Joshua · Chapter 5

That were on the west side of the Jordan. The side on which the children of Israel crossed is the western side, and until now they were on the eastern side.

"Until we crossed." "Until they crossed" is the Qere, and these are the words of the author.

"And there was not..." He spoke in a manner of exaggeration and hyperbole, as if the vital spirit had departed from them due to the magnitude of their fear.

Sharp flint knives. As its Targum renders: azmalon charifin (sharp knives). And also (Psalms 89:44): 'You shall turn back the edge of his sword,' when the sharpness is turned to the sides and it does not cut well. And also (Isaiah 54:17): every weapon formed against you. Again. They were already circumcised on the night of their going out of Egypt, a great congregation together, and this is the second time. For all the forty years they were in the wilderness the north wind did not blow for them, and they did not have a suitable day to circumcise, as we learned in Yevamot (71b), and our Sages said (there): 'again' — this is periah (the uncovering of the corona), which was not given to our father Abraham.

"At that time." While they were in Gilgal, God commanded him [Joshua] to circumcise so that they might observe the Passover, for on the tenth of the month they had passed over, and within three days they were required to be prepared to perform the Passover, to sprinkle [the water of purification], and to immerse, because there were among them those impure due to contact with a corpse. They were to be all circumcised so that they could offer the Passover on the fourteenth. And our Sages of blessed memory stated that on the tenth of the month, on the day of their arrival, they performed the first sprinkling, which is the sprinkling on the third day, and on the eve of Passover they performed the second sprinkling, which is the sprinkling on the seventh day, for there must be four days between one sprinkling and the next. They circumcised during these four days, immersed, and observed their Passovers in a state of purity. And why did they not circumcise the newborns in the wilderness? Our Sages of blessed memory stated that for forty years that the Israelites were in the wilderness, the north wind did not blow for them, so that the clouds of glory would not disperse. Therefore, they did not circumcise, because the north wind is a remedy for a wound of blood, and without it, it is dangerous. And it is said: "On a cloudy day and on a day of Shuta, we do not circumcise and we do not perform bloodletting." The explanation is that one does not circumcise and does not perform bloodletting. "Shuta" is the east wind, for it is dangerous for one who is bleeding. If one were to ask: "Does one guard the north wind for a person every single day when a male is circumcised?" one may answer that the reason is that it blows every day, as our Sages of blessed memory stated that four winds blow every day, and the north wind accompanies each of them. In most days, it alone dominates the other winds. Therefore, one circumcises on most days, and the north wind is the one that scatters the clouds, as it is written: "A wind passed and purified them." And regarding the north wind, it is said: "For there is no bright and pure day except with the north wind." And similarly, it says: "From the north comes gold." With the other winds, clouds are found for the most part, as they are not scattered by them. Even though the north wind is with them, as we have said, it is subordinate to them. But when it dominates, it scatters the clouds. And since the north wind did not blow in the wilderness, circumcision was suspended. Our Sages of blessed memory did not give a reason why we are not careful nowadays to avoid circumcising on a day of Shuta. But they said that since people have become accustomed to it, it does not harm. And similarly, they said: "And nowadays, since many have trodden upon it, 'The Lord guards the simple.'" If one were to ask: "Could not the Holy One, blessed be He, have caused the north wind to blow, so that the clouds of glory would not disperse, and the commandment of circumcision would not be suspended?" It is true that nothing is withheld from His plan, may He be blessed and exalted. And He, may He be blessed, who commanded circumcision on the eighth day, remained silent regarding them and did not warn them to circumcise the newborns during all those years, because the commandment is not nullified, but if it was not performed at its proper time, it could be performed after the time. And because the time of the commandment was extended, the Holy One, blessed be He, did not change the custom of the world. For even though He changes the custom of the world in some miracles, such as the splitting of the Red Sea and the Jordan, and the standing of the sun, He does not do so in most miracles. For even in winning battles and helping His lovers, He acted through a cause, according to the custom of the world in battles. As He commanded the war of Jericho, encircling the city with trumpets, as besiegers do to a city to frighten and terrify them. And as He commanded in the war of Ai, "Set an ambush for the city behind it," as is the custom of the world. And similarly in other wars. And we cannot say that they refrained from circumcising the newborns in the wilderness against the will of God, for we have not seen that a prophet rebuked them for not circumcising during all those years they were in the wilderness. And because of this, they did not observe the Passover either, except in the second year after they left Egypt, because they were uncircumcised. And the circumcision of males, even partially, prevents the performance of the Passover, as it is stated: "Let every male be circumcised, and then he may come near to observe it." And there is a midrash that the tribe of Levi circumcised in the wilderness, and they based this on the verse: "And they shall guard Your covenant." And one may also explain that therefore they did not circumcise during all those years, because it is stated: "At the word of the Lord they shall encamp, and at the word of the Lord they shall journey." And they did not know the day of their departure. And if they circumcised the newborns and journeyed on the day of circumcision, the circumcised would be in danger because of the journey. And this is what he said: "For they did not circumcise them on the way." For behold, we have seen that Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, delayed the time of his son's circumcision because of the journey. And this is what he said: "For they did not circumcise them on the way." If you were to say: "Behold, we have seen that Moses was punished for delaying that circumcision, as it is written: 'He sought to kill him'?" He was not punished except because he did not delay in Midian until he circumcised his son and until he [the son] lived. For on the day of their departure, he did not depart by word of prophecy. For even though the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "Go back to Egypt," He did not tell him to depart on that very day. And he should have circumcised his son and delayed until he lived, and then gone to Egypt by the command of the Creator. And therefore, He rebuked him on the way through illness, and guarded him until he was at the lodging place, where he could circumcise there and delay there. And because of this, they observed the Passover in the wilderness in the second year, for they circumcised them all, because they were not on the way. For they did not journey during that entire year, for they built the Tabernacle there in the wilderness of Sinai. And it does not say that they did not circumcise, but rather the newborns on the way. And for as long as they were in the wilderness of Sinai, they were not on the way. And this is the correct reason in my eyes. “Make for yourself.” Prepare and set in order, like “and he hastened to make it.” And the meaning of “for yourself” is for your own sake, that he should be the one circumcising and others with him, for it is not feasible that Joshua alone circumcised all the uncircumcised, since it was said to him, “sharp flint knives.” And if he had been circumcising alone, one sword would have sufficed. Furthermore, in four days, how could Joshua alone have circumcised all those born in the wilderness? This is not feasible. Or perhaps it is feasible that he did not circumcise any of them himself, but rather commanded them to circumcise, and the verse says “for yourself” because the responsibility fell upon him, as he was their leader. And what it says, “and he circumcised,” is like “and Solomon built the house” and similar expressions. "Swords of the flint." As its Targum renders it: "sharp razors," i.e., sharp razors. And likewise, "You have also turned back the edge of his sword" [Psalms 89:44]. Here, the described noun is attached to the descriptor, like "the bitter waters" [i.e., the waters of Numbers 5:18] or "sons of thirty." Alternatively, "flints" is a [plain] noun rather than a descriptor, and the meaning of "swords" is that they shall have sharp points. "Return and circumcise the children of Israel again." He went back repeatedly in the camp to circumcise them and to command them to circumcise. When it says "return and circumcise," it does not mean only once or twice, but rather many times until the matter is completed. Similarly, "I will return to the house of the Lord" means that I will return there constantly all the days of my life. Likewise, when it says "again," it does not necessarily mean only once or twice, but rather time after time until the matter is completed. Similarly, "a fool repeats his folly" does not mean only once or twice, but rather time after time, many times. And likewise, "do not mingle with those who repeat [their sins]," for they return time after time to wickedness, many times. And there are some of our Sages of blessed memory who said that "again" refers to the peri'ah [the uncovering of the corona], because the mitzvah of peri'ah was not given to our father Abraham. But these words were rejected, and they said that "again" means regarding the shreds of skin that invalidate the circumcision, warning him to go over them again and see that they were circumcised properly. But the peri'ah of the circumcision was given to our father Abraham, as it is stated in Genesis Rabbah: "Our father Abraham performed peri'ah on his own circumcision."

