It says the Chabad House looking for someone to read the megillah, anybody who wants to volunteer and fits into the schedule, go speak to Rabbi Rosenberg. Okay. Okay, we're holding here page 163, the end the last paragraph in the second column. This is all based on a based, the Rebbe is discussing a Rashi, that Rashi says, ויעש, the pasuk says, ויעש בצלאל את הארון, Betzalel made the aron. It's a pasuk in this week's parashah, and Rashi explains these words: לפי שנתן נפשו על המלאכה יותר משאר חכמים, since Betzalel gave his nefesh, gave himself over to the work of the aron more than the other חכמים, נקראת על שמו, that's why it's called on his name. Basically what Rashi is saying is that really when he made, says he made, we refer to it, we call it that he made. And the reason we call it that he made because he he gave himself over more than the other chachamim. And the Rebbe says, what is Rashi trying to tell us? What what is what is not understood in the pasuk that Rashi has to explain it? We know Rashi doesn't explain the pasuk if everything makes sense. Rashi comes to tell us when something is not understood, Rashi explains it. So the Rebbe said because the question is why does the pasuk say ויעש בצלאל by the aron different than by the other keilim? By the other keilim it doesn't say ויעש בצלאל, it says ויעש, he made. Who's the he? Whoever made it. How come here the Torah says Betzalel? So Rashi says because he gave himself over more. But then the main kashya that the Rebbe asks: Why can't Rashi learn pashut? You know why it says ויעש בצלאל את הארון? Because he made the aron. Pashut, very pashut. Because Betzalel made the aron. And the other keilim? And what's about the other kelim? By the other kelim we didn't learn הערה 10, but we should learn it really. There the Rebbe says according to this peshat that the aron Betzalel made, the other kelim, let's learn now הערה 10 and I'm marking it down to know that this is something that you have to chazar: ובנוגע לשאר הכלים יש לומר בכמה אופנים. What about the other kelim you could say? כמו שקרא ה׳ בצלאל לבדו, גם בעשיית הכלים כן הוא, by the other kelim maybe takeh also only Betzalel made, or שום כלי לא נעשה על ידי איש אחד, ולהלן אינו מפרט מי עשהו, no כלי was made by one person, so there's no reason to mention, every כלי had a few people involved. And ג׳, מכיון שלא נעשה על ידי בצלאל אלא על ידי שאר חכמי לב, since the other kelim were not made by בצלאל, ואין זה הארון העיקר שבכלים, and it's not such an important כלי, אינו מפרט מי עשהו, he doesn't say who made it, ומסתפק בויעש סתם, and he says just ויעש. And he quotes, שכן הוא לשון המקרא כדפירש רש״י, sometimes the pasuk doesn't say. In other words, by the aron it makes sense the Torah should want to tell us who made it, for two reasons, for both ends. Number one, it's the aron, we want to know who made the aron. Number two, it's Betzalel. Oh, Betzalel, we want to say what he made. But the other kelim, maybe no one made it, no one specifically made it, or maybe someone specifically did make it, but it makes no difference. If not, the guy the other guy who made it, his name was Yochanan, oh so you have to mention it? He's not so important and the kli is not so important, it's not. But by the aron it's important to mention who made the aron. So then you could learn peshat in the pasuk, very simple. You don't need any maasim, it's called on his name, which means as if he made it. Learn very pashut: ויעש בצלאל את הארון, בצלאל himself made the aron, finished. And that's clear. And the Torah is interested in telling you who made the aron. And since that's Betzalel, we want to tell you Betzalel made it. That's one she'eilah.

גם צריך להבין the Rebbe says, we have to understand also, מכיון שהכתוב אומר ויעש בצלאל, since the pasuk uses the term ויעש בצלאל, בצלאל made it, but it uses the word ויעש, הוה ליה לרש״י לכתוב בלשון הפסוק, so Rashi should have used the לשון הפסוק, and he should have said: לפי שנתן נפשו על העשיה, ולא לשנות ולומר המלאכה, not to change say melachah. רש״י בכלל likes to stick to the לשון הפסוק. When he explains a pasuk, he tries to stick to the לשון of the pasuk because that's what he's explaining. So if the pasuk says ויעש בצלאל, it has the word ויעש, It's different than melachah. It seems like it's the same type of word. Asiyah is the making, which is from the same root as ויעש. Melachah means the work, which is basically the same thing. So, since the pasuk uses the word ויעש, רש״י should have said: because he gave himself over so much על העשיה, on the making of the aron, and using the same word as it said ויעש, he gave himself over to ויעש, to the asiyah, therefore נקראת על שמו. Why does Rashi change from the word asiyah to the word melachah? And we know the Rebbe is medayek, like I said in the beginning of the sichah yesterday when we learned, every word of this Rashi is important to know for the sichah, cuz the Rebbe is medayek in every word of Rashi. Whatever Rashi says is exact.

And the chidush is, the Rebbe's chidush is, and the gedulah, we could say, I mean we're gonna go speak at the gedulah of the Rebbe, but the gadlut is you have other sefarim also that deal with taking a לשון חז״ל, a lashon of Rashi, and they'll explain every word. One word they'll explain based on a gematria. You know why Rashi picks this word? Because it's a good gematria. Another thing he says there's a good drush here. So they they explain every word. The Rebbe's kuntz is, the Rebbe's trick is that he explains every word in Rashi, that every word in Rashi is exact על דרך הפשט. Not because of a gematria, not because of a מאמר חז״ל, not because of a remez that hints you to something, every word in Rashi is meduyak, is exact for the פשוטו של מקרא, for the דרך הפשט. I mean we know that Rashi is דרך הפשט, and I went through this once before and we'll go through it again because in the שיעור בכלל, in this shiur we don't usually learn Rashi's, it gets like complicated, it's enough you have to learn Tosafot together with Rashi, so we learn all the kinds of sichot. But from time to time I pick a Rashi. But be'emet, if you look in Likkutei Sichot, I would say 80 percent, I don't know, I didn't count exact percentages, but I would say something like that of the sichot are all Rashi sichot. And the Rebbe came out with a new, new derech in learning Rashi, which no one before him learned like that. And the main nekudah of the Rebbe's derech is that Rashi is פשוטו של מקרא. Whatever Rashi writes, whenever he brings a מאמר חז״ל, is because it's noge'a to פשוטו של מקרא. So every word in Rashi that's meduyak, every word in the dibbur hamatchil, the first words that Rashi quotes from the pasuk, is meduyak, and they're all meduyak in פשוטו של מקרא. Which nobody, you know, could figure such a thing out, and to see and figure out even in simple peshat. In simple peshat means you don't have to be a lamdan. Simple peshat is the Rebbe always used the lashon that Rashi was written for a בן חמש למקרא, for a five-year-old child who starts learning Chumash. And this five-year-old child starts learning Chumash has never learned Gemara, has no idea. So all he knows is what he's learning. He knows the words, and he's taught the words, that's all he knows. And he understands, we're talking about a child that's a very good head and looks at everything straight, and that's all you need is שכל הישר, straight seichel. Actually the אותיות רש״י are the same letters as ישר. ישר, it's straight. Besides, Rashi is roshei teivos, what's the roshei teivos of Rashi? Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki. But then there's another roshei teivos: רבן של ישראל. Also Rashi is a, not the roshei teivos, but Rashi is the אותיות ישר. So in Rashi you have should be every piece of Rashi, even if Rashi quotes a Gemara, and a Gemara which is like a Midrash that sounds, because Rashi figured out that in simple peshat of the pasuk you have to learn like that Midrash. That's why Rashi brings it. Otherwise Rashi wouldn't, because you have hundreds of midrashim on every pasuk that Rashi never brings. Because Rashi is only that. And then there's another thing in Rashi. I explained this once when we learned a Rashi sichah, a different one, that Rashi also contains, every Rashi contains חסידות or קבלה, יינה של תורה, of the רוחניות, סודות התורה. We have פשט, רמז, דרוש, סוד. סוד is the secrets of Torah, which is קבלה, חסידות. If you don't have the סמ״ך, what are you? A פרד. פ-ר-ד. Or a פרד. פֶּרֶד is a mule. And with the סמ״ך, it's פרדס. What's פרדס? An orchard. It's geshmak, it's good, so you have to have all four. So the Rebbe said that Rashi contains פשוטו של מקרא, every Rashi, every Rashi contains Yaina shel Torah. רמז and דרוש, sometimes yes, sometimes not, it doesn't have to be. But חסידות, ענינים in חסידות and פנימיות התורה, every Rashi has. says We don't see it, you got to dig in to figure it out. I'll tell you the story again that I said, I always tell this over this story. They say I don't know, I never saw it printed, but אזוי רעדט מען. There was once a מקובל, that מקובל decided he's going to write a פירוש on חומש על פי קבלה. But he wanted it should not be open קבלה, it should be hidden. So, he wrote a פירוש with hidden קבלה, and when he finished the פירוש and he reviewed it, he saw there was too much open קבלה and he wanted it to be hidden. So, he rewrote the פירוש, hiding קבלה even more. And again, when he looked at it, he saw it's still too much and he rewrote it a third time to hide it completely. And after he finished his פירוש he looked back, he saw these were the words of Rashi. Cuz Rashi is written על פי קבלה, but just in a form that's hidden. So, every word in Rashi, the fact that Rashi uses the word נתן נפשו על המלאכה, the word מלאכה rather than the word עשיה, which who cares? I mean if you ask someone a person kind of דיוקים, there's a thing called in in in in What do you say? In in Yerushalmi, I think, a לשון, called דקדוקי עניות. You know what דקדוקי עניות is? עני, an עני is a poor man. עניות means poverty. דקדוקי עניות, sometimes they make דיוקים, which is stupid. Make a דיוק It's not a דיוק. So, a big deal, so it's עשיה, it's מלאכה, it's hainu hach. Rashi picked If Rashi would write עשיה you'd have a problem. Okay, in this case it wouldn't be a problem because it's פסוקים, but by the Rebbe it's no such thing. If Rashi writes it, it's exact, and it's exact in פשוטו של מקרא. So, we have to see why Rashi chose the word מלאכה over עשיה.

ויובן כל זה בהקדים מה שכתב רש״י בפרשת תרומה. This will be understood by first bringing in a Rashi in תרומה. בנוגע לכפורת ארון. Talk about the ארון, you have the כפורת. כפורת on top was the cover of the ארון, which had the כרובים on it, the two כרובים. What was it made of? Solid gold. Pure, solid gold. Real pure gold. It wasn't 18 karat gold. It was I don't even know if 24 karat gold is pure gold. Gold has a problem. Gold is very, very soft. When gold is yellow because it has a mixture of another metal in it a little bit. Real pure gold is orange. And real gold, pure gold, is very soft. So, in order to have the gold to be hard, they mix in. But here it says זהב טהור, it was pure gold, so it was the מנורה, pure gold. So, you had the כפורת was made of gold, the ארון was made of What was the ארון made of? What was the ארון made of? Huh? But what was that made of? It was made of wood and covered on the outside with gold, on the inside with gold. So, it says he made three boxes. He made one box of wood, one little smaller box of gold, one bigger box of gold. He took the wooden box, put it into the bigger box, so the outside is gold, put the smaller gold box inside, now it became wood