Got the encyclopedia article on GO'EL from 1903 Jewish Encyclopedia
today and will share that article with you and the newsgroup:

Next of kin, and, hence, redeemer. Owing to the solidarity of the family
and the clan in ancient Israel, any duty which a man could not perform
by himself had to be taken up by his next of kin. Any rights possessed
by a man which lapsed through his inability to perform the duties 
attached to such rights, could be and should be resumed by the next of
kin. This paplied especially to parcels of land which any israellite
found it necessary to sell. This his go'el, or kinsman, had to redeem
(Lev. 25:25). From the leading case of Jeremiah's purchase of his cousin
Hananeel's property in Anathoth (Jer. 32:8-12) it would appear that in
later Israel at any rate this injunction was taken to mean that a
kinsman had the right of preemption. Similarly, in the Book of Ruth the
next of kin was called up to purchase a parcel of land formerly
belonging to Elimelch (Ruth 4:3). It would appear from the same example
that another duty of the go'el was to raise offspring for his kinsman if
he happened to die without any (ib.5). This would seem to be an
extension of the principle of LEVIRATE MARRIAGE; HENCE THE 
PROCEDURE OF "halizah" was gone through in the case of Naomi's go'el, 
just as if he had been her brother-in-law. The relative nearness of kin is 
not very definitely determined in the Old Testament. The brother appears 
to be the nearest of all, after whom comes the uncle or uncle's son (Lev.
25:49).

Another duty of the go'el was to redeem his kinsman from slavery if sold
to a stranger or sojourner (Lev. 25:47-55). In both cases much depended
upon the nearnerss of remoteness of the year of jubilee, which would
automatically release either the land or the person of the kinsman from
sujection to another.

As the go'el had his duties, so he had his privileges and compensation.
If an injured man had claim to damages and died before they were paid to
him, his go'el would have the right to them (Lev. 5:21-26[A.V. vi.1-7[).
The whole conception  of the go'el was based on the solidarity of the
interests of the tribe and the nation with those of the national God,
and accordingly the notion of the go'el became spiritualized as applied
ot the relations between God and Israel. God was regarded as the go'el
of Isarel, and as having redeemed him for the bondage of Egypt (Ex. 6:6,
15:13). Especially in Deutiero-Isaiah is this conception emphasized
(Isa. xli.14; xliii. 14; xliv.6, 24, et passim).

However, the chief of the go'el duties toward his kinsman was that of
avenging him if he should happen to be slain  by some one outside the
clan or  tribe. This custom is found in all early or primitive
civilizations (com. Post, "Studien zur Entwicklungsgesch. des
Familienrechts," pp. 113-137). Indeed, it is the only expedient by which
any check could be put upon the tendency to do injury to strangers. Here
again to the family of the murderer, and the death of one member of a
family would gernerally result in a vendetta. It would appear that this
custom was usual in early Israel, for the crimes of a man were visited
upon his family (Josh. vii.24; II Kings 9:26); but at a very early stage
the Jewish code made an advance upon most Semitic codes, including that
of Hammurabi, by distinguishing between homicide and murder (Ex. 21:
13-14). It was in order to determine whether a case of manslaughter was
accidental or deliberate that the CITIES OF REFUGE were instituted
(Deut. 19; Num. 35). In a case where the elders of the city of refuge
were satisfied that the homicide was intentional, the murderer was
handed over the blood-avenger ("go'el ha-dam") to take vengenance of
him. Even if it was decided tht at it was a case of unintentional
homicide, the man who committed the deed had to keep within the bounds
of the city of refuge till the death of the high priest, as the go'el
could kill the homicide with impunity if he found him trespassing beyond
the bounds (Numbers 35:26-27).

In other legislations grew the principle of commuting the penalty by a
money fine, known among the Anglo-Saxons as "wergild," which varied in
amount according to the rank of the person; but such a method was
distinctly prohibited in the Israelite code (Num 35:31).
It would appear that the custom of the blood-avenger still existed in
the time of David, as the woman of Tekoah refers to it in her appeal to
the king (II Sam. 14:11), but no further trace of it is found later the
concentration of the population in cities gave fuller power to the
courts of justice to punish cases of murder.	

Shalom,
Cheryle Holeman
HaY'Did Ministries
PO Box 804
Independence, KS 67301
http://www.haydid.org