Explanation: The Gemara extrapolates this from the fact that the Mishnah precludes a. a Ger Toshav who kills a Yisrael, from Galus, (because he is Chayav Misah), and b. a Yisrael who kills a Ger Toshav (who is Patur). Because, when the Mishnah writes 'ha'Kol Golin al-Yedei Yisrael, ve'Yisrael Golin al-Yedei Kulan, Chutz mi'Ger Toshav', it implies that a Ger Toshav is completely precluded from 'Chulan'. Consequently, we think that he is considered a Nochri, in which case, he will also be Patur if he kills another Ger Toshav (like a Nochri who kills another Nochri). And that explains why we ask from the Seifa, which obligates a Ger Toshav who kills a Ger Toshav to go into Galus.

Gemara's Refutation: The Gemara therefore explains that the Reisha speaks specifically where a Ger Toshav kills a Yisrael, but not where he kills another Ger Toshav, in which case he will indeed be Chayav Galus (as the Gemara will learn shortly from Pesukim).

Alternative Explanation: The 'Tosefta' learns be'Dochek (in a pushed explanation) that we initially think that a Ger Toshav does go into Galus for killing a Yisrael and vice-versa, 'and that Chutz mi'Ger Toshav' in the Mishnah merely comes to teach us that he does not go into Galus in all cases, and that not everybody goes into Galus for killing him.

Refutation: It is not clear what the Tosefta means however, first of all, because whenever we find the word 'Chutz .. ', it always refers to everything that precedes it and not to only part of it.

Proposed Answer: And even if we suggest that, it comes to teach us that a Ger Toshav is not included in the Din of a Yisrael to go into Galus via everyone, and others through him ...

Double Rejection: ... It still remains difficult, inasmuch as the Tana does not mention the K'lal in connection with a Yisrael, and as we just said, 'Chutz' always comes to preclude from the K'lal (as we initially asked)? and what's more, a Ger Toshav is not included in the Din, so why do we need to preclude him?

A Final Rejection: Furthermore, if we initially think that a Ger Toshav does go into Galus for killing a Yisrael and vice-versa, then how can the Gemara state 'Alma, Oved-Kochavim Hu'? If he is an Akum, then neither ought he to go into Galus for killing a Yisrael, nor ought a Yisrael to go into Galus for killing him?

Question: But he is still not similar to a Nochri, who is sentendes to death even if he killed Derech Yeridah?

Answer: Nevertheless, he is similar to a Nochri, inasmuch as, like a Nochri, no distinction is drawn between the same species (a Nochri like himself) and another species, so too, by a Ger Toshav, and it will suffice to resemble a Nochri completely in just one regard.

Question: On the contrary, it is precisely because Derech Yeridah is 'atonable' that Galus will suffice; Whereas Derech Aliyah, which is not, is more stringent, inasmuch as Galus will not be sufficient (for so we learned in the first Perek)?

Answer: Rabah does not concur with that reasoning; In his opinion, Derech Aliyah is Patur, not because Galus will suffice, but because it is much lighter than Derech Yeridah, and is considered Oneis; Hence one cannot say that it is more stringent than Derech Yeridah.

Clarification: Rav Chisda establishes the Beraisa (where he is killed) by Derech Aliyah, and not by 'Omer Mutar', because he maintains that 'Omer Mutar' is considered an Oneis, in which case he would not be killed. Whereas Rabah takes the opposite view; that Derech Aliyah is not killed, but 'Omer Mutar' is, since he ought to have learned, but didn't.

Explanation #1: Rabah says that he is Chayav, because he should have been made a point of discerning whether it was a person and an animal; likewise 'Omer Mutar' ought to have learned.

Explanation #2: We must therefore say that, seeing as the next case says 've'Nimtza Ger Toshav ', this case too, refers to a Ger Toshav.

Extented Explanation & Proof: Similarly, 'Chayav' refers to (the murderer who is) a Ger Toshav, since a Yisrael is not Chayav Garlus for killing a Ger Toshav.

Second Proof: Furthermore, if it was talking about a Yisrael, where Rabah says Chayav, it would have to mean Chayav Galus; and that is simply not correct, seeing as Rabah precluded 'Omer Mutar' from Galus.

Conclusion: Consequently, the Gemara must be speaking where the murderer too, is a Ger Toshav, and when Rabah says 'Chayav', he means 'Chayav Misah'.