At that time the Lord said to Joshua: 'Make you sharp swords.' Sharp swords -- the meaning is sharp knives, which are made from copper, called 'acier' [i.e., steel] in the vernacular [Old French]. And He commanded him so that Joshua would attain them with as little pain as possible, for it is possible for such blades to be of the utmost sharpness. And for this Targum Yonatan translated [it] 'izmelin charifin' (sharp blades). And circumcise again the children of Israel the second time. [This] refers to the whole people. And that is: they were already circumcised when they left Egypt, for the purpose that they then inherit the land. And when their sins inclined [them to wrongdoing] and death was decreed, and the inheritance of the land was delayed for forty years, they now needed again such an action. But that this command is connected to the inheritance of the land is clear from what is said in the Torah in the portion of Lech Lecha, when Abraham was commanded in this commandment, even though it was already fitting that Israel fulfill the ways of the Torah in general as much as possible, and then it would be more possible that God do for them this kindness and grace -- that is to say, that they inherit the land of the seven nations mentioned in the Torah.

And again, "circumcise..." etc., "a second time." He said "a second time," for also on the night of their departure from Egypt all Israel were circumcised together, as our Sages of blessed memory stated (Numbers Rabbah 11:6):

צֹרִים (tsorim, flint). Sharp, like (Psalms 89:44) the edge of his sword.

“Make for yourself flint knives.” Targum Yonatan renders this as “sharp scalpels,” and the adjective is joined in construct to the noun it describes, similar to “the waters of bitterness” (Numbers 5:18) [and] “children of the third generation” (Genesis 50:23). And in Genesis Rabbah (31:8) it is explained as blades of rock, and “flint” [tzur] is explained as in “and Zipporah took a flint” (Exodus 4:25). The meaning is that, since he had then sprinkled [the water of purification] upon them, to purify them from the impurity of the dead, as our Sages of blessed memory stated (Yevamot 71b), he could not circumcise them with an iron sword, which is a utensil; for a sword is treated like one slain by the sword, and so it would render them impure again, as explained by Maimonides (Hilchot Tum'at Met, Chapter 5). Therefore, he circumcised them with a flint, which is not considered a utensil. “And again circumcise [the Israelites]… a second time.” For they had already circumcised them at the Exodus, as a great congregation together, and now, a second time. And according to what we will explain, that the tribe of Levi did not neglect the commandment of circumcision, neither in Egypt nor in the wilderness, he said “a second time” to indicate that only those who were circumcised the first time are circumcised a second time, but not the tribe of Levi.

The hill of the foreskins. Named after the event, which was made like a hill.

