Question: It implies here that one may pound spices without making a change, wehereas the Gemara in Shabbos (Daf 141. & 141:) says that grinding peppers using the handle of a knife is permitted one at a time, but not two at a time?

Refuted Answer: And in case you draw a distinction between peppers and spices ...

Refutation: This is incorrect, since the Tosefta specifically states (with reference to this very Mishnah that peppers have the same Din as spices.

Answer: The Gemara is speaking about Shabbos.

Proof: Of this is that had it been referring to Shabbos (as Rabeinu Chananel explains), then it ought to have said so.

Answer (cont.): Whereas here it is speaking about Yom-Tov, which is why it is permitted in the normal way, even using a stone mortar.

Halachah: However, sea-salt requires either a Shinuy or that one grinds it one grain at a time ...

Halachah (cont.): Which is not the case with out salt since it is man-made (See also Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Ramification #1: According to the first Lashon it requires a Shinuy, whereas according to the second Lashon, it doesn't.

Ramification #2: Alternatively, in the case where it doesn't lose its taste and he doesn't know, where, According to the second Lashon it does need a Shinuy, but not according to the first.

Halachah: The Ri Paskens that it is Asur in all cases, since we go le'Chumra.

Question: Even though by de'Rabbanans we generally go le'Kula ...

Answer: Here we go le'Chumra, since each case has a Kula and a Chumra.

Exception: Garlic however, one may grind on Yom-Tov without a Shinuy ...

Reason #1: Because it spoils badly if it is ground on Erev Yom-Tov.

Reason #2: Moreover, we say that an evil spirit rests on it if it is left overnight after being ground.

Refutation: The above ruling however is not acceptable, seeing as we Pasken like Shmuel shortly, who rules that whatever is pounded, may be pounded in the usual way (in keeping with the Beraisa that we bring to support him) with the exception of salt where one needs to hold it at an angle, by way of a small Shinuy.

Support: And this is how the Rif rules, since the Amora'im argue according to that Beraisa, even though our Mishnah disagrees with it, the Halachah is like the Beraisa.

Conclusion: And this is the way that one ought to Pasken, seeing as it has the support of great men (as we just explained).

Exception: In any event however, it is forbidden to grind peppers using a pepper-mill, since it resembles 'Uvdin de'Chol' (a weekday occupation).

Leniency #1:And even according to Tosfos (i.e. the Ri), who maintains that we go le'Chumra, it would seem that one is permitted to ground peppers, at least there where one does not know in advance how much one is going to cook ...

Reason: Because their taste weakens (as we explained earlier).

Leniency #2: And since the Gemara does not cite 'peppers' as the distinction between the two Leshonos, we can extrapolate that pepper becomes weaker too.

Leniency #3: However, according to the opinion of the sages mentioned earlier, which permits pounding whatever is normally pounded, one can permit even in a case where one does knows in advance how much he is going to cook, and even where it will not lose its taste.

Conclusion: Neverthess, whoever pounds a large batch of whatever he needs, before Yom-Tov, will be blessed by Elokim and by G-d's (four-letter) unique Name.

Clarification: Even something that may not be taken on Shabbos, such as the parts of a weaving-loom (that are Muktzah)?

Clarification (cont.): but (rather) say 'for everything', even in a pot.

Question: Nevertheless, why does the Gemara bring this? Perhaps it nevertheless requires a Shinuy?

Answer: As Rashi explains - that what the Gemara means is that they argue in similar circumstances to where they do not argue ...

Answer (concl.): Inasmuch as just they do not argue over grinding spices and the salt that goes with them in the normal manner without a Shinuy, likewise do Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue over salt by itself, to pound it in the normal way, no Shinuy required.

Clarification: In other words - Why does it need to mention two contradictory statements: 'It is forbidden to make Tisni (grains that are divided into four), implying that Chilka and Daysa are permitted, seeing as they do not involve an overly amount of trouble. And it then goes on to forbid grinding altogether?

Clarification: Now it makes sense, since they are two independent statements: Firstly, one may not make Tisni at all, even using a small mortar; and one may not pound other things at all - in a large mortar, but in a small one, everything is permitted except Tisni.

Clarification (cont.): Because this which is only for spices is deemed pounding in an unconventional manner.

Clarification: Really, the Tana is saying what the reason is, and no pounding is permitted, even using a small mortar.

Clarification (cont.): And he is speaking to the B'nei Eretz Yisrael who have servants who treat the matter lightly. This is how Rashi explains it.

Clarification: And this is not considered 'B'reirah'.

Question: In Maseches Shabbos (Daf 138.) the Gemara says that it is the way of Borer to select the food and to leave the waste, whilst here it implies that this is not called B'reirah, since it refers to that as a Shinuy (a change)?

Answer #1: What the Gemara means there is that he takes the food for himself and leaves the waste - i.e. he throws it away, because in any event, taking the waste from the food is B'reirah (See Ginzei Yosef).

Answer #2: Alternatively, it speaks there where the waste exceeds the food, in which case selecting the food from the waste is definitely the way of B'reirah ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Whereas here it is speaking when the food exceeds the waste, because then it is the way to select by taking the waste from the food.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara asks ' Is there anybody who permits (when the waste exceeds the food)? It is referring even to move it, it could just as well have asked that it is considered Borer ...

Answer: Only it asks even a stronger question, that even moving it is forbidden, since the minority is Bateil to the majority, and it is as if it was all waste?

Question: In connection with the Paroches of the Mishkan, the Gemara asks in Perek Gid ha'Nasheh (Chulin Daf 90: & 91.), that is subject to Tum'ah, when it says there that three hundred Kohanim were needed to Tovel it'.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara's reason does not apply there?

Answer #1: The Paroches is different, because it was bent over the Aron, rendering it an Ohel, which is subject to Tum'as Meis.

Question #1: The question remains however, how it can become Tamei through a V'lad ha'Tum'ah, as we see in Shekalim (Daf 12:), where the Gemara says so specifically, with reference to the liquids of a Zav and a Zavah' (See Rashash) ...

Question #1 (cont.): Otherwise (any other V'lad ha'Tum'ah) would not render Tamei a K'li?

Answer #1: Since it becomes an Ohel, it has the Din of a K'li which is subject to Tum'ah even via a V'lad.

Answer #2: Furthermore, R. Shmuel from Aibra says - that it (the Paroches) has the Din of a K'li due to the fact that, when transporting it from one place to another.

Alternative Text (Answer #2 to Question #1): The B'hag has the text (not Vilon Tamei but) 'Vilon Asur' ...

Explanation: And it is speaking about the Isur of Kil'ayim ...

Reason: Because the Shamash warms himself against it.

Objection: Tosfos objects to this explanation however, since nowhere do we find, neither in a Beraisa nor in a Mishnah, a prohibition against making a curtain with Kil'ayim.

Explanation (cont.): Unlike Tum'ah, which we find in the Mishnah in Keilim, Perek 27, Mishnah 9) 'A sheet that is Tamei Medras, which one makes into a curtain, is Tahor from Meedras, but Tamei Maga'.

Conclusion: So how can the Gemara ask 'Why did they say ... ?'