliezer's reason? "Lechem ha'Aretz'', and not bread of Chutz la'Aretz.

What is R. Akiva's reason? "El ha'Aretz Asher Ani Mevi Eschem Shamah'' - there you are obligated, both in Peros ha'Aretz and Peros of Chutz la'Aretz.

Question: How does R. Eliezer establish R. Akiva's verse?

Answer: "El ha'Aretz Asher Ani Mevi Eschem Shamah'' - [you are obligated with] Peros ha'Aretz (of that land).

(Talmidim citing R. Elazar, R. Ba citing R. Elazar, and R. Heila citing Reish Lakish): So R. Akiva answered R. Eliezer - do you not agree with me that when [Bnei Yisrael] entered Eretz Yisrael and found flour and doughs, they were obligated in Chalah? Did they not grow in a state of exemption? (Likewise Peros Chutz la'Aretz that entered Eretz Yisrael are obligated, even though they grew in a state of exemption! R. Eliezer) accepted this.

(R. Yosi): I am astounded how R. Akiva asked this to R. Eliezer, and he accepted it! There, before they entered [it is as if they grew in a state of Chiyuv, for] did they not inherit retroactively?!

(Rav Huna citing R. Shmuel bar Nachman): It does not say 'l'Zar'acha Eten', rather, "l'Zar'acha Nasati'' (it is as if Hash-m already gave it from the time of Bris Bein ha'Besarim).

Question: How does R. Akiva establish R. Eliezer's verse?

Answer: "Lechem ha'Aretz'' [teaches about a dough being baked] in a boat entering the land. If its faces formed a crust from the 'string' (the line connecting Turei Amnon and Nachal Mitzrayim) and within (closer to Eretz Yisrael, this area is considered part of Eretz Yisrael, so) it is obligated. [If its faces crusted] from the 'string' and outside, it is exempt;

According to R. Akiva, the same applies to [a dough being baked in] a boat, or [of] a Nochri, or [traveling on the ground and] entering the land. It all depends on [the location and ownership at the time] its faces crusted.

Chachamim agree to R. Akiva that when [Bnei Yisrael] entered the land, it all depends on [the time of] crusting in the oven.

We know this from R. Akiva's challenge to R. Eliezer, and he accepted it.