"Unto the hill of foreskins." Just as it says "in the hill," so too it says "fell into the waters," just as "in the waters," and there are many others like it. And it is called the hill of foreskins because of the foreskins that were cut off there. And the word "foreskins" is of one measure, for from "foreskin" one says "foreskins," just as from "wisdom" one says "wisdoms."

The hill of the foreskins. The hill is called by this name because of the action done there -- that is to say, because of the circumcision of all the people born in the wilderness. And they were all uncircumcised, for they did not know the time in which they would need to journey, for they encamped by the word of God, as was explained in the Torah. And perhaps they would need to journey on the third day of circumcision, and it is dangerous for the infant. And for this none of those born in the wilderness was circumcised. And for this reason Israel did not perform the Passover in the wilderness except the one mentioned in the Torah, for most of them were born sons after two years of their departure from Egypt, and the circumcision of their sons prevented them from performing the Passover, as was explained in the portion of Bo. And he related that after they circumcised themselves, they sat in their place until the wound healed. And this all indicates that it is not fitting for one who is circumcised to move from his place until the wound heals.

"אל גבעת" – to the hill of the foreskins; and the place was named after the event.

אֶל גִּבְעָה (el giv'ah, at the hill). At the hill, and likewise (Exodus 25:21) and to the ark, and its proper reading is: and in the ark.

Now this is the reason. By means of speech he circumcised them. He said to them: do you think to inherit the land uncircumcised? Was it not said to Abraham (Genesis 17:9): you shall keep My covenant, etc.; (there 8): and I will give to you and to your seed after you the land of your sojourning. All the people that came out. There was not one of them here, for they all died. And they were circumcised, as it is said: for the people were circumcised.

“And this is the matter concerning which Joshua circumcised.” This is the matter for which Joshua circumcised, because all the people who were born in the wilderness had not been circumcised; therefore, Joshua was commanded to circumcise them. "All the men of war" – this means from the age of twenty years and upward, for these were the ones who were numbered, and these were the ones who died. They were circumcised; this is what is stated: "for they were circumcised." The reason for this statement is to inform us that those who were not circumcised were not so because the commandment of circumcision had been forgotten by them in Egypt, nor because they had been negligent regarding it; rather, all the people who went out were circumcised. And even according to the opinion of the master of the derash who says that they were negligent in the matter of circumcision in Egypt, and who relies on the verse, "Also, as for you, by the blood of your covenant I have sent forth your prisoners from the pit in which there is no water" [Zechariah 9:11] – and similarly on what is said, "In your blood(s), live!" — stated twice — meaning two types of blood, the blood of the Passover sacrifice and the blood of circumcision – nevertheless, upon their departure, they all circumcised themselves before they performed the Passover. This is what is stated: "for they were circumcised, all the people who went out." Now, those who were from the age of twenty years and upward died in the wilderness, and those who were under the age of twenty years remained circumcised. Thus, Joshua did not need to circumcise anyone except those who were born in the wilderness, who had not been able to be circumcised on the way, as we have explained. And the meaning of "they had not circumcised" is "[the people] had not circumcised them," for it is a transitive verb.

"And this is the matter." This means that this was the reason why Joshua alone circumcised all the people, and they did not circumcise one another at that time; for how could it be that there would not be found among them someone who knew how to circumcise? "All the people": This means that all the people who went out from Egypt, who were [themselves] circumcised and fit to perform circumcision [on others], had died in the wilderness, and so there was no one [left] to circumcise the rest on their behalf.

Questions (4–7): How can it be that all of Israel were uncircumcised, as implied by the verses here? Were not the tribe of Levi, and likewise those who were under the age of twenty at the time of the sin of the spies, among those who entered the Land, and were they not circumcised? Did not the Midrash state that the tribe of Levi guarded the covenant of circumcision even in the wilderness? Why did not the court of Moses compel them to be circumcised? And if it was because the north wind did not blow for them, did they not say that nowadays, when many tread upon it, “God preserves the simple”? And if it was because they did not know when they would set out, why did Moses not inform them at the time when they dwelled in one place for many days, saying, “Now is the time to circumcise”? Furthermore, if so, how did the tribe of Levi circumcise themselves all those days? Moreover, the verses themselves are duplicated and superfluous, and cannot be explained without great difficulty and strain: "And this is the matter." That is to say, this was the reason why Joshua circumcised; and he circumcised only those in whom this cause had arisen. That is to say, it is impossible to say that they were all uncircumcised, for behold, those who were under twenty years of age at the time of the sending of the spies — who were [already] circumcised — entered the Land. Likewise, the decree was not issued against the tribe of Levi. Moreover, it is explained in the Midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah 3:6) that the tribe of Levi did not abandon circumcision in the wilderness, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 33:9), "They shall guard Your covenant." And thus, he needed to circumcise only the sons who stood in place of their fathers, that is to say, whose fathers died in the wilderness due to the sin of the spies. The reason is that the pretext which this generation had for abandoning circumcision, the commentators wrote, was because they were moving and wandering on the way, and they did not know the day of their departure; therefore, they feared to circumcise because of the danger to the child, as it is stated (Nedarim 31b), "If I circumcise and go out, it is a danger to the child." And our Sages of blessed memory (Yevamot 72a) said it was because the north wind did not blow for them. The tribe of Levi, and likewise the righteous among them, did not pay attention to these concerns and circumcised their sons. For as for the north wind, they said in the Gemara (ibid.) that nowadays, many rely upon it: "The Lord is the guardian of fools." And as for the weakness of the journey, they would remain outside the cloud until they recovered, and they relied on the Divine Providence. And Moses, of blessed memory, was punished for not circumcising his son, as it is stated (Exodus 4:24), "And it came to pass on the way in the lodging place," and Zipporah circumcised him on the way. Only those whose heart was not complete with the Lord sought pretexts and did not circumcise their sons, and the court of Moses could not compel them in this matter, since they had a pretext. And this is what he clarifies here: whom he circumcised and why he circumcised, for all the people who went out of Egypt, all the men of war (that is to say, those who were over twenty years of age), died on the way, and the cause of their death was at their going out of Egypt, for they had not yet purified themselves from the impurity of Egypt and their corrupted opinions.

