Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares.
Slayer may flee ... which killeth any person at unawares. The practice of Go'elism - i:e., of the nearest relation of an individual who was killed being bound to demand satisfaction from the author of his death-existed from a very remote antiquity (Genesis 4:14; Genesis 27:45). It seems to have been an established usage in the age of Moses; and although in a rude and imperfect state of society it is a natural and intelligible principle of criminal jurisprudence, it is liable to many great abuses. The chief of the evils inseparable from it are, that the kinsman, who is bound in duty and honour to execute justice, will often be precipitate, little disposed, in the heat of passion, or under the impulse of revenge, to examine into the circumstances of the case-to discriminate between the premeditated purpose of the assassin and the misfortune of the unintentional homicide.
Moreover, it had a tendency not only to foster a vindictive spirit, but, in case of the Go'el (H1352) being unsuccessful in finding his victim, to transmit animosities and feuds against his descendants from one generation to another. This is exemplified among the Arabs in the present day. Should an Arab of one tribe happen to kill one of another tribe, there is 'blood' between the tribes, and the stain can only be wiped off by the death of some individual of the tribe with which the offence originated. Sometimes the penalty is commuted by the payment of a stipulated number of sheep or camels. But such an equivalent, though offered, is as often refused, and blood has to be repaid only by blood.
This practice of Go'elism obtained among the Hebrews to such an extent, that it was not perhaps expedient to abolish it; and Moses, while sanctioning its continuance, was directed, by divine authority, to make some special regulations, which tended both to prevent the unhappy consequences of sudden and personal vengeance, and at the same time to afford an accused person time and means of proving his innocence. This was the humane and equitable end contemplated in the institution of cities of refuge.
There were to be six of these legalized asyla-three on the east of Jordan, both because the territory there was equal in length, though not in breadth, to Canaan, and because it might be more convenient for some to take refuge across the border. They were appointed for the benefit, not of the native Israelites only, but of all resident strangers. Bahr ('Symbolik') draws a conclusion from the institution of such public sanctuaries, that for accused persons of the description referred to there was no sin offering prescribed or accepted. But the professed object of this chapter is not to treat of the unintentional manslayer, otherwise directions would have been given, in accordance with the principles of the legal economy, in regard to the ecclesiastical expiation; but of the free cities and of the manslayer, to whom the privilege of a secure retreat within their walls was afforded, until an investigation should be made into the case by the judicial authorities. Bahr's inference, therefore, is not warranted by the tenor of this chapter, which is limited to certain special instructions to the homicide-where and how to consult his safety pending a legal inquiry, whether the deed was premeditated or unintentional.