Deuteronomy 19:13

19:13 Purge (literally burn): The only way for the land to be free of culpability in matters of homicide was for blood vengeance to be enacted, which would burn out the impurity. See also 13:5; 17:12.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Then whosoever pardoneth murder, offendeth against the word of God.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

13. Only by such action on the part of the local authorities and the kinsmen of the murdered man can the guilt of the crime be removed from the whole nation. To this extent the ancient custom of the vendetta is recognised as part of the theocratic system.

thou shalt put away] See on Deu_13:5 (6).

that it may go well with thee] Another recurrent phrase; Deu_4:40, Deu_5:16; Deu_5:29, etc.

Additional Note: The Vendetta, ‘the one element of jurisprudence in the wild life of the desert,’ springs from, the simple principle of blood for blood, still valid in the law of Israel, Gen_9:6. Its moral effects are twofold and contrary. On the one hand it is a restraint upon manslaughter, the possibilities of vengeance which it lets loose engendering reluctance to take life except in self-defence. On the other, when once a man has been slain, there is no chance of a fair trial for the slayer; though his deed may have been an accident he may have to atone for it with his life; while the excitement of whole families and tribes to avenge it is a fertile source of disorder and of war, which may last and has lasted for a century. The duty of the vendetta extends sometimes to the third sometimes to the fifth degree of kinship, but among the Sinai Arabs to the sixth from the grandfather down (Jennings Bramley, PEFQ 1907, 135). Hence even in the wildest parts of Arabia there arose the right of sanctuary in any tent from which it was claimed, and the respite was used for the investigation of the case, and even in cases of wilful murder for the arrangement of some compromise—financial or otherwise—between the slayer and the kinsmen of the slain. In these negotiations the tribal authorities would often intervene. But even this has been found insufficient to secure order and justice, and wherever a central authority has been established among the Arabs one of its first efforts has been to control and regulate, or even to abolish, the vendetta. For modern examples—the Wahabees, Mohammed ‘Ali, the Russians in the Caucasus and the Sublime Porte—see Von Oppenheim, Vom Mittelmeer zum Pers. Golf. Similarly in Israel. The earlier law (as we have seen) gave sanctuary at every altar of Jehovah. When only the One Altar remained the opportunity came to modify the whole consuetudinary law; the vendetta was not abolished but controlled by the rights of sanctuary in certain accessible cities and by the interference of the local authorities. These provisions, apparently first made by D and elaborated in P, secured a fair trial and the acquittal of the innocent slayer; but they do not allow any such compromise, financial or otherwise, as frequently takes place among the Arabs between the wilful murderer and the kinsmen of his victim. In Israel the wilful murderer must die. Such distinctions of Israel’s system from the customs of her Semitic neighbours, involving as they do both a greater humanity in one direction and a greater severity in the other, are of the highest ethical interest.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark,.... By which one man's land is distinguished from another; for so to do is to injure a man's property, and alienate his lands to the use of another, which must be a very great evil, and render those that do it obnoxious to a curse, Deu 27:17.

which they of old have set in thine inheritance, which thou shall inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it; the land of Canaan: this is thought to refer to the bounds and limits set in the land by Eleazar and Joshua, and those concerned with them at the division of it; when not only the tribes were bounded; and distinguished by certain marks, but every man's estate, and the possession of every family in every tribe which though not as yet done when this law was made, yet, as it respects future times, might be said to be done of old, whenever there was any transgression of it, which it cannot be supposed would be very quickly done; and it is a law not only binding on the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, but all others, it being agreeably to the light and law of nature, and which was regarded among the Heathens, Pro 22:28.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Innocent. Many Latin copies have "guilty blood," noxium. By putting the offender to death, Israel was expiated from the blood which had been shed unjustly. (Calmet)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

לא תחוס עינך THINE EYE SHALL NOT PITY [HIM] — i.e. that thou shall not say, The first (the one) person has already been killed, why should we kill this also, so that two Israelites will be killed? (Sifrei Devarim 187:7).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

THINE EYE SHALT NOT PITY HIM. “This means that you shall not say, ‘The first person has already been killed. Why should we kill him also, with the result that two people will be killed?’” This is Rashi’s language quoting the Sifre. 187. The meaning thereof is that you should not say, “Rather than having pity on the blood of the slain it would be better to have pity on the blood of the living one.”The correct interpretation of the verse is as follows: Scripture has commanded concerning those liable to death, so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee, this being a positive commandment. But in matters of prevalent danger [to society], He warned further with a negative commandment that [the murderers] not be spared from [punishment at] our hands, neither on account of fear of them nor because we might show them mercy. He mentioned the same in the case of the inciter., 13:9. He also stated, Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live because of her being full of tumult who sells many through her sorceries.. And thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall have no pity — this was commanded because the fools praise her for having been a help to her husband [who was fighting with another man], or because embarrassment is common and involves no monetary loss [and therefore the Torah was strict in the punishment thereof]. Similarly in the case of plotting witnesses He commanded that we have no pity on them, [thinking that] because nothing had yet been done to the accused [therefore we should not punish them], or perhaps [the strictness is] due to the prevalence of their danger.

THAT IT MAY GO WELL WITH THEE. The meaning thereof is that avenging innocent blood is a commandment and is a great blessing to you to deliver your soul from death, because pity upon murderers causes more bloodshed by these murderers and by others who break away [from society].

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.