Were not circumcised. As I explained that the north wind did not blow. And they are the ones who were circumcised now.

"For they were circumcised." This means that only the people who had gone out [of Egypt] were circumcised, but those born in the wilderness were not; therefore, they were not fit to perform circumcision [on others].

"For circumcised were [they]." All who went out [of Egypt] were themselves circumcised. [And of them, Joshua did not circumcise anyone who entered the Land, namely the tribe of Levi and those under the age of twenty.] "And all the people who were born ... were not circumcised." This means that their fathers had not circumcised them (for the verb מל [circumcise] in the kal conjugation is always transitive).

"Until the completion, etc." And if so, there was no one among the circumcised who would be fit and proper to circumcise, other than him. Which He swore. Which [means] that on account of this the Lord swore to them not to, etc.

זָבַת (zavat, flowing). From the word flowing and dripping.

"For. Why did they not circumcise their sons, and why did Moses’ court not compel them to undergo circumcision? The court responded that they could not compel them, for they had been wandering for forty years, etc., and were constantly moving about in the wilderness, and they had a pretext to neglect circumcision due to the weakness caused by the journey. And even though, had they been upright in heart, they would not have paid attention to this excuse, as the tribe of Levi did circumcise, nevertheless, the cause of their wandering in the wilderness was until the entire generation, etc., who had not heeded the voice of the Lord, passed away; and they were not righteous. And the proof is that the Lord swore to them that He would not show them the land, for He knew that they were not worthy of it."

And their sons whom He raised up in their place. And their sons whom He raised up in their place are those born in the wilderness. Those Joshua circumcised.

He established. "That He established"—and similarly, "to the people, upon it"—for this reason, "the Lord has done for me," and similar verses, which lack the letter shin or the word "that." The meaning of "He established" is that the Holy One, blessed be He, established them in place of their fathers to inherit the land, as He said to them, "I will give it to them, and they shall inherit it."

He raised up in their place. Which He raised up in their place: "Joshua circumcised them." They had not been circumcised until then, for they were uncircumcised up to that time, since those who had come out of Egypt had not circumcised their sons while they were on the way; and so there was no one [among them] who was circumcised and thus fit and worthy to perform circumcision [on others], except Joshua.

“And their children”: Those who were born to them in the wilderness, whom He raised up in their place, as it is stated (Numbers 14:31), “And your children, whom you have said shall be a prey, I will bring them in.” Joshua circumcised them, because they were uncircumcised, for their fathers had not circumcised them on the way. That is to say, they had an excuse due to the nature of the journey, in which they were constantly moving and wandering. But Joshua did not need to circumcise the tribe of Levi, nor the sons born to those who, at the time of the decree, were younger than twenty years old, for they were righteous.

And they dwelt in their places. In their places. And they did not besiege the city. Until they were healed. From the wound.

"tachatam." In their place, as it is said: "remain, each man in his place." Their living. Their healing, like [the verse says], "And they plastered [it] on the rash, and he recovered."

תַּחְתָּם (tachtam, in their place). In their place. Their life [i.e., recovery]. Its meaning is healing, as it is written (Isaiah 38:21): "and they applied [it] on the boil, and he recovered."

"And they remained in their place." Since they had been apprehensive about the danger of the journey until now, they did not move until they had recovered.

I have rolled away. I removed the reproach of Egypt, which they used to say: behold evil is before your faces, there is one star called 'ra'ah' (evil) and it is a sign of blood, we see it upon you in the wilderness. And this is what Moses said in the wilderness (Exodus 32:12): why should the Egyptians say: with evil did He bring them out. And they do not know that it is the blood of circumcision. And when they were circumcised in the days of Joshua and that blood came, that reproach was removed which the mixed multitude that came up with them still counted against them, so R. Moshe HaDarshan expounded. Gilati (I have rolled away). I removed, as (Psalms 119:22): remove from me reproach; (Genesis 29:10): and he rolled away the stone.

The disgrace of Egypt. Because the fathers had departed from Egypt, and the sons were uncircumcised like the Egyptians, and uncircumcision is a disgrace, as it is stated: "For it is a disgrace to us." Galgal. The first radical is doubled in it, for from [the word] galoti they would say galal. And this is the manner of the Holy Tongue regarding names derived from a verb: to add a letter to it or to subtract from it, such as Noach from yinachemenu, and Shmuel, for from the Lord I have asked him (she'iltiv). And also to reverse the order of the letters, such as Yavets from atzav.

