Asylum city

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The city ​​of asylum , also known as a city of refuge or free city , is an important legal institution in the Bible that is to be regarded as the first historically known form of a right of asylum . According to the archaic kinship law of blood vengeance , any member of a manslaughter victim could pursue and kill the perpetrator anywhere in order to satisfy justice. Biblical legislation has gradually restricted this more and more and finally rejected it entirely. The places of asylum were an important step forward.

Escape to the city of asylum (Numbers 35: 11-28). by Charles Foster, The Story of the Bible, 1884.

Biblical justification

They are mentioned in three different legal corpora:

Federal Book

In the Federal Book ( Ex. 21-23) they are only mentioned as a future institution ( Ex 21.12 f.  EU ):

“ 12 Anyone who beats a person so that he dies is punished with death. 13 If he did not lie in wait for him, but God let it happen by his hand, I will fix a place for you where he can flee. "

This was the first time that a distinction was made between willful murder and accidental manslaughter . But the place of escape for the murderer, who was wrongly persecuted as a murderer, has not yet been determined; the following verse indicates that it was about a place of worship, i.e. places of worship.

Priest law

In the Priestly Law ( 3rd and parts of 2nd and 4th Book of Moses , including Num. 27-36) the provisions for the establishment of these places of asylum were specified. The prerequisite was the distribution of territory to all twelve tribes of the Hebrews . The Levites, as the tribe of the hereditary priesthood, were assigned special cities and surrounding areas. Six out of 48 of their localities, three of them east and west of the Jordan , should be available for legal protection for criminal prosecutors from all over Israel ( Num 35.12  EU ):

"The cities should serve as asylum for you before the avenger, so that he who killed does not have to die before he stands before the court of the community."

A public judicial process is required here, which makes the distinction between murder and manslaughter justiciable. The following casuistic legal clauses establish criteria for this ( Num 35,16-34  EU ):

  • Hitting by hand or object as well as throwing a stone resulting in death was considered murder. In these cases, the avenger (as a representative of the injured party) was allowed to kill the murderer wherever he found him.
  • Pushing or throwing at affect (“out of hatred”) resulting in death was also murder and could also be atoned for by the avenger.
  • Pushing or throwing against it without killing intent or entirely accidentally required a public trial:

"... so the community should judge between the one who struck and the avenger according to these legal systems."

The right of the kin was thus restricted by the overriding legal interests of the entire people: the avengers of the killed were only prosecutors unless there was clearly a murder or as soon as the murderer sought asylum. (In the latter cases, the avenger was even explicitly asked to kill the manslaughter. V.19)

  • There was no police yet. The manslaughter himself was responsible for going to an asylum town and seeking protection from its elders.
  • The following procedure to establish a possible permanent property right was evidently not carried out in the city of asylum but in his home municipality, which made it easier to consult witnesses. (V.25)

Only after recognition of his worth of protection was he directed to the city of asylum and given the right to live there .

  • He was to stay there until the ordained high priest , who was Israel's chief judge in addition to his religious functions, died.

This meant a restriction of freedom to protect one's own life, but without a foreseeable time limit and less serious than a prison sentence or house arrest . Since the office of high priest was originally inherited ( Num 20,22-29  EU ), it can be assumed that he was mostly of an advanced age and that his remaining life expectancy was no more than one generation (approx. 20 years).

  • Only then was he allowed to return to his hometown.

So he remained a citizen entitled to inheritance; his land was presumably cultivated by the extended family during his absence or, if none existed, leased in trust. (cf. ( 2 Kings 8,5f  EU )) It can be assumed that the manslaughter had to pay for his living himself and was dependent either on the support of the extended family and / or a manual or service activity within the asylum city.

  • The stay in the city of asylum inhabited by the Levites could also have intended a (re) socializing and (further) educational effect, because the Israelites were able to read and write as moral role models and teachers and had medical, legal and later administrative obligations and represented the educated elite accordingly.
  • When leaving the city of asylum prematurely, the manslaughter ran the risk of being legally killed by a blood avenger ( Num 35.26 + 27  EU ). This right to kill the blood avenger only ended with the above. Death of the high priest.
  • Contrary to the regulation for other offenses, ransom was not permitted under the death penalty (in the sense of blood money ) or the restriction of freedom (in the sense of a bail ) (cf. ( Num 35,31 + 32  EU ))
  • The witness rule required at least two matching and verified witness statements for murder.
  • The killing of a manslaughter after the start of the trial on the way to the place of justice or after its recognition as "accidental killing" within the area of ​​the asylum city was also considered a murder that "polluted the country and demanded atonement" . This made the asylum procedure a criminal offense.

Deuteronomy

In Deuteronomy ( 5th book of Moses ) these laws were slightly varied and supplemented ( Dtn 19.1-13  EU ):

  • Six places were places of asylum for the Israelites: three on this side and three on the other side of the Jordan: The three east of the Jordan were according to Jos 20.8  EU (as already stated in Dtn 4.43  EU ): Bezer in the desert, Ramot in Gilead and Golan in Bashan. The three west of the Jordan were ( Jos 20.7  EU ): Kedesch in Galilee, Shechem on the mountains of Ephraim and Kirjat-Arba (Hebron) on the mountains of Judah.
  • It should be easy for everyone to escape from their place of residence (traffic routes) ( Dtn 19.3  EU ).

For this purpose, the settlement area was divided up, similar to the handling of emergency exits today. The location of the six named free cities was chosen so that the closest asylum city could be reached from any point in a maximum of approx. 25 km (as the crow flies).

