Among the Hebrews, then, in primitive times, the murdered num's next of kin, i.e. his qoel, wa> bound by tribal custom to avenge bis bIoo<l bj conipa.ssing the death, not merely of the murderer himself, but of all his family ; for the family wa.- in these early times the unit of society, and so the murderer's guilt was shared by all fiis family (cf. Jos 7-^, 2 K 9^). Such, at least, is the Arab custom, and the law of Dt 24" seems hrst to have limited the responsibility for a crime to the crimi- nal alone (2 K 14"). I'he Book of the Covenant deals with crimes of violence by formulating, lirst of all, the general principle of a life lor a life (Ex 21"; cf. (ji\ 9*); it then proceeds to impose an all-important restriction on the exercise of in- discriminate blood - revenge, by emphasizing the distinction between accidental (v.'^) and deliberate manslaughter (v."). In both cases the man^.laye^ is presumed to flee to the altar of the local sanc- tuary from the vengeance of the qod (cf. 1 K I" 2^) ; but when deliberate murder lias been done, the criminal must forthwith be handed to tlie gucl {so we must infer), as the representative, not merely of the kin of the murdered man, lut even of Gud Himself, the Supreme Avenger (Ps !i'-. MT "). This natural distinction between willul muriler and accidental homicide is elalwrated in both the later coiles (for the legal distinctioi. see Homicide and Murder un ler CuLMti anu Pl'X'silMKXT.s), which are chieily distinguished from the older and simpler coilo aliove referreil to by the provision of the cities of refuge (I'T whicli see Kkfuoe, CITIE.S of), where the man- slayer was to lind protection from the hiusty ven- geance of the giicl ('lest the avenger of blood pursue the manslayer ir/iilc /ii.« lifttrt it hot,' Dl l;i"), until it shoufd lie decided whether he wa*
J
224
GOEL
GOLAN
guilty of murder or of accidental homicide (Nu SS"-", Dt 19'-", Jos 20). Another important re- striction consisted in the new proviso that two witnesses, at least, should be required to establish the crime of murder (cf. Nu 35'" with Dt lO'"). The right of pronouncing whether a particular case was one of accidental or intentional homicide seems to have been vested in the elders (Dt 19'-), as the official representatives of tlie community (•Tiy Nu 35"-"-'') to which the accused belonf'cd. The elders of the city of refuge to wliich he liad fled must have formed, according to Jos 20^,* a court of first instance. On the accused being, after trial, found guilty of wilful murder, he is handed over to the goel, whose function, as restricted by successive legislation, lias now be- come little more than that of a public executioner. If the verdict, on the other hand, is that of accidental homicide, the congiegation (nii;) was autliorized 'to deliver the manslayer out of the hand of the avenger of blood,' and to ' restore him to his city of refuse,' where he was obliged to remain till the deatli of the then high priest (Nu 35-°). Until this event the accused was in so far still at the mercy of the goel, that, if he were found by the latter ' beyond the border of his city of refuge,' he might be put to death with impunity (NuSS*").
A characteristic feature of blood - revenge, as tlms regulated by Hebrew legislation, is the very limited extent to wliich compensation for blood (even when accidentally shed) by a money pay- ment was admitted. Among many widely differ- ent peoples, money-compensation — the Greek jroti'^, the Saxon icergeld — was legally admitted, but among the Hebrews such compensation or ransom (n;2) was expressly forbidden for the case of wilful murder (Nu 35"), and was admitted only in the case of a man or woman gored to death by an ox (Ex IX^).
It is impossible to say how long the custom of blood-revenge by means of the goel remained in force among the Hebrews. The case stated by the woman of Tekoa in 2 S 14'"" reveals its pre- valence in the reign of David, and, at the same time, is instructive as showing how the growing power of the central authority had already begun to exercise a salutary control over this ancient practice. According to the Chronicler, Jehosha- jiliat required all cases of bloodshed to be brought before the new high court of justice in the capital (2 Ch 19'°) ; but, unfortunately, we cannot be sure how much of this narrative is historical and how much a reflection of the practice prevailing in the Chronicler's own time (cf. ICittel, Hist. ii. p. 284).
Frc*n the technical sense of one enforcing the Jaims of justice in the special case of bloodshed, as explained aliove, the term goel in later Hebrew- acquired the more general signification of ' advo- cate,' one who enforces the claim of the oppressed (Ps 119'") and the orphans (Pr 23"). In this more general sense the word is perhaps to be understood in the difficult passage Job 19^ ' I know that my god liveth' (see Budde, in loc).
Literature. — For a modern systematic presentation of the topin discussed under this art. see Nowack's Heb. Archtsol. i. K.ip. t;, ' Reclitsverhaltnisse,' esp. §§ 61 and 64 on Criminal Pro- cedure and Law of Iniieritance. For the letter see also Erbrecht in Uiehm, HBA'^, and Heir in this Dictionarj-. For inheritance anioiij; the Arabs see W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, Index «. 'Inheritance, Laws of.* On the general subject of Blood-revenge see Kohler, Zur Lehre von der Bint- rache, 1SS5 ; A. H. Post, SfudiVn zur Entifickehtiujfge^chichte ties Familienrechts, 1890, 6th section, ' Die Blutrache,' pp. 113-136 ; amoutj the Arabs in particular, Burckhardt, yotes on the Bedotiin.etcA.p.uaB.; W. E. Smith, i;S p. S3 f.,cf. Inde.x, s. ' Blood-revenge ; for the blood feuds of the modern Syrian