This day I have rolled away. I have removed from you the reproach of Egypt. He means, according to what I think in the reproach of Egypt -- their corrupt beliefs. For the matter of the Passover brought Israel to transfer from those beliefs, as we explained in the portion of Bo. And he said this because until now this commandment was removed from them for the reason we mentioned. And for this he connects to this that they performed the Passover there on the fourteenth day of the month. And it is possible that the meaning is the connection to the desire for intercourse, for the Egyptians were promiscuous in sexual immorality, as it says in the Torah in the portion of forbidden relations, 'According to the deed of the land of Egypt.' And since circumcision is intended to weaken the power of this member, it is clear that in the matter of circumcision the reproach of Egypt is removed from them, and they are more restricted in the matter of intercourse. And it is possible to say further that the meaning is that He removed from them the reproach of Egypt, that they said He brought them out for evil, to kill them and destroy them, not to inherit them the land. And when they were delayed in the wilderness for forty years, this was their reproach. But now He promised them that they would inherit the land after they fulfilled this commandment, and this reproach would be removed from them. And the first explanation is more apparent, even though we did not find it from any of the predecessors whose words reached us.

"Today I have rolled away." Now I have removed from you that which the Egyptians used to mockingly say, "Are they not uncircumcised like us?" and this was considered a disgrace for Israel, as it is written (Genesis 34:12), "For it is a disgrace to us."

גַּלּוֹתִי (galloti, I have rolled away). From the word roll and turn.

"Today I have rolled away." For the reason they were negligent in the commandment of circumcision was because they had not yet been purified from the idols of Egypt, for there they were uncircumcised, as it is stated above (verse 5), "on the way, when they went out of Egypt." And [so too] "today I have rolled away" this shame from you — for the foreskin (i.e., being uncircumcised) was a disgrace, as it is stated (Genesis 34:14): "to a man who has a foreskin, for it is a disgrace to us." And the meaning is that you inherited this shame from Egypt.

"Evening." After midday is called "evening," for then the sun inclines toward the west.

"And they kept the Passover." For as long as they were uncircumcised, they were unable to observe it.

On the morrow after the Passover. The day of the waving of the omer, which they brought the omer at first. And from the seventh of Adar when Moses died when the manna ceased, they were satisfied until now by the manna in their containers which they gathered on the seventh of Adar, as it is said (Exodus 16:35): and they ate manna forty years. But it is forty years minus thirty days, for the beginning of the descent of the manna was on the fifteenth of Iyyar. Therefore, say from now: in the cake [of dough] that Israel took out of Egypt, they tasted the taste of manna.

"And they ate of the grain of the land." From the old [grain] they ate matzah and parched corn, for the new [grain] was forbidden to them until after the offering of the omer on the sixteenth of Nisan. And even for the positive commandment of matzah, [eating] from the new [grain] is forbidden, for a positive commandment does not override a prohibition unless the prohibition is written in the same verse as the positive commandment. And from where did they have old [grain]? From what the merchants of the nations sold to them. And the word "me'avur" indicates that it is from the old [grain], for it is said that the grain is called "avur" because it is from the years that have passed, and the coming year['s produce] is called "tevu'ah." "On the morrow after the Passover." This refers to the night of the fifteenth of Nisan and its day, for the Passover sacrifice was offered on the fourteenth, and its morrow is the fifteenth day. Likewise, it is stated: "On the fifteenth day of the first month, on the morrow after the Passover, the children of Israel went forth."

And they ate of the produce of the land. He said this because the new grain was not permitted to them until the day after the Passover. And in this is proof that what is said in the Torah, 'the priest shall wave it the day after the Sabbath' -- the meaning is the day after the Passover, which is the sixteenth of Nisan, not the day after the Sabbath of creation, as the Sadducees said. For if the matter were so, the matter would not escape from dispute: if we say that it happened then that the Passover was on the day of the Sabbath, or on a day other than the Sabbath. And if it was on a day other than the Sabbath, then we would have to say that Joshua and Israel erred in this, and this is impossible. And if it was on the Sabbath, then it was not fitting to attribute it to what is by chance, but it is fitting to attribute it to what is in its essence, and say 'the day after the Sabbath' -- for they did not do this because of that opinion, because of the day being the day after the Passover, but because of its being the day after the Sabbath. And for this it is clear that what is said in the Torah, 'the day after the Sabbath' -- the meaning is not the Sabbath of creation, but the meaning is the day after the Passover, for the Passover is called Sabbath -- that is to say, the fifteenth day.

"On the morrow of the Passover." From the morrow of the first day of Passover, which is the time for the offering of the Omer, they offered the Omer, and afterward they ate it.

From the word "ebur." The Targumic translation of "dagan" (grain) is "ebura" (Deuteronomy 28:51). And "kaluy" (roasted) means roasted ears of grain, as in (Leviticus 2:14): "aviv, roasted in fire." "On the very day." This means, during the body of the day, as in (Leviticus 23:14), "until this very day." And it means, not on the preceding night, even though the night follows the day.

