Refuted Explanation: We cannot answer that 'The time when people arrive home' and 'Kohen' is one and the same Shi'ur ...

Refutation #1: Since then, Rebbi Meir would be synonymous with Rebbi Achai - according to Rashi, who explains that 'When most people arrive home to eat (of Rebbi Achai)' is speaking on Erev Shabbos.

Refutation #2: Alternatively, it is illogical to say that people arrive home on Erev Shabbos as quickly as the Kohanim Tovel - whilst it is still day-time, before nightfall.

Refuted Explanation: We cannot answer that 'mi'she'Kidesh ha'Yom' is synonymous with 'The time that the Kohanim arrive home to eat their Terumah ...

Refutation: Because that would mean that Rebbi Eliezer is synonymous with Rebbi Yehoshua.

Question: But on Daf 9:, Rebbi Eliezer requires that one must be able to discern between T'cheiles and Karsi (a deep green) in order to Daven K'ri'as Sh'ma shel Shachris?

Answer: Nevertheless, when one knows that dawn-break has arrived, by the time one rises and prepares oneself to Daven, that time will already have arrived.

Refuted Explanation: Initially, it would seem that this Tefilah is not 'Havineinu'.

Refutation: Since the Gemara will ask later (on Daf 30.) what the difference is between 'Havineinu' and a short Tefilah.

Question: This then poses a Kashya on Rashi, who interprets the short Tefilah here as 'Havineinu'.

Alternative Explanation: It must therefore be another Tefilah, such as 'Tzorchei Am'cha Merubim', which the Gemara will cite later.

Question: This too, is difficult however, as the Gemara will later say that one is not permitted to recite 'Tzorchei Am'cha Merubim' unless one is in a place of danger, such as where there are robbers - which Rebbi Yossi was not, seeing as he told Eliyahu that he was afraid that passers-by might interrupt him (and not that robbers may kill him).

Reinstating Original Explanation: Therefore Tosfos opts to learn like Rashi - that the short Tefilah here pertains to 'Havineinu ...

Implied Question: And although Abaye issued a curse on whoever Davens 'Havineinu' ...

Answer: That speaks only in town, but in the field it is permitted

Implied Question: And when th Gemara asks later what the difference between 'Havineinu' and a short Tefilah ...

Answer: It is referring to the short Tefilah mentioned in 'Tefilas ha'Shachar (29:) - i.e. 'Tzorchei Am'cha' ...

Conclusion: Whereas the short Tefilah in our Sugya is definitely synonymous with 'Havineinu'.

Refuted Explanation: This disproves the explanation of the Machzor Vitri - that 'Yehei Sh'meih Rabah' is a Tefilah that we Daven for Hash-m's Name to become complete; as is written in Sm'mos (17) "Ki Yad al Keis Kah" (on which Chazal Darshen) that 'His Name and His Throne will not be complete until the seed of Amalek has been destroyed'.

Refuted Explanation (cont.): And they explain 'Sh'meih Rabah' as (the acronym of) 'Sheim Kah Rabah'.In other words, we are Davening for His Name (Kah, that we pronounce in Galus) to become great and complete; whereas 'Mevorach le'Olam' is another Tefilah - meaning that He should be blessed in Olam ha'Ba.

Refutation: That does not however, appear to be correct according to the Gemara here - which presents 'Yehei Sh'meih ha'Gadol Mevorach' as one Tefilah. It is not asking for His Name to become great and complete, but rather that 'His great Name should be blessed'.

Refuted Explanation: Moreover, what people say that because Kadish is a beautiful Tefilah and a great praise, Chazal instituted to say it in Arama'ic, so that the angels should not understand it and be jealous of us, does not seem correct either.

Refutation: Seeing as there are many beautiful Tefilos that we say in Lashon Ivri.

Alternative Explanation: It therefore seems more correct to ascribe it to what the Gemara says at the end of Succah (49.) that 'The world exists on the Kedushah of Y'hei Sh'meih Rabah ... ' that we recite after learning Agadah.

Alternative Explanation (cont.): Since they used to recite Kadish after the D'rashah, and there were often Amei-ha'Aretz present, who did not all understand Lashon ha'Kodesh.

Conclusion: So they instituted it in Arama'ic, so that everybody should understand it - as it was their spoken tongue.

Clarification: Where it is known that they exist.

Implied Question: Whereas the Gemara earlier 'Where there are two and they are indecent, the fear of Mazikin does not apply' ...

Answer: Is speaking by S'tam, where they are not commonly found.

Clarification #1: Rav Alfas citing Rav Hai Ga'on establishes this ruling with regard to Divrei Torah, but other matters are permitted.

Clarification #2: It is also only forbidden within four Amos of the deceased.

Clarification: This means on its own ...

Source: Since we have learned in Perek Lo Yachpor (25a) that the north wind blows together with all the other winds.)

Question: Why did Moshe not say 'ba'Chatzos', using the same expression as Hash-m, seeing as Hash-m told him the truth?

Answer: He did not wish to tell them something that he would not be able to back up, should they query him.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that if one digs and replaces the earth, the pit will not become full.

Question: The case is not comparable to the proof, as he (David) was merely asking them to take from the wealthy and give to the poor?

Question (cont.): It would have been comparable if he had asked them to take from the poor and then give it back to the poor.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore translates 'me'Chulyaso' as 'mi'Nevi'aso' (from its flowing), and what they meant was that a pit cannot become full from the water that flows through it.

Proof: As the Tosefta states 'A pit cannot become full from its 'Chulya' - unless one draws water for it from another side'.

Reinstating Explanation #1: The Ri however, explains that if a person digs on one side of a pit and places the earth on the other side, it will never become full, because what one places here is missing there.

Reinstating Explanation #1 (cont.): Similarly, what one takes from the rich (as Rashi explains), is missing from the rich.