198
77/6' Green Bag.
to be slain. The Avenger was no longer the representative of the aggrieved family, but became the public executioner, and in flicted the death penalty by the decree of the elders. If after the inquest " it be not known who hath slain him," then the elders and the royal judges of the various surrounding towns met as a grand inquest for the purpose of officially determining the question of juris diction involved, by ascertaining by actual measurement the nearest town to the place where the body was found. " Then thy elders and thy judges shall go forth and shall measure unto the towns which are round about him that is slain." The nearest town having been thus ascertained, the grand in quest had completed its duties, and it disap pears from the record, and the following procedure devolved upon the elders of the nearest town alone. It was they who per formed the ceremony of expiation. For the purpose of' understanding this ceremony, it must be remembered that anciently family, tribal and territorial solidarity were very strong, and the family, the tribe and com munity were responsible for the crimes com mitted by one of their members. In the first place, the family law provided that the members of the family were all responsible for each other, and that the deeds of one were visited on the others. The members of the family were responsible agents, for whose acts all of the family were held liable. The later law put an end to this by declaring that "the fathers shall not be put to death for the sons, nor shall the sons be put to death for the fathers, each man shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deut. xxiv. : 16.) But be fore the doctrine of individual responsibility was established, the old family solidarity was extended to the tribe. The tribe was but the larger family, every one of its members claimed descent from a common ancestor whose name the tribe bore, and they were responsible for the acts of each other. Upon settlement in Palestine, territorial contiguity
established new relations, differing from the tribal relations, and the old principle of solidarity was applied to the new conditions. All the members of the same community whether of the same tribe or not were respon sible for the acts of their fellows. If a crime was committed within the territorial limits of the town, it became the duty of the commun ity, acting through its elders, to endeavor to find the guilty person, and, if they did not succeed, the duty of making reparation de volved upon the community. Now what was the reparation that could be made in criminal cases? In such cases the law of retaliation was invoked; life for life. This is the reason for the offering of the heifer by the elders of the town. In their official capacity as the representatives of the town they make expi ation for the crime committed within its limits and shed blood for blood, thus symbol izing the death of the murderer. This of fering of the sacrifice came afterwards to have a religious signification which is also reflected in our record. " And it shall be that the town which is nearest unto the slain man; even the elders of that town shall take an heifer which hath not been wrought with and which hath not drawn in the yoke; and the elders of that town shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which is not ploughed nor sown, and shall break the neck of the heifer in the valley. And all the elders of that town which are nearest to the slain man shall wash their hands over the heifer, whose neck is broken in the valley and they shall commence and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Forgive thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, О Jehovah, and lay not innocent blood in the midst of thy people Israel." Thus responsibility for the crime was averted by a solemn declaration of innocence. " And the blood shall be for given them." The offering of the heifer was a symbolization of the shedding of the slayer's blood, and, at the same time, an act of sacri fice to God, to appease the divine wrath, and