Questions (11–12): Rashi's explanation, based on the words of our Sages of blessed memory (Kiddushin 38a), that "they ate of the new grain of the land" refers to the new grain, from the day after Passover—which is the sixteenth of Nisan, after the offering of the Omer—does not accord with the straightforward meaning. For "the day after Passover" throughout the Torah refers to the day after the slaughter of the Passover sacrifice, which is the fifteenth day. Furthermore, why did the text first say "of the new grain of the land" and then say "of the produce of the land of Canaan"? Moreover, if so, it should have stated: "And the manna ceased when they ate of the new grain of the land," and the word "from the day after" would be superfluous. Additionally, it would constitute an elongation of the language, for according to this approach, it should have stated: "And the manna ceased from the day after Passover, and they ate unleavened bread and roasted grain from the produce of the land of Canaan." Also, what is stated as "in that year" is not precise, for did they not eat this from then onward and for all time? "And they ate of the 'avur' (aged grain) of the land." According to the simple meaning, there is a difference between "avur" and "tevu'ah" (produce): "avur" is the yield of the land from the year that has passed (and it is called "avur" because the land had already borne its fruit once, i.e., in the previous year), whereas "tevu'ah" is the produce of that same year, which the land brought forth in this year. And "the day after the Passover" throughout the Torah is the fifteenth of Nisan, which is the day after the slaughtering of the Passover offering, as it is written (Numbers 33:3), "On the day after the Passover offering, the children of Israel went forth." The explanation is that on the fifteenth of Nisan they ate matzah to discharge the obligation of the day, and roasted grain for a relish, from the "avur" of the land, which is from the old produce, for they could not eat from the new produce because the Omer had not yet been offered. And incidentally, this informs us that as long as they had manna in their possession, they did not eat produce, except on that day for the necessity of the mitzvah of matzah, and a small amount of roasted grain for a relish, and this is what it says, "on that very day."

And there was no more manna unto the children of Israel. Therefore, and they ate of the produce of the land. If they had manna they would not have eaten from the grain, for the manna was pleasant to them. A parable: one says to a child: why do you eat barley bread? Because I have no wheat bread. Therefore it is said: and there was no more, etc.

“And they ceased from the manna on the morrow.” From that very “morrow” which is mentioned, the manna ceased, because they no longer needed it, since they had eaten matzah and roasted grain from the produce of the land on the fifteenth of Nisan. And according to the words of our Sages of blessed memory, who said that they ate manna until the sixteenth of Nisan, the explanation of “on the morrow” is that it refers to the sixteenth, which is the morrow after the fifteenth. For even though they ate matzah and roasted grain on the fifteenth, what they found from the produce of the land was not sufficient for them, and on that day they also ate from the manna. But on the morrow, which is the sixteenth of Nisan, after they had offered the omer offering on it and the new grain was permitted, they found much new grain to eat. And this is what it says: “And they ate of the produce of the land of Canaan in that year.”

And the manna ceased the next day. Behold, we found in this the opinion of some of our Sages of blessed memory: some said that the manna did not fall after Moses died, but they already gathered from it what sufficed them until this time and made from it loaves. And some said that the manna fell until that day. And I think that what brought the one who said the manna did not fall after Moses died to this statement is his distancing it from being transmitted from the prophets as a wonder after his death. And since this great wonder cannot be through a prophet other than Moses, he concluded from it that the manna did not fall after his death, not because of what was done after this through Joshua. And what appears to us, according to what we established about the matter of wonders at the end of the sixth book of The Wars of God, is that this wonder done through Moses concerning the manna remained until this day that they ate from the new grain. Do you not see that the wonder of the anointing oil was always remaining, as we explained in its place? And what indicates this is that he says, 'and the manna ceased,' and not 'and the manna ended.' And this indicates that it was already falling until this day. And also, in the Torah when the falling of the manna is mentioned, he says, 'the manna they ate until they came to a inhabited land.' And this indicates that all this matter was done through Moses. And we already explained in the Book of The Wars of God how this is possible.

"And the manna ceased." Although from the day of Moses' death, [which was] on the seventh of Adar, the manna ceased to descend, nevertheless they were sustained by a miracle from the manna that was in their vessels; but when they ate from the produce of the land, they no longer found it. And they ate. They began to eat:

וַיִּשָּׁבֵת (ve-yishavet, ceased). A matter of cessation, like (Isaiah 14:4) the oppressor has ceased.

