345 money
Where the master kills bis when the latter and then probably not by the death-
(Ex. xxi. 28).
(c)
slave, the offense is punishable only
dies at once,
penalty, as some of the rabbinical writers thought (Ex. xxi. 23).
The later codes develop at some length the veryjust distinction between wilful murder and accidental homicide (see Murder). Six Cities of Refuge were appointed for the purpose of Six Cities affording an asylum to the homicide, of Refuge, where he might be secure from the hand of the avenger (Deut. xix. 12) until the elders of the community of which the accused was a member should decide whether the murder was intentional or accidental (Num. xxxv. 9-34; Deut. xix. 1-13; Josh. xx.). According to the later procedure, at least two witnesses were necessary to establish a case of wilful murder (Num. In case, however, it was 30; Deut. xix. 15). not possible to apprehend the murderer or manslayer, the adjudication might take place and a verdict be rendered in his absence. It appears from Josh. xx. 4 that the elders of the city of refuge chosen by the slayer had the right to decide as to whether he should be permitted to have a temporary asylum or not. If the case were simply one of unintentional manslaughter the slayer was immediately accorded the right of asylum in the city of refuge, where he had to remain until the death of the reigning high priest (Num. xxxv. 25), whose death, in ancient Hebrew law, marked the end of a legal period of limitation (Num. xxxv. Deut.
xxxv.
Josh. xx.). If the " go'el ha-dam " were to find the slayer of his kinsman outside the limits of the city of refuge, he had the right to kill him at sight. In a case in which the verdict against the slayer was one of wilful murder, the murderer incurred the xix.
blood-revenge without any restrictions. If he were already in a city of refuge, the elders
The Family Executioner. little
of his
own
city
him thence by
were obliged
to fetch necessary, formally to the
force
if
and to deliver him Avenger of Blood, who thus became
more than a family executioner (Deut.
xix. 11
Two
very important restrictions should here be noticed (a) Although the entire family or gens to which the murdered man belonged were theoretically entitled to demand the blood-revenge (II Sam. xiv. 7), still, in the practise of later times, only one member for example, the next of kin, who was also legal heir—might assume the duty of carrying it out. According to the later Jewish tradition, when there was no heir, the court had the right to assume the position of the " go'el. " (b) The law expressly states that the blood-revenge was applicable only to the person of the guilty man and not to the members of his family as well (Deut. xxiv. 16; compare II Kings xiv. 6). This is a most significant advance on the primitive savage custom that involved two
—
gentes in a ceaseless feud. Anent this advance, it is interesting to note that, in the time of the kings, the king himself, as the highest judicial authority, was entitled to control the course of the blood-revenge
Sam. xiv. 8
It is
custom of blood-revenge by the " go'el " remained in vogue among the Hebrews. According to II Chron. xix. 10; Deut. xvii. 8, the law of Jehoshaphat
demanded
that all intricate legal eases should come before the new court of justice at Jerusalem. It is not probable, however, that this regulation curtailed the rights of the "go'el ha-dam," which must have continued in force as long as there was an independent Israelitish state. Of course, under the Romans, the right of blood revenge had ceased (John xviii. 31). " go'el " had also (2) As indicated above, the term a secondary meaning. Prom the idea of one carrying out the sentence of justice in the case of bloodshed, the word came to denote the
The kinsman whose duty it was to redeem Redeemer the property and person of a relative of His who, having fallen into debt, was Kinsmen, compelled to sell either his land or himself as
a slave to satisfy his creditors
(compare Lev. xxv. 25, 47-49). It would appear from Jer. xxxii. 8-12 that the " go'el " had the right to the refusal of such property before it was put up for public sale, and also the right to redeem it after it had been sold (see Ruth). Prom the Book of Ruth (iv. 5) it would appear that the duty of the nearest of kin to marry the widow of his relative in case of the latter's dying without issue was included in the obligations resting upon the "go'el"; but inasmuch as the term is not used in the passage in Deut. (xxv. 8-10) in which
—
may not be legally accurate. From this idea of the human
" go'el " as a redeemer of his kinsmen in their troubles, there are to be found many allusions to Yhwii as the Divine Go'el,
redeeming His people from their woes (compare Ex. vi. 6, xv. 13; Ps. lxxiv. 2), and of the people themselves becoming the " redeemed " ones of Yhwii (Ps.
The cvii. 2; Isa. Ixii. 12). " go'el " and as the one
difficult
to
decide exactly
how
long the
reference to
who would
God
as the
"
redeem " His the relationship between
Yhwh and Israel
in the exilic period, when the people actually looked to their God to restore their land for them, as the impoverished individual looked to his kinsman to secure a restoration of his patrimony.
Hence, of thirty-three passages in which "go'el" (as a noun or verb) is applied to God, nineteen occur in the exilic (and post-exilic) sections of Isaiah— the preacher par excellence of "restoration" for examSee ple, in xlviii. 20, xlix. 26, Hi. 9, lxii. 12, etc.
—
Asylum; Cities of Refuge; Job; Murder. A. H. Post, Studien zur Entu'icklv.ngsgesehichte des Familienrechts, 1890, pp. 113-137; W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, pp. 22 et sea., 38, 47, 52 et seq.; idem, Religion of the Semites, 2d ed., pp. 32 et seq., 272 et seq., 420 Nowack, Lehrliuch der Hehr. Arehtlologie, i., ch. ii., 1894 Kohler, Zur Lehre von der Blutraehe, 1885; Bissell, The Law of Asylum in Israel, 1884; Jastrow, Avenger, Kinsman, and Redeemer in the O. T., in The Independent, Aug. 27, 1896; Benzinger, HebrUische Archilologic, p. 335. J- D- PJ. JR.
Bibliography:
In Rabbinical Literature
Several primitive
touching the rights of the bloodrelation, the "go'el ha-dam " (Avenger of Blood), are social regulations
et seq.).
— the obligation resting
this institution is referred to
upon the brother to marry his deceased brother's widow the testimony of so late a production as Ruth can not be pressed. The usage in the book
people was applicable to
et seq.).
(II
Avenel Avenger
THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA
