Make for yourself sharp knives. Targum Jonathan translates this as “sharp scalpels.” The adjective is placed in construct with the noun it modifies, as in “the bitter waters” (Numbers 5:18) and “the third generation” (Genesis 50:23). In Genesis Rabbah (31:8), it is explained as “blades of stone,” interpreting tzurim as in, “Zipporah took a flint” (Exodus 4:25). That is, since Joshua also instructed them at that time to purify themselves from corpse impurity, as our Sages stated (Yevamot 71b), he could not circumcise them with an iron sword. A metal implement or sword assumes the same degree of impurity as the corpse that contaminated it and would therefore render them impure again, as explained by Rambam (Laws of Impurity from the Dead 5). He consequently circumcised them with flint, which is not a metal implement.

And circumcise, etc., a second time. A great multitude had already been circumcised together at the Exodus from Egypt, and now they were circumcised a second time. According to what we shall explain—that the tribe of Levi never ceased practicing circumcision, either in Egypt or in the wilderness—the words “a second time” mean that only those who had been circumcised on the first occasion were now to be circumcised again, but not the tribe of Levi.

The Questions (4–7) How is it possible that all Israel was uncircumcised, as the verses here appear to indicate? The tribe of Levi, as well as those who were under twenty years old at the time of the sin of the spies, entered the land, and they were circumcised. Moreover, does not the Midrash state that the tribe of Levi observed the covenant of circumcision even in the wilderness? Why did Moses’ court not compel them to undergo circumcision? If it was because the north wind did not blow for them, did our Sages not say that regarding a danger commonly disregarded by the public, “Hashem protects the simple”? If it was because they did not know when they would travel, why did Moses not inform them, whenever they remained in one place for many days, that it was now safe to circumcise? Moreover, if this was the reason, how did the tribe of Levi circumcise its children throughout all those years? The verses themselves are also repetitive and seemingly superfluous, and cannot be explained without considerable strain and forced interpretation.

And this is the reason. That is, this was the reason Joshua circumcised them, and he circumcised only those to whom this reason applied. It is impossible to say that they were all uncircumcised, for those who were under twenty years old when the spies were sent had been circumcised and entered the land. Nor had the decree been issued against the tribe of Levi. The Midrash likewise states (Numbers Rabbah 3:6) that the tribe of Levi did not cease practicing circumcision in the wilderness, as it says, “They preserved Your covenant” (Deuteronomy 33:9). Joshua therefore needed to circumcise only the sons who had arisen in place of their fathers—that is, those whose fathers died in the wilderness because of the sin of the spies. The commentators explain that this generation’s justification for neglecting circumcision was that they continually wandered along the way and did not know the day of their next journey. They therefore feared to circumcise because of the danger to the child, as it says, “To circumcise and then set out is dangerous for the child” (Nedarim 31b). Our Sages said (Yevamot 72a) that it was because the north wind did not blow for them. The tribe of Levi, however, together with the righteous among Israel, disregarded these concerns and circumcised their sons. Regarding the absence of the north wind, the Talmud says (there) that nowadays, since the multitude commonly disregards this danger, “Hashem protects the simple.” Regarding the weakness caused by traveling, they could remain outside the cloud until they recovered, relying upon Hashem’s Providence. Moses our teacher was punished for failing to circumcise his son, as it says, “And it came to pass on the way, at the lodging place” (Exodus 4:24), and Zipporah circumcised him while they were traveling. Only those whose hearts were not wholly devoted to Hashem sought excuses and did not circumcise their sons. Moses’ court could not compel them, because they possessed a plausible justification. Scripture therefore explains here whom Joshua circumcised and why: All the people who came out of Egypt, all the men of war—meaning those who were more than twenty years old—died along the way. The underlying cause of their death had already existed when they came out of Egypt, for they had not yet purified themselves from the impurity of Egypt and its corrupt beliefs.

For they were circumcised. All those who came out of Egypt were circumcised. Of these, Joshua did not circumcise those who entered the land—namely, the tribe of Levi and those who had been under twenty years old.

But all the people born, etc., they had not circumcised. That is, their fathers had not circumcised them, for the verb “circumcise” in the simple conjugation is always transitive.

For. Why did they not circumcise their sons, and why did Moses’ court not compel them to do so? He answers that the court could not compel them, for they traveled for forty years, etc. They were continually wandering through the wilderness and therefore had a plausible justification for neglecting circumcision because of the weakness caused by travel. Had their hearts been upright, they would have disregarded this concern, as the tribe of Levi did when circumcising their sons. But the reason they were made to wander through the wilderness was until the entire nation had perished, etc.—those who did not obey the voice of Hashem and were not righteous. The proof is that Hashem swore to them that He would not show them the land, for He knew that they were unworthy of it.

And their children. These were the children born to them in the wilderness, whom He raised up in their place, as it says, “But your little ones, whom you said would become plunder—I will bring them in,” etc. (Numbers 14:31). Joshua circumcised them, for they were uncircumcised, because their fathers had not circumcised them along the way. That is, their fathers had a plausible excuse arising from the journey, during which they continually wandered. Joshua did not need to circumcise the tribe of Levi or the children born to those who had been under twenty years old at the time of the decree, for they were righteous and had already circumcised their sons.

And they remained in their places. Since until then they had been concerned about the danger posed by traveling, they did not move from their place until they had recovered.

This day I have rolled away. Their neglect of the commandment of circumcision resulted from their not yet having purified themselves from the abominations of Egypt, where the people were uncircumcised, as indicated above (verse 5) by the words “on the way, when they came out of Egypt.” This day I have rolled away this disgrace from upon you. Uncircumcision was considered a disgrace, as it says, “To give our sister to a man who is uncircumcised, for that would be a disgrace to us” (Genesis 34:14). That is, they had inherited this disgrace from Egypt.

And they offered the Passover sacrifice. For while they were uncircumcised, they could not offer it.

The Questions (11–12) Rashi, following the words of our Sages (Kiddushin 38a), explains that “they ate from the produce of the land” means that they ate from the new crop on the day after the Passover—namely, the sixteenth of Nisan, after the offering of the Omer. This does not accord with the plain meaning, for everywhere in the Torah, “the day after the Passover” means the day after the slaughtering of the Passover sacrifice, which is the fifteenth of Nisan. Furthermore, why does Scripture first say “from the produce of the land” and afterward “from the yield of the land”? If this interpretation is correct, it should have said, “The manna ceased when they ate from the produce of the land,” making the phrase “on the next day” superfluous. The wording would also be unnecessarily lengthy, for it should simply have said, “The manna ceased on the day after the Passover, and they ate unleavened bread and parched grain from the yield of the land of Canaan.” Finally, the phrase “in that year” is imprecise, since from that time onward they continued eating the land’s produce forever.

And they ate from the “stored produce” of the land. According to the plain meaning, there is a distinction between stored produce and the current crop. Stored produce is the land’s yield from the preceding year. It is called avur, “that which has passed,” because the land has once again passed through its fruit-bearing cycle. The current crop, however, is the produce of that particular year, which the land brought forth during that year. Throughout the Torah, “the day after the Passover” means the fifteenth of Nisan, the day following the slaughtering of the Passover sacrifice, as in, “On the day after the Passover, the children of Israel departed” (Numbers 33:3). The verse means that on the fifteenth of Nisan they ate unleavened bread to fulfill the day’s commandment, and parched grain as a delicacy, both taken from the stored produce of the land—the old crop. They could not eat from the new crop because the Omer had not yet been offered. (Incidentally, Scripture informs us that as long as they still possessed manna, they did not eat ordinary produce. They ate it on that day only to fulfill the commandment of unleavened bread, together with a small amount of parched grain as a delicacy. Thus it says, on that very day.)

And the manna ceased on the following day. Because they had begun eating from the stored produce of the land, the manna ceased on the day following that day—that is, on the sixteenth of Nisan. Since they no longer had manna and the Omer had now been offered, they ate from the crop of the land of Canaan that year. The words “that year” modify “the crop”: They ate from the crop that had grown during that year, meaning the new crop. (This accords with the interpretation of Rabbeinu Tam cited by Tosafot in Kiddushin 37b and Rosh Hashanah 13a. The Talmud there likewise explains: “This is well according to the one who says that ‘in your dwellings’ means wherever you dwell, for then we understand why it is written, ‘They ate from the stored produce of the land on the day after the Passover’: They ate on the day after the Passover, but previously they did not eat. Evidently, they first offered the Omer and only afterward ate. But according to the one who says that ‘in your dwellings’ means only after conquest and settlement, why did they not eat immediately? They did not need to, because they were sustained by the manna in their vessels.” The Talmud’s inference does not arise from the words, “They ate from the stored produce of the land on the day after the Passover,” but from the statement, “The manna ceased on the following day”—the sixteenth of Nisan—“and they ate from the crop of the land of Canaan.” This is the meaning of its words, “They ate on the day after the Passover, but previously they did not eat.” In the language of the Sages, “the day after the Passover” refers to the sixteenth. That is, on the sixteenth they ate from the new crop, but not previously. For Scripture says that “they ate from the stored produce of the land on the day after the Passover”—on the fifteenth, which the language of the Torah calls “the day after the Passover,” they ate from the old crop. Only on the following day, the sixteenth—which the language of the Sages calls “the day after the Passover”—did they eat from the crop of the land of Canaan. The Talmudic commentators understood the statement “They ate on the day after the Passover” as referring to the “day after the Passover” mentioned in Scripture. In truth, however, it employs the terminology of the Sages, who call the sixteenth “the day after the Passover.” This resolves Tosafot’s objection there to the interpretation of Rabbeinu Tam.) The passage in the Jerusalem Talmud may be explained similarly. Regarding Rabbi Ishmael’s opinion that the prohibition against eating the new crop took effect only after conquest and settlement, Rabbi Bun bar Kahana objected: “‘They ate from the stored produce of the land on the day after the Passover’—did they not eat on the sixteenth?” Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Yose then objected: “But is it not written, ‘On the day after the Passover, the children of Israel departed from the land of Egypt’? Did they not depart on the fifteenth?” (Jerusalem Talmud, Ḥallah 2:1). Both challenge Rabbi Ishmael’s position. Rabbi Bun asks: Scripture says that they ate from the stored produce of the land—the old crop—on the day after the Passover, the fifteenth, but not on the sixteenth, when they ate from the new crop, as it says, “The manna ceased on the following day”—the sixteenth—“and they ate from the crop of the land of Canaan.” Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Yose strengthens Rabbi Bun’s objection, lest one argue that Scripture’s “day after the Passover” means the sixteenth of Nisan, as it does in the language of the Sages, in which case nothing could be inferred from this verse. He therefore proves that in Scriptural language, “the day after the Passover” is the fifteenth.

