Observation: Earlier (36b) we explained the definition of "Kash."

Opinion #1: Rabeinu Tam explains that in the Sheiltos of Rav Achai in Parshas Emor he says that this is referring to Yom Tov.

Question #1: This is difficult according to Rebbi, as it should have explicitly explained this since the context of our Gemara is only referring to Shabbos.

Question #2: Additionally, how can Rav Yehudah be so stringent regarding peppers? He even permits pounding salt with a wooden pestle in Beitzah (14a)!

Opinion #2: Rather, it appears to Rebbi that our Gemara is referring to Shabbos. Since it was discussing carrying with a Shinuy, it quotes this statement here (regarding pounding needing a Shinuy). Our Gemara similarly quotes other laws regarding Shabbos, even though they are not directly connected to the Gemara's original topic.

Opinion #2 (cont.): However, regarding Yom Tov it appears to the Ri that this is permitted even without a Shinuy and even with a stone pestle just as this is the case with other spices.

Proof: This is as the Mishnah says in Beitzah (ibid.) that Beis Hillel says that spices may be crushed with a stone pestle and salt may be crushed with a wooden pestle. The Gemara says that everyone agrees that salt requires a Shinuy. Why? Rav Huna and Rav Chisda argue regarding the exact reason. One says that all pots (cooked dishes) require salt, but not all pots require spices. One says that spices lose their flavor (when not freshly ground), while salt does not lose its flavor.

Proof (cont.): What is the difference between the two opinions? The difference is if he knew in advance what he needed to cook. Alternatively, the case of "Morika" is the difference. This means that Morika does not lose its flavor when ground earlier. Accordingly, according to the opinion that it is due to losing its flavor, it would be forbidden (without a Shinuy like salt). According to the opinion that it is due to the general reason that all pots require salt etc. it would be permitted.

Proof (cont.): If so, our case regarding peppers should also be permitted, as not all pots require pepper. Even according to the opinion that it is because of spices losing their flavor it would also be permitted, as it is clear pepper is considered to lose its flavor since this Gemara did not cite it as an example of a difference between the two reasons.

Question: However, Rebbi says that this is not an accurate deduction, as one must explain that Gemara differently.

Question (cont.): There is a difficulty according to the opinion that Morika is permitted since all pots do not require Morika. If so, it should be permitted to harvest it and cut it from the ground!

Question (cont.): Rather, the explanation must be that it does lose flavor but not as fast as other spices. This is why it is permitted according to the opinion that all pots etc. as there is a slight loss of flavor. It is now understandable why it is forbidden to harvest it. Therefore, there is no proof from here to permit peppers, as it is possible they are not deemed to lose flavor at all.

Answer: However, the Ri says that they must lose flavor over time.

Proof #1: This is as stated by the Mishnah in Beitzah (23a) that Rebbi Eliezer ben Azaryah permitted three things and the Chachamim forbade them. One of these is that one is allowed to grind peppers in a pepper mill. It must be that Rebbi Eliezer ben Azaryah only permitted this because they lose their flavor when not freshly ground.

Proof #1 (cont.): It is illogical to say that the argument between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan is whether peppers lose their flavor when not freshly ground.

Proof #1 (cont.): Rather, since Rebbi Eliezer ben Azaryah allows this, we see that they must lose flavor. The Rabbanan forbid this because using a pepper mill is something that represents work normally done during the week.

Proof #2: Additionally, the Tosefta in Beitzah explicitly states after the argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel that peppers are like (i.e. have the law of) regular spices.

Opinion #3: It therefore appears to the Ri that it is permitted to grind peppers on Yom Tov even with a stone pestle. However, when a person knows in advance that he is going to cook something that will require ground pepper on Yom Tov, he may not grind the pepper on Yom Tov with a stone pestle. This is because we do not know who the law follows, and we must be stringent.

Opinion #3 (cont.): One cannot say that we should be lenient because it is a Rabbinic matter when there is a leniency in one area but it causes a stringency in another area.

