If one ate a putita, a certain water insect, he is given four sets of lashes, as he has transgressed four separate negative Torah commandments, two that relate to creeping animals in general and two that relate to water insects in particular. If he ate an ant, he is given five sets of lashes for violating the two general prohibitions and another three negative commandments stated with regard to insects that creep upon the earth. If he ate a hornet, he is given six sets of lashes, for in addition to the prohibitions applying to an ant, he has transgressed a prohibition stated with regard to flying insects. And if it is correct that something that lives in water is considered as growing from the ground, one who eats a putita should also be given lashes for violating the following prohibition: “And every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41). Rather, fish must certainly not be considered as growing from the ground, and therefore this explanation is to be rejected.

Rather, Ravina said: There is a practical difference between the two baraitot with regard to fowl. According to the one who said that one may use second-tithe money only to purchase food which is the produce of produce and grown from the ground, these fowl are also regarded as having grown from the ground. However, according to the one who said that we apply it to that which is the offspring of the offspring of the earth, these fowl were created from mud and not from the ground, and consequently they are not included among the items that may be bought with second-tithe money.

These two distinct opinions are both based upon the exegetical principle of a generalization and a detail. The Gemara now asks: What is the reason of the one who includes fowl, and what is the reason of the one who excludes fowl?

The Gemara explains: The one who includes fowl holds that when there is a generalization, a detail, and another generalization, the latter generalization is primary. Therefore, the rule is similar to that governing a detail followed by a generalization, which maintains that the generalization is considered an addition to the detail, and all other items are included. However, the first generalization is effective in excluding anything that is not similar to it in two respects, as it is nonetheless a case of a generalization, a detail, and a generalization. Therefore, he excludes anything that does not grow from the ground and is not the produce of produce.

And the one who excludes fowl holds that the first generalization is primary. Therefore, a generalization, detail, and generalization is similar to a single generalization that is followed by a detail, with regard to which we maintain that the generalization only includes that which is spelled out in the detail. Therefore, with regard to these items mentioned in the verse, yes, one may purchase them with second-tithe money. With regard to something else, no, one may not. However, the latter generalization is effective to include anything that is similar to it in three respects, namely, it is the produce of produce, grows from the ground, and is offspring of the offspring of the earth, to the exclusion of fowl.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, who said in the name of Rav: One may establish an eiruv with cheap and unimportant produce such as cress, purslane, and sweet clover, but one may not establish an eiruv with green grain or with unripe dates.

The Gemara asks: But may one establish an eiruv with sweet clover? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to sweet clover that those who have many children may eat it, but those without children may not eat it, as it is harmful to one’s reproductive capacity; and if it was hardened into seed, i.e., if it became very hard and already fit to be planted, even those who have many children may not eat it? Therefore, we see that it is prohibited to eat sweet clover. How can it possibly be used to establish an eiruv?

The Gemara answers: Interpret Rav’s statement as referring to sweet clover that was not yet hardened into seed, and its use for establishing an eiruv is limited to those who have many children and are therefore permitted to eat it.

And if you wish, you can say instead that actually, sweet clover is fit for an eiruv even for those without children because it is fit to be eaten by those who have many children. The food used for an eiruv must be edible, but it does not need to be edible for the particular person using it as his eiruv. Didn’t we learn in the mishna: One may establish an eiruv for a nazirite with wine, and for an Israelite with teruma? Apparently, these items may be used as an eiruv even though they are not fit for this person, because they are fit for that other person. Here too, even though the sweet clover is not fit for this person, it may be used because it is fit for that other person.

And if you wish, you can say instead: When Rav said that sweet clover may be used for an eiruv, he was referring to Median clover, which is of superior quality and is not harmful.

The Gemara considers the continuation of Rav’s statement: And may one not establish an eiruv with green grain? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: In the case of dodder and green grain, one may establish an eiruv with them; and when eating them one recites the blessing: Who creates the fruit of the ground?

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This first statement, according to which green grain may not be used for an eiruv, was made before Rav came to Babylonia. That second statement was made after Rav came to Babylonia and saw that people there ate green grain, at which point he ruled that it is fit to be used for an eiruv.

The Gemara asks: Is Babylonia the majority of the world? Laws are established according to the custom prevalent in most of the world. Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: In the case of beans, barley, and fenugreek that one planted in order to use as an herb, e.g., as animal fodder, his opinion is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people? Since most people do not act this way, we do not consider this particular person’s intention to be significant. Therefore, one is obligated to tithe their seeds, and their herbs are exempt. When one harvests these plants in their green state, before their seeds have matured, they are regarded as not having fully ripened. However, in the case of cress and arugula, which are commonly eaten both in their green state and as seeds, if one planted them in order to use them as herbs, they are tithed both as herbs and as seeds; if one planted them for their seeds, they are tithed as seeds and as herbs, no matter how they are eaten. In any case, the first part of the baraita teaches that the law is determined in accordance with the common custom of most of the world and not with the practice in one particular place.

The Gemara answers: When Rav said that green grain may be used for an eiruv,