*13.4 Makkos Daf 09 A (14 lines Up)*

*13.4 Makkos Daf 09 A (14 lines Up)*_*Suggestion:* Before listening to the recording take a minute and review yesterday’s gemara. It will help to lock it in in your mind, and today’s gemara will flow better!_*Summary*Rav Chisda: The _ger toshav_ goes into _galus_ when he killed with a downward blow, just like a Yisroel (10.1-10.5). But the _beraisa_ refers to when he killed with an upward blow.Since even a Yisroel does not go into _galus_ for upward killing, the _ger toshav_ cannot go into _galus_ and is executed.*Rabbah* to Rav Chisda: But *upward killing is more lenient than downward killing.* Since you admit that a ger toshav can have the same kaparah as a yisroel in the more severe case of downward killing, *why should he be killed* for upward killing when we are lenient with a yisroel, and he does not need a kaparah at all?_[Perhaps Rav Chisda believes that upward killing is not more lenient, but that galus is not enough of a kaparah, because one is more in control while moving upward]._*Rabbah:* The beraisa (13.3 _“A ger toshav is killed even for inadvertent murder”)_ refers to someone who *thinks it is permitted* to murder _(perhaps for a vigilante killing)._ (See 10.2). _(A Yisroel, however, would go into galus)._*Abayye:* If he *thinks it’s permitted,* why isn’t he a *_shogeig_ ?**Rabbah:* In my opinion, *someone who thinks it’s permitted is closer to _meizid._*This discussion is in accordance with their opinions elsewhere:One who intended to kill *an animal,* and he ended up *killing a person.* Or he intended to kill a gentile and *killed a _ger toshav:_**Rabbah:* He is put to death, one who *thinks his act is permissible is closer to _meizid._**Rav Chisda:* He is not put to death, one who *thinks his act is permissible is not considered a meizid.**Rabbah* asked Rav Chisda: *When Avimelech took Sarah* it states “You will die on account of this woman you took”. It seems that this means he would be guilty and accountable in a court of law. But since *he didn’t know* Sarah was married, he thought it was permissible.*Response:* In this case, since he thought it was permissible, he would not be held accountable in court. The verse which holds him accountable is discussing his *guilt in the eyes of Heaven.**As the verse states* “I [Hashem] prevented you from sinning to *Me”.* However it would not be considered a sin by standard legal procedure.*Challenge:* When Yosef was tested by the wife of Potiphar he also used such wording “And I will *sin against Elokim”.* Does that also mean that it would not be punishable by ordinary legal procedure? *It certainly would.*So too here, although the _possuk_ calls it “a sin against Me”, it would still be considered a sin in a human court of law, because we *do not accept the excuse that he thought it was permissible.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.