"And the manna ceased on the morrow." And because they began to eat from the produce of the land, the manna ceased on the morrow of that day, meaning on the sixteenth of Nisan. And after they no longer had manna, and also because the Omer was brought and they ate from the produce of the Land of Canaan in that year (the phrase "in that year" describes the produce), meaning that they ate from the produce that grew in that year, i.e., the new produce. And this is according to the explanation of Rabbeinu Tam, which the Tosafot cite in Kiddushin (37b) and Rosh Hashanah (13a). And so too does the Gemara explain there: "Granted, according to the opinion that [the law of] dwelling [in the phrase 'in all your dwelling places'] means wherever you dwell, this is indeed implied by what is written: 'And they ate from the produce of the land on the morrow of the Passover.' On the morrow of the Passover, they ate; initially they did not eat. This shows that the Omer was first offered, and only then did they eat. But according to the opinion that [the law of] dwelling applies only after the conquest and settlement, they could have eaten immediately; they would not have needed this, since they could have relied on the manna [still] in their vessels." And the difficulty of the Gemara is not from what is written: "And they ate from the produce of the land on the morrow of the Passover," but rather from what is written: "And the manna ceased on the morrow (which is the sixteenth of Nisan), and they ate from the produce of the Land of Canaan." And this is what [the Gemara] means by: "On the morrow of the Passover they ate; originally they did not eat." For the "morrow of the Passover" in the language of the Gemara is the sixteenth, meaning that on the sixteenth they ate, but not before. For the verse states: "And they ate from the produce of the land on the morrow of the Passover," meaning that on the day of the morrow of the Passover (which in the language of the Torah is the fifteenth day), they ate from the produce of the old [stock]. Only on the day after that, on the sixteenth, which is the "morrow of the Passover" in the language of the Gemara, did they eat from the produce of the Land of Canaan. (And the commentators of the Talmud understood that what is stated, "On the morrow of the Passover, they ate," refers to the "morrow of the Passover" written in the verse. And in truth, it is the language of the Sages, who call the sixteenth by the name "morrow of the Passover." And the difficulty of the Tosafot there on the explanation of Rabbeinu Tam is resolved). And so too is explained what is stated in the Yerushalmi (Hallah, Chapter 2, Halakha 1) regarding what R. Yishmael said, that [the prohibition of] new grain applies only after the conquest and settlement. R. Bun bar Kahana objected: "And they ate from the produce of the land on the morrow of the Passover" — was this not on the sixteenth? R. Elazar b'Rabbi Yossi objected: "And it is written: 'On the morrow of the Passover, the children of Israel went out from the land of Egypt'" — did they not go out on the fifteenth? Thus it concludes. And it means that both of them raise difficulties against the words of R. Yishmael. R. Bun raises the difficulty: it is written, "And they ate from the produce of the land (from the old stock) on the morrow of the Passover (on the fifteenth)," and not on the sixteenth (for then they ate from the new, as stated: "And the manna ceased on the morrow (on the sixteenth), and they ate from the produce of the Land of Canaan"). And R. Elazar b'Rabbi Yossi objects to strengthen R. Bun's difficulty, lest one say that the "morrow of the Passover" of the verse is the sixteenth of Nisan, as in the language of the Sages, in which case nothing could be derived from this verse; therefore he brings proof that the "morrow of the Passover" in the language of the verse is the fifteenth day.

When Joshua was by Jericho. From here [we derive the law of] the 'ibbur' (environs) of a city, that it is [considered part] of the city. It is impossible to say within Jericho. Are you for us? Have you come to help us?

“And it came to pass, when Joshua was at Jericho.” [This means] at the boundary of Jericho. From here our Sages of blessed memory derived that the outskirts of a city have the status of the city itself, for Joshua was not within the city, yet it is stated, “When Joshua was at Jericho.” For after they had circumcised the uncircumcised there and observed the Passover, they departed from Gilgal and came to Jericho to conquer it, and they encamped opposite the city. The Holy One, blessed be He, sent His angel to Joshua in order to strengthen him to conquer it and to inform him. He appeared to him in the form of a man, with his sword drawn in his hand, indicating might and victory, just as He appeared to our father Jacob and wrestled with him to strengthen him and inform him, as He said to him, “You have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.” So too, this angel came to Joshua, with his sword drawn in his hand, in the likeness of a victorious warrior. This is what he said to Joshua: “See, I have given Jericho into your hand, and its king.”

And it came to pass when Joshua was by Jericho. It is fitting that you know that this matter was in a prophetic vision. And what indicates this is what is said, 'immediately the Lord said to Joshua' -- for it is far that he saw the angel awake and using the senses in their customs. And the meaning of his saying, 'and it came to pass when Joshua was by Jericho' -- his thought was wandering there, how he would deal with the end of the people dwelling there. And for this a matter of the affairs of war appeared to him, and he saw the angel as if his sword were drawn in his hand. And for this reason also he asked him in the prophetic vision: 'Are you for us or for our adversaries?' -- as is the custom of those who fight. And he answered him that the matter is not as he thought, but he is the captain of the host of the Lord. And the captain is the one appointed to watch over Israel, through whom God brings prophecy to the prophet from God. And He said to him that he should remove his sandal from his foot, so that he feel in the matter of the place where he is, for it is holy, and these prophetic matters are not an imaginal action. And then Joshua felt that this perception is a prophetic perception. And he related the prophecy that came to him in this place. And before he begins to relate that prophecy, he related that Jericho was shut up and closed because of the children of Israel, in a way that no one could go out from there nor enter there. And he mentioned this because of this reason: that they needed in its destruction this wonder that God guided him to in this prophecy.

"Jericho." This means: in the vicinity of Jericho. "halanu" – with a heh of interrogation, to say: if you have come to help us against the enemy, or to help the enemy?

שְׁלֻפָּה (sh'lufah, drawn). Bare and unsheathed, like (Job 20:25) drawn forth and comes out from the body.

