Page:Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 2.pdf/294

256 Asverus

THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

Asylum

sneezing was universal among ancient and is also observed among modern nations; it originated in the belief that it was the work of the spirits, good or evil (sec section on " Sneezing " in Tylor, " Primitive Culture,"

i.

97-102).

Bibliography A. Lewysonn, Mekore Mtnhagim, 1846, pp. 111112; Tendlau, SprU.chwttfi.er iind Redensarten Deut.ichJlldischer Vorzeit, 1860, p. 142 Berliner, Aus dem Lehen der Deutsclxen Juden im Mittclalter, 1900, p. 95 Frankel,





Talmud Jermhalmi Seder Zera'im,

i. 39b Levy and Jastrow, Talmitdical Dictionary, s.v. O'l and or; Kohut, 'Aruli, s.v. Nav; Blau, Das Altiudische Zauberwesen, pp. 163 164.

J.



K.

SB.

ASVERUS.

See Severus.

ASYLUM.— A

Biblical Data {iavhm, "inviolable ") place of refuge for slaves, debtors, political offenders, and criminals a sacred spot, a sanctuary, altar, or grave, protected by the presence of a



deity or other supernatural being, and sharing his inviolability. In many cases there was attached to the sacred place a larger or smaller area within which it was forbidden to shed the blood of man or beast or to cut down trees or plants (so in the harem or sacred enclosure of Mecca), and where the fugitive might dwell in comfort. The custom was one of the earliest developed in society it is found among very low tribes (Australian and others), among some of whom the guilt or innocence of a fugitive was determined by a tribunal. It is Origin and probable that this character of refuge Character, belonged originally to all sacred places, the degree of security being in proportion to the sanctity of the spot, the shrines of the more powerful deities naturally having greater poInto such a system, abuses, of course, crept: tency. some shrines were nurseries of criminals; and it often became necessary to limit the number of asylums. In Athens only certain sanctuaries were recognized by law as refuges (for example, the temple of Theseus for slaves) in the time of Tiberius the congregations of desperadoes in shrines had become so dangerous that the right of Asylum was limited to a few cities (in the year 22). The sanctuary did not always protect a refugee if the law were not explicit, or if the man were already condemned or believed to be guilty or dangerous, he was sometimes taken from the sacred spot, or even put to death there such cases were, however, exceptional. In Israel the custom of Asylum probably existed from the earliest times, but there is no record of it before the days of Solomon. Possibly an allusion to it is involved in the story of Cain Early (Gen. iv.): Cain, as murderer, would Hebrew in any case be exposed to the attack Custom, of the avenger of blood, but his situation is made harder by the fact that he is banished from the land and the worship of Yhwh, and therefore can not take refuge in a sancAbsalom, after the murder of Amnon, fled tuary. the country (II Sam. xiii. 37), and took refuge with The first distinct notice of the his mother's father. right of Asylum is contained in the narrative of the attempts to place Adonijah on the throne (I Kings Adonijah flees to the altar and refuses to i., ii.): come forth till he has Solomon's word that his life







shall

256

be spared; Joab, on the other hand, refusing

by

to leave the altar, is slain,

special

command

of

Solomon, on the sacred spot. There was thus at this time a recognized right of Asylum for offenders (in this case political offenders), which, however, was not absolute. The right was denied Joab, probably, not because he had murdered Abner and Amasa (I Kings ii. 29-34), but because he was a dangerous conspirator, and Solomon had absolute authority over the royal shrine of JeruDoubtless every sanctuary in Josiah's salem. Attempts the land was an Asylum (Ex. xxi. 14, at Reform, compared with Ex. xx. 24), and this state of things continued down to (and probably after) the reform of Josiah, when the attempt was made to abolish all sanctuaries except The plan was not carthe Temple of Jerusalem. ried out at that time the provincial shrines continued to exist (Jer. ii. 28 vii. 9, 18 xi. 13 Ezek. vi. 3, 4), and later all reforms were interrupted by the capture of Jerusalem and the consecpuent confusion It may thus be that reigned throughout the land. assumed that down to the time of the Babylonian







Levitical settlements had the privilege of for certain offenders, such as homicides and political disturbers, but whether it was also extended The area of proto slaves and debtors is not clear. tection probably included all the land attached to

Exile

all

Asylum

the sanctuary. The right of Asylum was defined gradually by custom and law. In Solomon's time, as just noted, a distinction, based on regard for the safety of the throne, was made between refugees. LegAs the legal organization of society was more and more worked out, the islation. just distinction between the innocent and the guilty came to be recognized. This distinction is made definitely in the earliest law-book (Ex. xxi. 13, 14, eighth century) He who slays unintentionally is to be protected from the avenger of blood by the sanctuary, but the wilful slayer is to be taken from the altar and put to death (that is, delivered over to the avenger of blood). Further details are not given nothing is said of a tribunal to try the case, or of the duration of the fugitive's stay in the sanctuary; these points were, however, probably settled by the existing custom. The first modification of the old usage is made in the Book of Deuteronomy (xix. 1-7, 11-13). As the rural shrines were abolished by the law of that book, it became necessary to make other provisions for the innocent homicide that lived too far from Jerusalem to find shelter there and accordingly three cities were appointed (their names are not given in the text) to which such a person might flee and within their boundaries be safe. In any one of these a homicide might take refuge and remain secure till his case was decided. The decision was made by the elders of the refugee's city in general, it may be supposed, by the legal authorities [elders] of the place where the homicide was committed. If he proved to be innocent, he was, of course, under the protection of the authorities of the city of refuge

—





but it is not said whether or when he was allowed to go home. If he was found guilty, the eiders of his own city sent and fetched him, and he was put