Question: This is difficult. Being that this case was where there are no customers who need grinding for the grinder (renter), why did Rav Avira need to differentiate that in the Mishnah she does not have two stomachs (and therefore they should not both give food), but the owner can charge people for grinding?

Even if the owner could not find people to charge for grinding, making this a case akin to "one stomach," it is still not like our Mishnah. In our Mishnah there is no difference to the husband/s whether he would give the value of the food or the food itself.

However, the renter does suffer a loss if he will have to pay rent for the grinder, as he cannot find people to charge for grinding and he will have to pay the rent out of his own pocket.

Answer: Rebbi answers that without the reasoning that the owner can charge to grind (with his new grinding equipment), and the renter can grind the owner's food as rent for the grinder, the renter could indeed cancel the deal so that he should not have to pay, as he would have to pay out of his pocket.

However, the owner can similarly say that he is also losing money, as he can rent out his grinder for money. He can therefore cancel the deal before it is finished.

Even though the renter will not need to pay him actual money from his pocket for renting the grinder, he cannot hold the grinder until the time of their original agreement, as the owner of the grinder would be losing money.

However, now that the renter can claim that the owner can charge to grind (with his new grinding equipment), and the renter can grind the owner's food as rent for the grinder and the owner will not suffer a loss, he can make the following claim. He can say that the owner of the grinder should have to let him keep the grinder as per their original agreement, as otherwise he (the renter) will endure a loss while the owner will not (as he can charge others for using his new grinding equipment).

Explanation: This is the name of something (an activity). It is as if to say, "Is she allowed to renovate?" [The Maharsha says that this is unlike Rashi, who understands that the question was, is she allowed to stay in the house if she did renovations to strengthen it?]

This is also the explanation of the Rach.

Explanation: The Rach explains that this is like the Gemara in Shabbos (122a) that says, "a candle for one is a candle for one hundred." [This is akin to the concept of our Gemara, where expenses of food and clothing for a family cannot be used to determine how much it costs to support one person (see Maharam Shif that this argues on Rashi's explanation here).]

In any similar case (where the only way to know how much a person's private expenses are is to divide to find his portion of the expenses of the many) we similarly do not give this amount.

Question: This is difficult. Doesn't every Jew have a portion in Olam ha'Ba anyway?

Answer: The Rav Rebbi Meir explained that whenever the phrase "they are prepared for Olam ha'Ba" is used, it means that they go to Olam ha'Ba without having to go through judgement and suffering.

Implied Question: [The Gemara says that the day that Rebbi died "Batlah Kedushah" - "holiness was nullified." What is the significance of holiness in regards to Rebbi more than any other righteous person?] Because he was known as "Rabeinu ha'*Kadosh*" - "our Holy Rabbi."

Implied Question: It says in a Beraisa at the end of Sotah (49a) that when Rebbi died, humility and fear (of Heaven) stopped. [The Gemaras seem to contradict each other, as here the Gemara says "holiness" and there "humility and fear?"]

Answer: It is possible to answer that holiness is included in the reference to humility and fear (of Heaven).

Answer (#2): The Rav Rebbi Chaim Kohen used to say that if he would have been present when Rabeinu Tam died, he would have become Tamei to him (despite the fact that a Kohen is normally only allowed to become Tamei to a list of seven close relatives). This is because when our Gemara states "holiness was nullified," it means that the holiness of Kehunah (of them not becoming Tamei to the dead) was nullified. [Accordingly, the Gemara in Sotah (49a) and our Gemara are talking about two entirely different things. The Gemara in Sotah is talking about Rebbi's exceptional character traits, while our Gemara is talking about the holiness of the Kehunah.]

Proof (#1): This is apparent from the statement "that day," implying that specifically on that day holiness was nullified, not more than that day.

Proof (#2): Indeed, the Yerushalmi in Berachos (3:1) explicitly states that when Rebbi died they said "there is no Kehunah today."

Opinion: This does appear correct to Rebbi. Rebbi understands that the Yerushalmi is only referring to the Tumah contracted by going through a field that had contained dead people, but had been plowed. This meant that the prohibition of Tumah (that was pushed off by Rebbi's funeral) was only Rabbinic in nature. However, the Torah commandment of a Kohen not becoming Tamei was not transgressed (or pushed aside at Rebbi's funeral).