covered with gold. But the כפורת, the cover was not wood. The cover was solid gold. And Rashi says an interesting thing. ואף על פי שלא נתן שיעור לעביו, even though in Chumash we do not find a measurement how thick the כפורת was, פירשו רבותינו, the חכמים said, שהיה עביו טפח. It was a tefach thick. Imagine. How wide was how long was it? 2 and 1/2 amah long, 2 and 1/2 amah long. How much is an amah? The least חשבון of an amah in our measurement is foot and a half. Two amah is, the least, is three. Another half, 3 and 3/4 ft, that means over a yard, much more than a yard long, a foot and a half wide, and a tefach thick. A tefach, this thick. Imagine, this thick, solid gold. How much money did it cost? How much money would that cost? Oh boy. This is million, tens of millions of dollars. There's no question about it. When the the Machon HaMikdash, you have an Eretz Yisrael a place that makes כלים. They're preparing כלים for the Beit HaMikdash. So, they made the Menorah, but they made it out of silver. They just couldn't afford to make out of of gold. Now, how much did it cost, the Menorah? The Menorah was a ככר A ככר of gold. So here also, anyway so he says it was a tefach. Ulechora, so the Rebbe has the שאלה, מהו הטעם שרש\"י משמיענו בפירוש פשוטו של מקרא על שיעור עובי הכפורת? Why is רש\"י tell us the שיעור, how thick the כפורת was? שלא נאמר עובי בשאר הכלים. By other כלים it doesn't say how thick it was. Why happens by the כפורת of the ארון Rashi decided to tell us when רש\"י טייטשט פשוטו של מקרא? What does Rashi taytsh? What it says in פסוק, he explains it. The פסוק doesn't mention anything about the thickness. See, if the פסוק would עפעס hint and we don't know exactly what it means, so Rashi has to explain, you know what it means, it means a tefach. The פסוק never mentioned anything about thickness, so why does Rashi get into it? ובפרט שאין לזה הכרח בפשוטו של מקרא, certainly when there is no proof in peshat of the פסוק that it was a טפח. How do you know takeh it was a טפח? So there's two she'eilot. כי אם כפי ששנינו פירשו רבותינו, רש\"י takes it himself, he says the חכמים said it. But in chumash it doesn't hint to it. So two she'eilot the Rebbe has here. Number one, why does Rashi have to tell us how thick it was? How does that affect the peshat in the פסוק? איי, maybe it's a good idea peshat to know how thick, so why doesn't he say by other things how thick it was? It doesn't say. And another thing, where does he get it from? From רבותינו. But it's not from פשוטו של מקרא. So why would Rashi write something that is not even a proof in peshat, when Rashi's main thing is peshat? יש לומר שבזה בא להסביר בדרך אגב, רש\"י wants to by the way, derech agav, to teach us this, answer the she'eilah of a פסוק: למה שינה הכתוב בלשון הציווי דעשיית ארון? You look when the Eibershter said in פרשת תרומה to make the ארון it says ועשו ארון עצי שטים, let them make, לשון רבים, let them make. דלא כהציוויים, not like the other commandment, דעשיית שאר הכלים of the other כלים, והבגדים or the garments, שנאמר בהם ועשית דקאי במשה. It says ועשית, you shall make the מנורה, you shall make the שולחן, you shall make, and by the ארון it says they shall make. So they shall make is plural, you shall make is singular. Now, when the פסוק says ועשית by the other כלים, and who was the Eibershter talking to? To Moshe Rabbeinu. I mean, in פרשת תרומה, וידבר ה' אל משה לאמר, the aibershter to Moshe, and He said, \"You shall make.