The Children of Israel were given several mitzvot at the time they entered the land, so the Gemara focuses on their experience just before this time. For example, how close to the land of Israel were they when they stopped eating the manna? It's not as obviously "40 years in the wilderness" as one might think. Plus, tracking the date via Moshe's death on the 7th of Adar. Plus, how it is known that he was born on the 7th of Adar too, and the righteous implications of that. Also, more on the mitzvot that were to be practiced in the land of Israel, and some select few that apply outside of the land too - specifically with regard to debts and relinquishing debts.

Mitzvot that depend on the land only apply in the land of Israel. Mitzvot that are not dependent on the land apply everywhere. But orlah and kilayim also apply everywhere. And R. Eliezer says "chadash" - and the question is whether he is being more machmir, in adding another mitzvah to the list, or swapping it out. What does "land-dependent" mean? Because not all of these mitzvot seem quite dependent on the land! Plus, a deep dive into R. Eliezer's position, and R. Akiva's question on him.

Rava and Abaye on Isi's position regarding women not making bald spots on their heads. Plus, the Jewish people as treated like children, in their relationship with God, as compared to when the relationship is there, but the epithet is not (depending on their loyalty). Also, a new mishnah - on how women, for the most part, did not participate in the actions connected to offering sacrifices, except for that connected to sotah and a female nazir.

And now, sources for why women are obligated in negative commandments, including 3 verses that teach different component parts.

How do we know that women are exempt from positive time-bound commandments? It's learned from tefillin, which is linked to learning Torah. Or tefillin could be linked to mezuzah - but that would make women obligated in tefillin! Also, delving into the mitzvah of Re'iyah, which is specifically for males - implying that women are obligated in other positive time-bound commandments. But maybe that's just Hakhel? Note that there's no middle ground between a women under her father's auspices or her husband's. But the original examples do seem to provide the source in the most simple (albeit complicated) manner.