Clarification: That is because he ought to have learned; In our case too, he ought to been more careful.

Question: How will Rav Chisda explain the Beraisa that we cited earlier, which precluded Meizid from "bi'Shegagah", and which we established to mean 'Omer Mutar', seeing as he does not consider 'Omer Mutar', Meizid?

Answer: Rav Chisda agrees that nevertheless it is called Meizid, since the murderer killed on purpose.

Question: At the beginning of the Perek (on Daf 7:) we learned "bi'Veli Da'as", to exclude where one aimed at an animal, but hit a person. Now why do we need a Pasuk for this? Why do we not know it from the fact that it is considered 'Omer Mutar', as is implied here; and 'Omer Mutar' we exclude from "bi'Shegagah"?

Answer: The Gemara there is speaking where there is an animal and a person in front of him, and where he meant to strike the animal, but inadvertently killed the person. Whereas here we are speaking where the object that he aimed at turned out to be a person; And that also explains why Rabah calls it 'close to Meizid'.

Clarification: According to the current text, what the Gemara means is that even though Avimelech said "and I have sinned against Hash-m", his Din ought really to have been judged by a human court.

Question: This is not what the Pasuk seems to be saying!

Amendment of Text & Clarification: The correct text therefore seems to be 'But his Din is being judged by Hashem'. And what it means is that even though he really ought to have been judged by a human court, his Din was being judged by Hash-m, because there were no witnesses.

Conclusion: In the same manner, when Hash-m said "from sinning against Me", what He meant was that Avimelech's Din was being judged by Him only because the world at large was unaware of the fact that Sarah was a married woman, but that really, he ought to have been judged by a human court (So it seems according to Ma'shi'ach).

Clarification: That he was not a Tzadik at all, as the Gemara concludes "Return the married woman, for he is a prophet", because he (Avimelech) ought to have learned; whereas R. Chisda does not hold of the D'rashah from "ki Navi Hu".

Refutation of the Alternative Explanation: One cannot however, explain that Hash-m's answer lay in the words "Know that if you fail to return (Sarah), you will surely die" ...

Reason for Refutation: ... because after telling him that she was a married woman, He ought not to have said that.

Conclusion #1: Nevertheless, since Hash-m needed to tell him that, it is clear that someone who ought to have learned but didn't, is guilty be'Dinei Adam, even though he sinned by mistake.

Conclusion #2: And "because the wife of a Navi" is in fact, an independent statement, not part of Hash-m's answer, as it is according to Rashi's explanation.

Conclusion #3: ... and when the Gemara concludes 'because he should have learned', it is establishing the Pasuk like R. Chisda as well, since that is a matter of Derech Eretz. However it fits in with Rashi, too.

Clarification: According to R. Meir, we exclude Miskaven from "bi'Shegagah", from which we learn two things. And the Beraisa on Daf 7b (which learns it from "bi'Veli Da'as"), goes like R. Yehudah.

Question: According to Rebbi, seeing as if the rope slips, only an Ohev is Chayav, and if it snaps, even he is Patur, how will a Sonei ever go into Galus?

Answer: Nevertheless, he will go into Galus there where he falls off a roof, where it is obvious to all and sundry, that, due to the obvious danger of doing so, he did not fall off on purpose.

Clarification: That the distance from the beginning of Eretz Yisrael until the first city is the same distance as from the first to the second; since Eretz Yisrael was divided into equal sections, with the cities of refuge in the middle.

Similar Explanation: Similarly, when the Gemara in Megilah (19a & 20b) says that the Megilah is called an 'Igeres', in that it is Kasher, if is stitched with just three stitches of sinews, provided they are 'Meshulashin', it has the same connotations as here: That the distance from the beginning until the first thread of sinew is equivalent to the distance from the first thread of sinew until the second one, and from the second one until the third.

Refutation of the Alternative Explanation: This refutes those who explain that 'Meshulashos' there means one stitch at the top of the parchment, on in the middle and one at the bottom.

Clarification: And the reason that many Arei Miklat are needed is, because as we will learn on Daf Yud, Hash-m gathers the murderers who killed be'Meizid without witnesses and those who killed be'Shogeg to one inn, so that the latter can kill the former (see M'lo ha'Ro'im).