Blood-revenge

Blood-Revenge, or revenge for bloodshed, was regarded among the Jews, as among all the ancient and Asiatic nations, not only as a right, but even as a duty, which devolved upon the nearest relative of the murdered person, who on this account was called הִדָּם גֹּאֵל goal' had-dam', the reclaimer of blood, or one who demands restitution of blood, similar to the Latin sanguinem repetere. SEE AVENGER OF BLOOD.

1. Jewish. — The Mosaic law (Nu 35:31) expressly forbids the acceptance of a ransom for the forfeited life of the murderer, although it might be saved by his seeking an asylum at the altar of the tabernacle in case the homicide was accidentally committed (Ex 21:13; 1Ki 1:50; 1Ki 2:28). When, however, in process of time, after Judaism had been fully developed, no other sanctuary was tolerated but that of the Temple at Jerusalem, the chances of escape for such a homicide from the hands of the avenger ere he reached the gates of the Temple became less in proportion to the distance of the spot where the murder was committed from Jerusalem; six cities of refuge were in consequence appointed for the momentary safety of the murderer in various parts of the kingdom, the roads to which were kept in good order to facilitate his escape (De 19:3). Thither the avenger durst not follow him, and there he lived in safety until a proper examination had taken place before the authorities of the place (Jos 20:6,9), in order to ascertain whether the murder was a wilful act or not. In the former case he was instantly delivered up to the goal, against whom not even the altar could protect him (Ex 21:14; 1Ki 2:29); in the latter case, though he was not actually delivered into the hands of the goel, he was notwithstanding not allowed to quit the precincts of the town, but was obliged to remain there all his lifetime, or until the death of the highpriest (Nu 35:6; De 19:3; Jos 20:1-6), if he would not run the risk of falling into the hands of the avenger, and be slain by him with impunity (Nu 35:26; De 19:6). That such a voluntary exile was considered more in the light of a punishment for manslaughter than a provision for the safe retreat of the homicide against the revengeful designs of the goel, is evident from Nu 35:32, where it is expressly forbidden to release him from his confinement on any condition whatever. That the decease of the high-priest should have been the means of restoring him to liberty was probably owing to the general custom among the ancients of granting free pardon to certain prisoners at the demise of their legitimate prince or sovereign, whom the high-priest represented, in a spiritual sense, among the Jews. These wise regulations of the Mosaical law, so far as the spirit of the age allowed it, prevented all family hatred, persecution, and war from ever taking place, as was inevitably the case among the other nations, where any bloodshed whatever, whether wilful or accidental, laid the homicide open to the duty of revenge by the relatives and family of the slain person, who again, in their turn, were then similarly watched and hunted by the opposite party, until a family-war of extermination had legally settled itself from generation to generation, without the least prospect of ever being brought to a peaceful termination. Nor do we indeed find ir the Scriptures the least trace of any abuse or mischief ever having arisen from these regulations (comp. 2Sa 2:19 sq.; 3:26 sq.). The spirit of all legislation on the subject has probably been to restrain the license of punishment assumed by relatives, and to limit the duration of feuds. The law of Moses was very precise in its directions on the subject of retaliation. See GOEL.

(1.) The wilful murderer was to be put to death without permission of compensation. The nearest relative of the deceased became the authorized avenger of blood (גּאֵל, the redeemer, or avenger, as next of kin, Gesen. s.v. p. 254, who rejects the opinion of Michaelis, giving it the sig. of " polluted," i.e. till the murder was avenged; Sept. ὁ ἀ γχιστεύων; Vulg. propinquus occisi; Nu 35:19), and-was bound to execute retaliation himself if it lay in his power. The king, however, in later times appears to have had the power of restraining this license. The shedder of blood was thus regarded as impious and polluted (Nu 35:16-31; De 19:11; 2Sa 14:7,11; 2Sa 16:8; 2Sa 3:29, with 1Ki 2:31,33; 1Ch 24:22-31).