KINSMAN. • Of the four IIebrew words thus translated in the A. V., three, (Num. xxvii.
It), rtito (Ruth ii. 1), and 2'17 (Ps. xxxviii. 12 [II]; Job xix. 14, A. V. kinsfolk' ), indicate simple relationship. The remaining one, along with that, implies certain obligations arising out of that relationship.
The term is derived by the lexicographers from the verb to redeem. That the two are closely connected is certain but whether the mean ing of the verb is derived 'from that of the noun, or the converse, may be made matter of question. 7 The comparison of the cognate dialects leads to ; the conclusion that thc primary idea lying at the basis of both is that of coming to the help or rescue of one, hence giving prolection, redeeming, avenging.
Comp. Ar. ivit, venit ; circumivit, oldvit ; Syr. \\..P.,„ misertus est, protexit. In this Ns.
case the of the O. T. would, in fundamental concept, answer pretty nearly to the Tapd•KX7r-os of the N. T.
The Goel among the Hebrews was the nearest male blood relation alive. To him as such, three rights specially belonged, and on 'him corre sponding duties devolved towards his next of kin.
1. When an Israelite thropigh poverty sold bis inheritance and was unable to redeem it, it de volved iipon one of his kin to purchase it (Lev. xxv. 25-28 ; Ruth iii. ; iv.) So also, when an Israelite had through poverty sold himself into slavery, it devolved upon the next of kin as his Goel to ransom him in the Jubilee year (Lev.
xxv. 47, ff. [JUBILEE; YEAR OFD. III allusion to this, Gocl is frequently represented as the Goel of His people, both as He redeems them from tem poral bondage (Exod. vi. 6 ; Is. xliii. 1; xlviii. 20 ; Jer. 1. 34; etc.) and from the bondage of sin and evil (Is. xli. 14 ; xliv. 6, 22 ; xlix. ; Ps. ciii• 4 ; Job xix. 25 • etc.) In some of these passages there is an obvious Messianic reference, to which the fact that our redemption from sin has been effected by One who has become near of kin to us by assuming onr nature gives special force (comp. Heb. 14).
2. When an Israelite who had wronged any one sought to make restitution but found that the party he had wronged was dead without leaving a son, it fell to the next of kin of the injured party, as his Goel, to represent him and receive the repara tion (Num. v. 6, ff.) The law provided that in case of his having no one sufficiently near of kin to act for him in this way, the property restored should go to the priest as representing Jehovah the King of Israel ; a provision which the Jews say indicates that the law has reference to strangers, as no Israelite could be without a rcdecmer, for if any one of his tribe was left he would be his heir (Maimon. in Baba Kama, ix. II).
3. The most striking office of the Goel was that of acting as the avenger of blood in case of the murder of his next of kin ; hence the phrase ts',1 L".7171 the blood-avenger. In the heart of man there seems to be a deep-rooted feeling that where human life has been destroyed by violence, the offence can be expiated only by the life of the murderer. Hence in all nations where the rights of individuals are not administered by a general executive acting under the guidance of law, the rule obtains that where murder has been committed the right and duty of retaliation devolves on the kindred of the murdered person. Amongst the
Shemitic tribes this took the form of a personal obligation resting on the nearest of kin ; a custom which still prevails among the Arabs (Niebuhr, Des. d'Arabie, ch. 7). This deep-rooted feeling and established usage the Mosaic legislation sought to place under such regulations as would tend to prevent thc excesses and disorders to which per sonal retaliation is apt to lead, without attempting to preclude the indulgence of it.* Certain cities of refuge were provided to which the manslayer might endeavour to escape. If the Goel overtook him before he reached any of these cities he might put him to death ; but if the fugitive succeeded in gaining the asylum Ile was safe until at least an in vestigation had been instituted as to the circum stances of the murder. If on inquity it was found that the party had been guilty of deliberate mur der, the law delivered him up to the Goel to be put to death by him in any way Ile pleased ; but if the murder was accidental the manslaycr was entitled to the protection of the asylum he had reached [AsvLust ; CITIES OF REFUGE]. He was sale, however, only within its precincts, for if the Ge el found him beyond these he was at liberty to kill him. Among some of the Oriental nations the right of blood-revenge might be satisfied by the payment of a sum of money ; but this practice, which obviously gave to the rich an undue advan tage over the poor in matters of this sort, the law of Moses absolutely prohibits (Num. xxxv. 31).
From the narrative in Ruth iii. and iv. it has been concluded that among the duties of the Goel was that of marrying the widow of a deceased kinsman so as to raise up seed to the dcceascd ; thus identifying the office of the Goel with that of the Levir, as provided for Deut. xxv. 5-to [MAR RIAGE]. But the levirate law expressly limits the obligation to a brother, and, according to the Jewish commentators, to a full brother by the father's side (Maimonides, quoted by Othon, Lex. Rabbin. Phil., p. 372), and in this relation neither Boaz nor the other kinsman stood to Elimelech or his sons. It is further evident that the question here was onc of right rather than one of duty, and that the kinsman who waived his right incurred no disgrace thereby, sucla as one who declined to fulfil the levirate law incurred. The nearest kinsman had the right to redeem the land, and the redemp tion of the land probably involved the mai-lying of the widow of the deceased owner, according to usage and custom ; but the law did not enjoin this, nor did the Goel who declined to avail hiin self of his right come under any penalty or ban. The case of the Goel, and that of the Levir, would thus be the converse of each other : the Goel had a right to purchase the land, but in so doing came under an obligation from custom to marry the widow of the deceased owner ; the Levir was bound to many the widow of his deceased brother, which involved, as a matter of course, the redemption 01 his property if Ile bad sold it (see Winer, Real wOrtb., s.v . Ruth ; Selden, De Success. in bon. de funct., c. 15; Benary, De Hebrceorum Leviratu, p. 19, ff. ; Bel theau, Exeget. Hdb. VIM A. T., Lief. 6, p. 249 ; Michaelis, 011 the Laws of Moses, vol. ii. p. 129, ff., E. T.) —W. L. A.