Opinion #3 (cont.): However, with a wooden pestle it is permitted in any event, and it is even permitted with a stone pestle that is like the one we commonly use called a mortar. This is because the prohibition against using a wooden pestle if he knows what he is going to cook beforehand is only using it without a Shinuy.

Opinion: The Ri understands that it is permitted to grind garlic on Yom Tov, even if one knows in advance what he wants to cook. This is because they lose too much flavor when they are not freshly ground. It is therefore permitted just like everyone understands that it is permitted to slaughter an animal and cook on Yom Tov even if you know what you want to cook beforehand.

Opinion (cont.): It appears that losing flavor is defined by the spice having a weak taste that is not very sharp. One can often fix this by using a lot of it. However, one cannot fix this problem regarding garlic, just like slaughtering, baking, and cooking cannot be fixed in this fashion (if one would have to do them before Yom Tov).

Opinion (cont.): Additionally, a bad spirit would go on the garlic (see Nidah 17a) if he would grind it before Yom Tov. Accordingly, he may even use a stone or metal pestle.

Opinion (cont.): Additionally, it does not seem that it should be included in being deemed a spice, as only vegetables like cumin are called spices. Garlic and onion is not considered a spice.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rava holds in Beitzah (23a) like the opinion of Rebbi Shimon that a Davar she'Aino Miskaven is permitted. (Why here does he seem to hold like Rebbi Yehudah that it is forbidden?)

Answer: His reasoning here is that this is a decree. When he is busy wiping his feet he will forget that it is Shabbos and he will smooth the floor.

Answer (cont.): This is similar to the Gemara in Eiruvin (104a) that it is prohibited for women to play with nuts and apples (by rolling them on the floor) as we suspect they will come to smooth the floor. This is as if to say that they will do so intentionally, as they will forget that it is Shabbos because they are very involved in their game.

Observation: I have explained this earlier (111b) [in DH "Hai Misuchraisa" there on 111a].

Question: Why do we make a decree in Yevamos (102a) that one cannot use a shoe due to a ripped shoe if b'Dieved a ripped shoe is permitted?

Answer: The Ri answers that the decree in Yevamos (ibid.) is due to a shoe that is so ripped that it does not cover most of his foot. If one does Chalitzah with such a shoe, it is invalid.

Observation: Our Gemara is proof that Rebbi Yehudah permits moving a Kli she'Melachto l'Issur l'Tzorech Gufo and l'Tzorech Mekomo as I have explained earlier (36b, DH "Ha Rebbi Yehudah").

Observation: I have explained this earlier (94a).

Explanation #1: This is because he nullifies the purse to the child due to his sadness.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, a live child wants to walk around with the purse. However, a dead child does not require a purse, and it is therefore a Melachah she'Ainah Tzerichah l'Gufah and he is exempt, (the Bach says this last statement is a new answer) as he did not carry it like a normal person carries it.

Explanation: If one says that it is understandable if one nullifies both the stone and the Dinar and therefore there is no carrying of Muktzah, as this is why it said the case of the stone. If the stone falls, the father will not come to pick it up. However, if a Dinar falls, the father might come to carry it.

Explanation (cont.): However, if we say that both are not nullified and even so we say there is no problem of Muktzah if he carries the child together with the stone due to the child's cries for his father, one should also permit carrying the child if he is holding a Dinar! One cannot say that this cannot be the case as the father might come to carry the Dinar, as why should it matter? We already said that we permit the prohibition of Muktzah because of the child's cries!

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara answers that even though there is a prohibition of Muktzah when he carries the child who is holding the stone and we permit him to do so because of the child's cries, we should still be more stringent regarding carrying Muktzah with one's hands than with carrying Muktzah because it is being carried by the child he is holding, even though this is also a prohibition of Muktzah. This is why we make a decree that the Dinar might fall from the child and his father might come to carry it. This is the explanation of Rabeinu Shmuel.