The Questions (13–15): It would be exceedingly strange if the man had revealed himself to him in the manner of prophecy, such that Joshua knew that this was a manifestation of the Angel of the Lord. How could he have doubted whether he would be an ally to the enemies of Israel? After all, the Lord had promised him that He would be with him and would not forsake him nor abandon him? And if he had revealed himself to him not in the manner of prophecy, and Joshua did not recognize him as the Angel of the Lord, then how did Joshua go to him alone, rather than sending one of his men to inquire of him regarding the purpose of his coming? And how could he say to a solitary man, “Are you ours or our adversaries?” (Joshua 5:13)—what benefit would this bring him? And how did he prostrate himself before him immediately after he said to him that he was an angel? Perhaps he was deceiving him and mocking him? Furthermore, what was the ultimate purpose of this vision in its entirety? “And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho.” When he went to conquer Jericho and was encamped around Jericho (and our Sages of blessed memory stated [Nedarim 56b]: “From here [we learn] the law of the suburbs of a city, that they are considered as the city itself”), before the word of the Lord had revealed itself to him (as it is written in 6:2, “And the Lord said to Joshua”), he saw the angel, who is always the intermediary in the arrival of prophecy to the prophet: a) in the form of a man; b) he saw that he held a drawn sword in his hand; c) he saw that he was standing opposite him. Now, Joshua recognized that he was an angel, for they used to recognize the angel who appeared to them in a vision; and he also knew why he had revealed himself with a drawn sword, for this indicates that the forthcoming prophecy would concern the matters of the war of Jericho, which they would conquer by the sword. However, he did not know why he was standing opposite him, for if he had come to go before them to fight against the enemy, his face should have been toward the enemy, not toward Israel. Now, the divine aid that would come to Israel in their war would be in two aspects: a) slight aid, in that they would need to fight with their swords and bows, and the Lord would strengthen them and embolden them, so that their hearts would not faint, and He would give them strength to perform valor. b) great aid, in that they would not need to fight at all, but rather the Lord would fight for them, and they would merely pursue to strip the slain. And if Joshua had seen the face of the angel turned toward the enemy, he would have known that He would perform for them a great salvation, that He Himself would fight on their behalf against the enemy. But because he saw his face turned toward Joshua, he thought that he had not come to fight against the enemy, but only to strengthen the hands of the fighting Israelites, and this is a small support. And this is what he asked him: “Are you for us?” meaning: Have you come only for us, on our behalf, to strengthen us so that we may fight, or are you for our enemies? Or have you come to fight against our enemies?

Now I have come. To help you, for no man is able to fight against it and capture it to bring down the wall. But in the days of Moses your teacher I came and he did not desire me, as it is said (Exodus 33:15): if Thy Presence goes not, etc.

And he said, "No." That is to say, I am not as you suppose, a man coming to fight; rather, I am the angel of the Lord. And this is what is meant by "Commander of the Host of the Lord," for He is the Commander of the hosts above and below, as it is stated regarding Michael, "the great prince" (Daniel 12:1). And in accordance with his greatness and holiness, the place in which He appeared to Joshua was sanctified; therefore, He said, "It is holy." "Now I have come." At the time that you saw Me, which is not so with flesh and blood. And this is to strengthen his heart that He is an angel. And there is a midrashic interpretation: He came to frighten them for their neglect of Torah and for having neglected yesterday the perpetual Tamid of the afternoon offering. Joshua said to Him, "For which of them have You come?" He said to him, "Now I have come," meaning, for the neglect of Torah, which you are currently neglecting. Immediately, "Joshua spent the night in the midst of the valley," meaning he spent the night in the depths of Halakha. And this midrashic interpretation is distant, because the time of war is not the time for Torah study. Furthermore, the verse "Joshua spent the night" is distant from this passage, for it is in the war against Ai. Moreover, the author of this midrash erred regarding the verse "he spent the night," for there are two verses: "Joshua spent the night," whose conclusion is "in the midst of the people," and the other verse is, "And Joshua went in that night into the midst of the valley." And there is another midrashic interpretation: "Now I have come," "Now I have come" twice. I am He who came in the days of Moses your teacher, as it is said, "Behold, I send an angel." And he saw me, but did not want that I should go with him, for he said to the Holy One, Blessed be He, "I desire none but You." Immediately, "Joshua fell on his face to the ground." "To his face" [אל פניו] — like "upon" [על]; and so too "he has not eaten upon the mountains" [אל ההרים לא אכל] (Ezekiel 18:6).

And he said, “No.” He meant to say: I have not come to aid the enemies of Israel, for I am the commander of Israel, who are called “the Host of the Lord.” And the reason you did not see me until now is because I have come only at this time, and not from earlier on. "What is my lord speaking?" He means: "Speak your words, and I am ready to fulfill them, like a servant who fulfills the words of his master."

אֶל פָּנָיו (el panav, before him). Before him, meaning, before the one standing opposite him.

And he said, "No." He replied, "Do not be perplexed by this, for truly I am the Commander of the Host of the Lord." This means that I did not come alone, but rather there are with me myriads of camps of heavenly armies that go out to wage war against the enemy, and I am the Commander of the army who goes at their head. And the reason that you saw me standing with my face toward you is because I have come now for the first time, for the battle has not yet begun; I have only come to inform you of a certain prophetic matter. Therefore, he fell on his face when he saw that a divine being spoke to him, and he asked, "What does my lord say to his servant?"

The captain of the host of the Lord. Israel, which is God's host, and it was Michael, as it is said (Daniel 10:21): Michael your captain.

"It is holy." And one should stand upon it barefoot.

שֵׁל (shel, take off). Remove, and likewise of Moses (Exodus 3:5) take off your sandals.

"And He said, etc., 'Take off your sandals.'" The meaning is: Hasten to reveal the word of God to you, and you must remove the garments of materiality from yourself, to be ready for the prophecy which I have come to bring to you and to prepare you for receiving the prophetic influx. And our Sages of blessed memory said (Bereshit Rabbah 97:3): "Now I have come, but in the days of Moses your teacher I came and he did not desire Me," because between the prophecy of Moses and his miracles, they were not through the intermediary of an angel or a messenger, as is well known.