  • if the territory ownership would expand further, 3 more cities should be named ( Dtn 19.8  EU )

At the end of conquests in the book of Joshua against the "promised land" remained ((see. Numbers 34  EU still large areas)) in the north (now the territory of Lebanon and Syria) and the coastal plain on the Mediterranean controlled by other ethnic groups (see. ( Ri 1 , 21-36  EU ) and ( Ri 3,1-5  EU ))

  • Those persecuted had to be protected until they reached an asylum city. Every Israelite was held responsible for their life along the way.
  • A (proven) murderer had to be removed from an asylum city ( Dtn 19.11-12  EU ).

The possibility of a revision of the procedure is indicated here. The basic rule has always been to protect Israel from the collective consequences of innocent blood shed.

effect

It is uncertain whether and to what extent these laws achieved historical validity. The right of asylum appears to have played a role in Saul's persecution of David .

A reference, at least to the awareness of this legal concept 400-500 years later, can be found in the dealings of King Solomon with Shimei, the son of Geras, the Benjaminite, from Bachurim "(1 Kings 2: 8f) Solomon gives Simei one Punishment that shows clear similarities (cf. 1 Kings 2: 36-46)

Apart from that, after the division of the empire under Rehoboam or Jeroboam I, only Hebron remained theoretically as a city of asylum, since the Levites from the northern empire left their cities after the introduction of the calf cult by Jeroboam and emigrated to Judah . (cf. 2 Christ 11:14)

Asylum (cities) in rabbinical tradition

The classical rabbinical writings basically regarded all Levite cities as cities of asylum, with the difference that, compared to the six named cities of asylum, they granted the right to refuse an asylum seeker by the respective population. Although the six asylum cities were explicitly set out in priestly law, Talmudic sources argue that over time other cities could also be officially declared asylum cities to take account of changing political realities. [3] When choosing such “replacement cities”, u. a. attention should be paid to their size. In cities that are too small, there would be a fear of a lack of food or employment opportunities, so that a recognized protégé might feel compelled to leave the city for the sake of his livelihood and thus expose himself to the risk of death. Too big a city, on the other hand, makes it easy for the avenger to hide among the crowd of residents and to carry out an attack undetected. For this, the surrounding region of a newly chosen asylum city should be populated as abundantly as possible, so that any attacks by the blood avenger (s) can easily be fended off. The rabbinical sources differentiated between four differently serious forms of killing, e.g. Sometimes with characterizing examples:

  1. Complete innocence : This situation existed when someone killed someone in the course of his duties, for example in the execution of a final death penalty or as an accidental consequence of a corporal punishment required by the law. Also acting out of self-defense z. This included, for example, a nocturnal break-in (Exodus 20: 1) or unpredictably aggressive behavior by pets resulting in death (Exodus 21:28). In such cases, the killer had no consequences to fear.
  2. Carelessness : This form existed when someone accidentally died in a process that was in itself legal but not required by law. Then the manslaughter had to flee to an asylum city and live there in exile.
  3. Serious negligence : existed when an unintentional death occurred as a result of illegal behavior. Examples from the Mosaic Law for this are a person falling from a flat roof that can be walked on because the railing is missing (Deuteronomy 22: 8) or a fatal accident with a pet whose potential hazard was known in advance (Exodus 21:29) The rabbis did not regard simple exile as a sufficient punishment for such an offense. The penalty could range from a (redemption) payment to the death penalty.
  4. Murder , which generally came under the death penalty. If the same was proven, the murderer - contrary to what is common nowadays - was immediately executed.

For the classical rabbinical authorities, cities of asylum were not just places of refuge, but also places where atonement was made. Philo explained this assumption as a corollary of the theory that an innocent person would never be chosen by God to become the tool for killing another. Therefore, a person seeking protection must have sinned before the manslaughter and his exile is now an expression of divine compulsion to otherwise not (yet) atonement. As a result, the rabbis developed the almost mystical idea that even the corpse of a manslaughter who was killed on the way to the asylum city had to be transferred to the city for atonement. Or if a manslaughter died during his stay in the city of asylum before the incumbent high priest gave his temporary blessing, he would have to be buried there at least until his death to complete the atonement. These ways of thinking are possibly based on the example of the atonement of the blood guilt of the house of Saul against the Gibeonites (2 Samuel 21: 1-14). Apart from that, it was demanded that the manslaughter always keep in mind that he has a human life on his conscience and that he must therefore refuse any honor from his fellow citizens. A manslaughter was also forbidden for life to exercise political office, regardless of the death of "his" high priest.

See also

literature

  • Martin Staszak: The Asylum Cities in the Old Testament. Reality and fiction of a legal institution . Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2006, ISBN 978-3-447-05402-7 .
  • Christine Dietrich: Asylum. Comparative study of a legal institution in ancient Israel and its environment . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2008, ISBN 978-3-17-020523-9 .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Christine Dietrich, Asylum. Comparative study of a legal institution in ancient Israel and its environment , Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer, 2008, p. 65.
  2. ↑ Christine Dietrich, Asylum. Comparative study of a legal institution in ancient Israel and its environment . Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer, 2008, p. 161.
  3. ↑ a b c Jewish Encyclopedia
  4. ^ Makkot 10a
  5. ^ Maccot 2: 2, 8a
  6. ^ Philo, De Specialibus Legibus III: 120
  7. ^ Makkot 11b
  8. ↑ Maccot 2: 8