Implied question (Rashi): It says "Lo Seshaktzu... b'Chol Asher Tirmos ha'Adamah"! (He should be lashed also for this verse.)

Answer #1 (Rashi): This verse discusses big (creatures), for it does not say "Sheretz" (which alludes to what is noticed only through running, for it is small).

Objection: In Sanhedrin (59b) we expound "uv'Chol Chayah ha'Romeses" - this is a snake;

Inference: Also Remishah is something that swarms, like a snake, which goes on its belly!

Answer #2 (Ri of Orlins): In Me'ilah (16b) we establish this verse only for the eight Sheratzim, like it says "Asher Hivdalti Lachem Letamei" - the verse discusses what was separated [received a different law].

Question: In Nazir (35b) it says "what is the difference between two Peratim and a Klal, and two Kelalim and a Prat? Two Kelalim and a Prat, if there is something that resembles [the Prat] even in one Tzad (way), we include it. Two Peratim and a Klal, [we do not include] until it resembles it in two ways";

Inference: One Tzad suffices [when there are two Kelalim and a Prat]!

Answer: The two Tzedadim here are like one Tzad there, for the two Tzedadim here, Pri mi'Pri and Gidulei Karka, are equal;

In Kidushin (24b) regarding [a slave goes free if his master knocks out his] tooth or eye, it expounds "just like the Prat is a visible blemish and does not return", also those are equal Tzedadim.

Implied question: It asks there "this shows that the Prat is a visible blemish, [the limb] ceases to do its task, and it does not return"! (Even if two of these Tzedadim are considered equal, this is like two Tzedadim.)

Answer #1: That is according to the opinion that the first Klal is primary (therefore, it must be similar in two Tzedadim), for you are forced to say that ceasing to do its task is inferior to the others, for it answers "l'Chafshi Teshalcheno" is an inclusion. If it is equal [to the others], why do we include it more than the other Tzedadim?

Support: We find like this Sugya in Chulin (66a) regarding locusts, and in Bechoros (37a) regarding a blind or lame animal. All of them are according to the opinion that the first Klal is primary, like I explained.

Answer #2 (Ri): It is even like the opinion that the latter Klal is primary. Also he holds that [what we include] must resemble [the Peratim] in all the important Tzedadin, even if one is more important than the other, as long as it is not too inferior;

However, according to the opinion that the first Klal is primary, he requires that [what we include] resembles [the Peratim] even in a Tzad that is very inferior.

Chachamim are authorized to determine which Tzad is inferior that they argue about.

Question: Why don't we answer like we answer in Shabbos (144b) "these are different! Araviya is a region. Here (Beis Menasiya, who would squeeze pomegranates, is an individual). His opinion is Batel to that of normal people.

Answer: There, surely we can distinguish. Also the entire world, if they had many camels, like in Araviya, they would grow cactus in their fields. Therefore, a region's practice is important;

However Beis Menasiya, even though also the entire world, if they had many pomegranates, they would squeeze them, since he is only an individual, Batlah Daito;

However, here, there is fodder in the entire world, and they do not eat it. We should not distinguish between a region and an individual.

Support #1: This is why below (29b), when it asks "are Persians the majority of the world?!", we do not bring from this Beraisa that Persians should be Batel to the majority of the world;

I should not be Mevatel them, since they have much meat, and also the rest of the world, if they had much meat, would eat without bread, similar to Araviya (their practice is not Batel).

Support #2: The Gemara properly brings (below, 30a) from clothes of Aniyim. They do not require the Shi'ur for rich people, since less is important in their eyes;

Also, it compares the Shi'urim to each other. (Maharsha - just like the Shi'urim for Aniyim is not Batel to the Shi'ur for rich people, and vice-versa, the Shi'ur for Persians is not Batel to that of the rest of the world, and not vice-versa.) Also, it is not appropriate to bring below the case in Shabbos (of Araviya, for two Shi'urim does not apply there.)

Implied question: Why does it say "therefore"? It teaches that Batlah Daito (i.e. we consider as if he planted for the seeds, like everyone else, so only the seeds are obligated. "Therefore" connotes that we derive another consequence!)

Answer: We could have say that Batlah Daito regarding that it is tithed after a third growth, like the law of seed, or regarding tithing from the bad on the good.

Question: Why didn't he teach both together - if he seeded them for the seeds or for Yerek, he tithes the seeds and Yerek!

Answer (Ri): When he seeded them for Yerek, the Yerek is primary, and everything, i.e. the seeds and Yerek, is tithed based on when it is picked, like Yerek;

If he seeded them for seeds, everything is tithed retroactively, based on the time proper for Ma'aser or seeds, and not based on when it was picked, like Yerek;

This is why it taught in the Reisha Yerek and seeds, and in the Seifa seeds and Yerek, for in the Reisha the Yerek is primary, and in the Seifa the seeds are primary.

Consequence: Another consequence is regarding tithing from the bad on the good. When the Yerek is primary, the Yerek is considered good. When the seeds are primary, the seeds are considered good, and [tithing] seeds on Yerek is from the good on the bad.

Support: The Yerushalmi in Ma'aseros connotes like this.

Question (R. Shimon): If so, for this reason peppers should be liable to be tithed, and if so, they receive Tum'as Ochlim, for these depend on each other, like it says in Nidah 50b)!

There in the Gemara it brings that they voted and concluded that peppers do not receive Tum'as Ochlim!

Answer: The reason why Gargir is obligated in Ma'aser is not because people dip in it, rather, because when they grind it, it itself is proper to eat. However, it is not common to grind it, in order to eat it itself, rather, in order to dip in it;

However, peppers, also when they are ground, they are not proper [to eat] by themselves, and they are exempt from Ma'aser.

Implied question: Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav that one blesses Borei Peri ha'Adamah on hops and fodder!

Answer: We established this regarding fodder grown in a garden (everyone eats it).

Question: In Nidah (51b), it asks about Kosht (costus, a root), Chimum (a type of chrysanthemum), and fragrant spices, if they may be bought with Ma'aser money, they should be Mekabel Tum'as Ochlim;

We concluded that they voted and decided that they may not be bought with Ma'aser money, and are not Mekabel Tum'as Ochlim. Here it teaches that Kor (shoots of a date tree) may be bought with Ma'aser money, and it is not Mekabel Tum'as Ochlim!

Answer: There, surely, if it is proper to eat, it is a food, and we properly apply to it "mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel";

However, here Kor is not called a food, since it is destined to harden, and people do not plant a date tree with intent for the Kor;

In any case, one may buy it with Ma'aser money, for now it is soft, and it is Pri mi'Pri, even though it is not a food.

Implied question: Kor is proper [to eat] through cooking and frying, yet it does not receive Tum'as Ochlim!

Answer: That is because it is like wood, just it is proper through cooking, just like hide below;

However, here it is easy to sweeten [almonds], so they are considered a food, and even before sweetening they receive Tum'as Ochlim.

Explanation: This refers to bitter [almonds, both] big and small.

Suggestion: Perhaps it refers to small, whether they are bitter or sweet!

Rejection: In Chulin (25b), in most texts it says "according to the opinion that both are obligated, what are big ones proper for?"

Explanation: According to the first Tana he blesses Borei Peri ha'Adamah;

Even though regarding Berachah it is called Pri, still it is not considered [Pri] to receive Tum'as Ochlim.