*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. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate