גאל, the avenger of blood. The inhabitants of the east, it is well
known, are now, what they anciently were, exceedingly revengeful. If,
therefore, an individual should unfortunately happen to lay violent
hands upon another person and kill him, the next of kin is bound to
avenge the death of the latter, and to pursue the murderer with
unceasing vigilance until he have caught and killed him, either by force
or by fraud. The same custom exists in Arabia, and it appears to have
been alluded to by Rebecca: when she learned that Esau was threatening
to kill his brother Jacob, she endeavoured to send the latter out of the
country, saying, “Why should I be bereft of you both in one day?” Gen.
xxvii, 15. She could not be afraid of the magistrate for punishing the
murderer, for the patriarchs were subject to no superior in Palestine;
and Isaac was much too partial to Esau for her to entertain any
expectation that he would condemn him to death for it. It would
therefore appear that she dreaded lest he should fall by the hand of the
blood avenger, perhaps of some Ishmaelite. The office, therefore, of the
_goel_ was in use before the time of Moses; and it was probably filled
by the nearest of blood to the party killed, as the right of redeeming a
mortgage field is given to him. To prevent the unnecessary loss of life
through a sanguinary spirit of revenge, the Hebrew legislator made
various enactments concerning the blood avenger. In most ages and
countries, certain reputed sacred places enjoyed the privileges of being
asylums; Moses, therefore, taking it for granted that the murderer would
flee to the altar, commanded that when the crime was deliberate and
intentional, he should be torn even from the altar, and put to death,
Exod. xxi, 14. But in the case of unintentional murder, the man-slayer
was enjoined to flee to one of the six cities of refuge, which were
appropriated for his residence. The roads to these cities, it was
enacted, should be kept in such a state that the unfortunate individual
might meet with no impediment whatever in his way, Deut. xix, 3. If the
_goel_ overtook the fugitive before he reached an asylum, and put him to
death, he was not considered as guilty of blood; but if the man-slayer
had reached a place of refuge, he was immediately protected, and an
inquiry was instituted whether he had a right to such protection and
asylum, that is, whether he had caused his neighbour’s death
undesignedly, or was a deliberate murderer. In the latter case he was
judicially delivered to the _goel_, who might put him to death in
whatever way he chose; but in the former case the homicide continued in
the place of refuge until the high priest’s death, when he might return
home in perfect security. If, however, the _goel_ found him without the
city, or beyond its suburbs, he might slay him without being guilty of
blood, Numbers xxxv, 26, 27. Farther, to guard the life of man, and
prevent the perpetration of murder, Moses positively prohibited the
receiving of a sum of money from a murderer in the way of compensation,
Numbers xxxv, 31. It would seem that if no avenger of blood appeared, or
if he were dilatory in the pursuit of the murderer, it became the duty
of the magistrate himself to inflict the sentence of the law; and thus
we find that David deemed this to be his duty in the case of Joab, and
that Solomon, in obedience to his father’s dying entreaty, actually
discharged it by putting that murderer to death, 1 Kings ii, 5; vi,
28–34. There is a beautiful allusion to the blood avenger in Heb. vi,
17, 18.
The following extracts will prove how tenaciously the eastern people
adhere to the principle of revenging the death of their relations and
friends:--“Among the Circassians,” says Pallas, “all the relatives of
the murderers are considered as guilty. This customary infatuation to
revenge the blood of relations generates most of the feuds, and
occasions great bloodshed among all the tribes of Caucasus; for unless
pardon be purchased, or obtained by intermarriage between the two
families, the principle of revenge is propagated to all succeeding
generations. If the thirst of vengeance is quenched by a price paid to
the family of the deceased, this tribute is called _thlil-uasa_, or,
‘the price of blood;’ but neither princes nor usdens accept such
compensation, as it is an established law among them to demand blood for
blood.” “The Nubians,” observes Light, “possess few traces among them of
government, or law, or religion. They know no master, although the
cashief claims a nominal command of the country. They look for redress
of injuries to their own means of revenge, which, in cases of blood,
extends from one generation to another, till blood is repaid by blood.
On this account they are obliged to be ever on the watch, and armed: and
in this manner even their daily labours are carried on; the very boys
are armed.” “If one Nubian,” remarks Burckhardt, “happen to kill
another, he is obliged to pay the debt of blood to the family of the
deceased, and a fine to the governors of six camels, a cow, and seven
sheep, or they are taken from his relations. Every wound inflicted has
its stated fine, consisting of sheep and _dhourra_, but varying in
quantity, according to the parts of the body wounded.” “When a man or
woman is murdered,” says Malcolm, “the moment the person by whom the act
was perpetrated is discovered, the heir-at-law to the deceased demands
vengeance for the blood. Witnesses are examined, and if the guilt be
established, the criminal is delivered into his hands, to deal with as
he chooses. It is alike legal for him to forgive him, to accept a sum of
money as the price of blood, or to put him to death. It is only a few
years ago that the English resident at Abusheher saw three persons
delivered into the hands of the relations of those whom they had
murdered. They led their victims bound to the burial ground, where they
put them to death; but the part of the execution that appeared of the
most importance, was to make the infant children of the deceased stab
the murderers with knives, and imbrue their little hands in the blood of
those who had slain their father. The youngest princes of the blood that
could hold a dagger were made to stab the assassins of Aga Mahomed Khan.
When they were executed, the successor of Nadir Shah sent one of the
murderers of that monarch to the females of his harem, who, we are told,
were delighted to become his executioners.”
known, are now, what they anciently were, exceedingly revengeful. If,
therefore, an individual should unfortunately happen to lay violent
hands upon another person and kill him, the next of kin is bound to
avenge the death of the latter, and to pursue the murderer with
unceasing vigilance until he have caught and killed him, either by force
or by fraud. The same custom exists in Arabia, and it appears to have
been alluded to by Rebecca: when she learned that Esau was threatening
to kill his brother Jacob, she endeavoured to send the latter out of the
country, saying, “Why should I be bereft of you both in one day?” Gen.
xxvii, 15. She could not be afraid of the magistrate for punishing the
murderer, for the patriarchs were subject to no superior in Palestine;
and Isaac was much too partial to Esau for her to entertain any
expectation that he would condemn him to death for it. It would
therefore appear that she dreaded lest he should fall by the hand of the
blood avenger, perhaps of some Ishmaelite. The office, therefore, of the
_goel_ was in use before the time of Moses; and it was probably filled
by the nearest of blood to the party killed, as the right of redeeming a
mortgage field is given to him. To prevent the unnecessary loss of life
through a sanguinary spirit of revenge, the Hebrew legislator made
various enactments concerning the blood avenger. In most ages and
countries, certain reputed sacred places enjoyed the privileges of being
asylums; Moses, therefore, taking it for granted that the murderer would
flee to the altar, commanded that when the crime was deliberate and
intentional, he should be torn even from the altar, and put to death,
Exod. xxi, 14. But in the case of unintentional murder, the man-slayer
was enjoined to flee to one of the six cities of refuge, which were
appropriated for his residence. The roads to these cities, it was
enacted, should be kept in such a state that the unfortunate individual
might meet with no impediment whatever in his way, Deut. xix, 3. If the
_goel_ overtook the fugitive before he reached an asylum, and put him to
death, he was not considered as guilty of blood; but if the man-slayer
had reached a place of refuge, he was immediately protected, and an
inquiry was instituted whether he had a right to such protection and
asylum, that is, whether he had caused his neighbour’s death
undesignedly, or was a deliberate murderer. In the latter case he was
judicially delivered to the _goel_, who might put him to death in
whatever way he chose; but in the former case the homicide continued in
the place of refuge until the high priest’s death, when he might return
home in perfect security. If, however, the _goel_ found him without the
city, or beyond its suburbs, he might slay him without being guilty of
blood, Numbers xxxv, 26, 27. Farther, to guard the life of man, and
prevent the perpetration of murder, Moses positively prohibited the
receiving of a sum of money from a murderer in the way of compensation,
Numbers xxxv, 31. It would seem that if no avenger of blood appeared, or
if he were dilatory in the pursuit of the murderer, it became the duty
of the magistrate himself to inflict the sentence of the law; and thus
we find that David deemed this to be his duty in the case of Joab, and
that Solomon, in obedience to his father’s dying entreaty, actually
discharged it by putting that murderer to death, 1 Kings ii, 5; vi,
28–34. There is a beautiful allusion to the blood avenger in Heb. vi,
17, 18.
The following extracts will prove how tenaciously the eastern people
adhere to the principle of revenging the death of their relations and
friends:--“Among the Circassians,” says Pallas, “all the relatives of
the murderers are considered as guilty. This customary infatuation to
revenge the blood of relations generates most of the feuds, and
occasions great bloodshed among all the tribes of Caucasus; for unless
pardon be purchased, or obtained by intermarriage between the two
families, the principle of revenge is propagated to all succeeding
generations. If the thirst of vengeance is quenched by a price paid to
the family of the deceased, this tribute is called _thlil-uasa_, or,
‘the price of blood;’ but neither princes nor usdens accept such
compensation, as it is an established law among them to demand blood for
blood.” “The Nubians,” observes Light, “possess few traces among them of
government, or law, or religion. They know no master, although the
cashief claims a nominal command of the country. They look for redress
of injuries to their own means of revenge, which, in cases of blood,
extends from one generation to another, till blood is repaid by blood.
On this account they are obliged to be ever on the watch, and armed: and
in this manner even their daily labours are carried on; the very boys
are armed.” “If one Nubian,” remarks Burckhardt, “happen to kill
another, he is obliged to pay the debt of blood to the family of the
deceased, and a fine to the governors of six camels, a cow, and seven
sheep, or they are taken from his relations. Every wound inflicted has
its stated fine, consisting of sheep and _dhourra_, but varying in
quantity, according to the parts of the body wounded.” “When a man or
woman is murdered,” says Malcolm, “the moment the person by whom the act
was perpetrated is discovered, the heir-at-law to the deceased demands
vengeance for the blood. Witnesses are examined, and if the guilt be
established, the criminal is delivered into his hands, to deal with as
he chooses. It is alike legal for him to forgive him, to accept a sum of
money as the price of blood, or to put him to death. It is only a few
years ago that the English resident at Abusheher saw three persons
delivered into the hands of the relations of those whom they had
murdered. They led their victims bound to the burial ground, where they
put them to death; but the part of the execution that appeared of the
most importance, was to make the infant children of the deceased stab
the murderers with knives, and imbrue their little hands in the blood of
those who had slain their father. The youngest princes of the blood that
could hold a dagger were made to stab the assassins of Aga Mahomed Khan.
When they were executed, the successor of Nadir Shah sent one of the
murderers of that monarch to the females of his harem, who, we are told,
were delighted to become his executioners.”