"We do not cause their death" — In Chapter "Eilu Metziot" (26a), Rabbi Abahu teaches: "Gentiles and shepherds of small livestock — we do not raise them nor lower them." The phrase "nor lower them" means that it is forbidden to lower them (actively cause their death). This is also stated explicitly in the Talmud, in Chapter "Arba Mitot" (Sanhedrin 56a), where it says regarding a Jew who kills a gentile: he is exempt from punishment. The Talmud explains that it cannot say "permitted" because we have the principle of "we do not raise them nor lower them." Rashi explains: "We do not save them from the pit or death, but we also do not lower them into the pit to kill them actively." Tosafot ruled this straightforwardly in the first chapter of Avodah Zarah (10b), where they asked about Antoninus, who killed his slaves, noting that even for Jews, it would be forbidden due to the principle of "not lowering." The Beit Yosef wrote that "not lowering" does not mean it is forbidden to lower them but rather that there is no obligation to do so, and he understood this from Tosafot. However, he overlooked the complete discussion in "Arba Mitot." What the Beit Yosef cited from Tosafot comes from Avodah Zarah (26a), where they explain that even though gentiles do not observe the seven Noahide laws, the verse includes them for the sake of permission: "They shall be your slaves and serve you." This means there is no obligation to kill them. The Beit Yosef understood from Tosafot's use of the word "permission" that "not lowering" means it is optional, not prohibited. But this is incorrect — rather, the point is that there is no biblical command to eliminate them, but the sages prohibited actively lowering them into danger. The Beit Yosef also brought evidence from Rambam, who wrote that one should not cause their death and that it is forbidden to save them, as quoted in the Shulchan Aruch. The Beit Yosef inferred that since Rambam did not use the word "forbidden" in the first part, it implies there is no prohibition, just no obligation. And indeed, Rambam initially wrote that it is a mitzvah to cause the death of heretics and informers, but for gentiles, there is no mitzvah to cause their death — but if one wants to, they are permitted. However, this is unrelated to the Talmudic rule of "not lowering." For direct actions (like pushing someone into a pit), it is prohibited, but indirect causation (like removing a ladder) is not prohibited, since it’s not an active action. The Tur also explained this explicitly. Nonetheless, the Tur wrote that one may not lower them into a pit directly, but withholding rescue — like taking away a ladder — is certainly allowed. My father-in-law, of blessed memory, wrote that taking the ladder is also considered an action, based on Rambam’s phrase "one should not cause their death," implying an active prohibition. But this is not accurate: if removing the ladder were considered active killing, even a Jew doing this to another Jew would be liable for murder, yet Rambam explicitly rules (Laws of Murder, Ch. 3) that if one removes a ladder and a Jew dies, the remover is exempt. So, for gentiles, active killing is prohibited, but indirect causation — like taking the ladder — is permissible unless there is a concern for hostility ("eivah"), as will be explained. The Talmud in "Eilu Metziot" adds: For informers and oppressors, we lower them but do not raise them. The Gemara asks: If we actively lower them, why would we even consider raising them? Rav Sheshet explains: The point is that if they begin to climb out of the pit, one may drag them back down, justifying it by saying, "I am removing the ramp to prevent my animal from falling." Rashi explains that "not raising them" means not allowing them to climb out. At first glance, this explanation seems problematic — if lowering them is allowed, of course, preventing them from climbing out should be! But the point is that we might have thought that due to potential hostility, raising them would be permitted. The Gemara clarifies that there’s no concern for hostility in such cases, as one can use an excuse like protecting their animal. This idea parallels Rav Yosef’s statement earlier: He initially thought that it’s permitted to save a gentile for pay to prevent hostility. Abaye countered: One can avoid hostility with excuses like "my son is on the roof." The Tur did not mention "not raising" in the case of heretics and informers, even though the baraita states it, because the main point is to teach that there’s no concern for hostility in these cases. The Tur already gave a general rule: Whenever hostility is a concern, one should act to avoid danger, but if one can evade the situation through excuses, they should do so. In summary, the Taz concludes that the prohibition is only on direct actions that cause death. Indirect causation, like removing a ladder, is permitted unless hostility is a factor. The essence of the Talmudic teaching is balancing passive non-rescue with avoiding unnecessary enmity, all while distinguishing between active harm and indirect causation.