The Questions (13–15) It is exceedingly difficult: If the man appeared to Joshua through a prophetic vision, so that Joshua knew this was a revelation of an angel of Hashem, how could he have wondered whether the angel might be assisting Israel’s enemies? Had not Hashem promised to be with him, neither letting go of him nor forsaking him? But if the man appeared to him in an ordinary manner and Joshua did not recognize him as an angel of Hashem, why did Joshua approach him alone rather than send one of his men to ask the purpose of his arrival? How could he ask a solitary man, “Are you for us or for our adversaries?” What assistance could one man provide? And why did Joshua bow to him immediately upon his claiming to be an angel? Perhaps the man was deceiving and mocking him. Furthermore, what was the purpose of this entire vision?

And it came to pass when Joshua was at Jericho. This occurred when he went to conquer Jericho and was in the surrounding area of the city. (Our Sages said (Nedarim 56b): From here it is derived that a city’s outskirts are regarded as part of the city.) Before the word of Hashem was revealed to him—as it says, “And Hashem said to Joshua” (6:2)—he saw the angel who regularly serves as the intermediary through whom prophecy reaches the prophet. He saw: 1] The form of a man. 2] That the man held a drawn sword in his hand. 3] That he stood facing him. Joshua recognized that he was an angel, for those to whom angels appeared in prophetic visions could recognize them as such. He also understood why the angel appeared with a drawn sword: This indicated that the coming prophecy would concern the war against Jericho, which they would conquer by the sword. He did not understand, however, why the angel stood facing him. If he had come to march at their head and fight the enemy, his face should have been directed toward the enemy, not toward Israel. Divine assistance granted to Israel in warfare can take two forms: 1] Limited assistance, in which they must fight with their own swords and bows, while Hashem strengthens and encourages them so that their hearts do not falter and gives them the power to achieve victory. 2] Great assistance, in which they need not fight at all; Hashem fights for them, while they merely pursue the enemy and strip the slain. Had Joshua seen the angel facing the enemy, he would have known that Hashem intended to grant them a great deliverance, with the angel himself fighting the enemy on their behalf. But because he saw the angel facing Joshua, he thought that the angel had come merely to strengthen the hands of the Israelites who would themselves do the fighting, which would be only limited assistance. He therefore asked him, Are you for us? That is, have you come merely for our sake, to strengthen us while we ourselves fight, or for our enemies? Have you come to fight directly against our enemies?

And he said, “No.” He answered: Do not remain uncertain about this, for in truth, I am the commander of Hashem’s army. That is, I have not come alone; countless hosts of the celestial army accompany me, going forth to fight the enemy, and I am the commander who marches at their head. You saw me standing with my face toward you because I have now come for the first time. The battle has not yet begun; I have come merely to communicate a prophetic message to you. When Joshua saw that the angel was speaking to him, he fell upon his face and asked, “What does my lord say to his servant?”

And he said, etc., Remove your shoe. That is, the word of Hashem will soon be revealed to you, and you must remove the garments of materiality from yourself, preparing for the prophecy that I have come to convey to you and making yourself ready to receive the prophetic influence. Our Sages said (Genesis Rabbah 97:3): “‘Now I have come’—but in the days of your teacher Moses, I came and he did not desire me.” For both Moses’ prophecy and his miracles occurred without the mediation of an angel or any other emissary, as is well known.