BLOOD
836
BLOOD
20. the disease alluded to is hemorrhage; but we are not obliged to suppose that it continued unceasingly for twelve years. It is a universal custom, in speak- in- of the duration of a chronic disease, to include the intervals of comparative health that may occur during its course; so that when a disease is merely stated to have lasted a certain time, we have still to learn Whether it was of strictly a continuous type, or wheth- er it intermitted. In the present case, as this point is left undecided, we are quite at liberty to suppose that the disease did intermit, and can therefore under- stand why it did not prove fatal even in twelve years. It was most likely uterine in this instance, and hence the delicacy of the woman in approaching Christ, and her confusion on being discovered. See Flux.
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 >X"< Cnn, goel' had-da in ', the reclaimer of 'blood, or one who demands restitution of blood, similar to the Latin san- guinem repetere. See Avenger of Blood.
1. Jewish. — The Mosaic law (Num. xxxv, 81) ex- pressly forbids the acceptance of a ransom for the for- feited life of the murderer, although it might be saved by his seeking an asylum at the altar of the taberna- cle in case the homicide was accidentally committed (Exod. xxi, 13; 1 Kings i, 50; ii, 28). When, how- ever, 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 propor- tion 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 (Deut. xix, 3). Thither the avenger durst not follow him, and there he lived in safety until a proper examination had taken place before the author- ities of the place (Josh, xx, 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. goel, against whom not even the altar could protect him ( Exod. xxi, 14 ; 1 Kings ii, 29) ; in the latter case, though lie 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 high- priest (Num. xxxv, G; Deut. xix, 3; Josh, xx, 1-6), if he would not run the risk of falling into the hands of the avenger, and be slain by him with impunity (Num. xxxv, 26; Deut. xix, G). That such a volun- tary exile was considered more in the light of a pun- ishment for manslaughter than a provision for the safe retreat of the homicide against the revengeful designs of the goel, is evident from Num. xxxv, 32, where it ressly forbidden to release him from his confine- ment on any condition whatever. That the decease of the bigh-priest should have been the means of re- storing him to liberty was probably owing to the gen- eral custom anion- the ancients of granting free par- don to certain prisoners at the demise of their legiti- mate prime or sovereign, whom the high-priest repre- sented, in a spiritual Bense, anion- the Jews. These wise regulations of the Mosaical law, so far as the spirit of the age allowed it, prevented all family ha- tred, persecution, and war from ever taking place, as
was inevitably the case among the oilier nations, where any bloodshed whatever, « hether 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 limited by the opposite party, until a family-war of extermi-
nation had legally settled itself from generation to gen- eration, without the least prospect of ever being brought to a peaceful termination. Nor do we indeed find in the Scriptures the least trace of any abuse or mischief ever having arisen from these regulations (ecnip. 2 8am. ii, 1!) sq. ; iii, 2G sq.). The spirit of all legisla- tion 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 retalia- tion. 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 (bX5, the redeemer, or avenger, as next of kin, Gesen. s. v. p. 254, who rejects the opinion of Mi- chaelis, giving it the sig. of "polluted," i. e. till the mur- der was avenged; Sept. o ciyy^iaTiviDv; Vulg. propin- quus occisi; Num. xxxv, 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 (Num. xxxv, 16-31; Deut. xix, 11 ; 2 Sam. xiv, 7, 11 ; xvi, 8, and iii, 29, with 1 Kings ii, 31, 33 ; 1 Chron. xxiv, 22-35). (2.) The law of retaliation was not to extend beyond the immediate offender (Deut. xxiv, 16 ; 2 Kings xiv, 6; 2 Chron. xxv, 4; Jer. xxxi, 29, 30; Ezek. xviii, 20; Joseph. Ant. iv, 8, 39).