\" What did the aibershter mean? Moshe with his own hands should make it? No, it was whoever was supposed to make it. And nevertheless, the pasuk says ועשית. So why couldn't the pasuk say by the aron? The Rebbe explains here, שהרי מובן דועשית אין הכוונה כפשוטו, it's clear that when the aibershter said you shall make, it doesn't mean פשוט שמשה לבדו יעשה בפועל, if Moshe himself, it says you shall make the menorah, you shall make the shulchan, you shall make the mizbeach, you shall make, you shall make this, you shall make this, what does it mean Moshe should make it? First of all, the pasuk doesn't mean it because Rashi says ובכלל Moshe didn't take part klal in making the Mishkan. But הוא דבר הנמנע, it's impossible שיעשה את כל אלה המלאכות שנאמר בהם ועשית. If you're going to look everything that it says that you shall do, impossible for Moshe Rabbeinu to do it himself. It will take him ten years for one person to do all this. Where do we find an example that the aibershter said you shall make, and because he said you, it meant he himself, and because of that it took him a long time to make it? Who? Noach. Noach made the teivah, it took him 120 years. And the Rebbe has a sichah in a different place, why did it take him so long? Why didn't he make it faster? The aibershter, he was a tzadik, right? And the aibershter gave him a commandment. If the aibershter would give you a commandment, wouldn't you run to do it as fast as you can? Zerizin makdimin la-mitzvot! Why did he קראצן זיך? Why did it take 120 years? Now, it says that the aibershter waited 120 years so people should be able to do teshuvah, people should see him making, and they would ask him, \"Why, what is this?\" and he would answer them, \"It's going to be a מבול,\" hoping they would do teshuvah. But that's not an answer why it took him that long to make. He could have started, but not work on it. Here it seems like he worked on the on the the teivah for 120 years. And the Rebbe answers, cuz the aibershter said to Noach, \"You shall make the teivah,\" so in פשוטו של מקרא the aibershter wanted he himself should make it. Now imagine one person should make build a building, nu? Imagine the Aibershter said this building should be built by one person, how long would it take? I don't think 120 years would be enough! One person should build, and how would he shlep even the things, you know, it's very hard. Big big boards and this, so it took him 120 years. So if the Aibershter would tell Moshe Rabbeinu you shall make all the כלים, it's impossible. I mean, who knows how long it would take, impossible! So what does it mean? ואדרבה, he says, מפורש בקרא, it says clearly that Moshe wasn't the one that made it, שנעשה על ידי כל איש חכם לב, it was made by these חכמים, these experts, לעשות את כל לעשות את כל מלאכת עבודת הקודש וגו׳ וכו׳, they made it. ועוד יותר מפורש Rashi, Rashi says פרשת פקודי, שלא עשה משה שום מלאכה במשכן, that Moshe did not work on the Mishkan. So what does that mean that the Aibershter said to Moshe, \"You shall make this, you shall make the ציץ, you shall make the the the the אפוד, the חושן\"? ומכיוון שהציווי, הציווי דועשית, ברוב הפעמים עכ״פ, when the Torah says, \"You shall make\", in most cases, ומהם נלמד על כל מקום שנאמר ועשית, from there we understand, see, in many cases it's impossible. But afilu where it is possible, but since in most cases it means אין לפרש שהעשייה עצמה מוטלת על משה, it doesn't mean that actual doing was on משה, אלא שהוא יצווה, he should command, וכו׳, על כל העשייה של המשכן, he shall take care, you shall make sure it happens, and we say, \"You shall make it\", so let's skip the brackets for a second, ואם כן, מה נשתנה הציווי דעשיית הארון שנאמר ועשו? So why does it by the ארון does it not say ועשית? If you could say that the Aibershter didn't say to Moshe, \"You shall make the ארון\", because Moshe couldn't do it, Moshe wasn't an expert, Moshe wasn't Betzalel, he couldn't do it, so the Torah had to say, \"Let them make it.\" But the Rebbe is מוכיח, shows, that ועשית does not mean you shall make it. ועשית means the way the Torah write, \"You shall see that it's done.\" That's what it means. Ah? Well, that was one that was one special thing that נתקשה משה. Yeah, I think the Rebbe brings it someplace. See, 21, he says, ואף שגם בנוגע למנורה כתיב ועשית, so the Rebbe we'll get to it when we get there. So Rashi has a shaila why the pasuk says by the ארון, ועשו, and not like everything else, ועשית, which would have meant like everything else, Moshe, you take care, do make it. So that's a problem Rashi has. Then let's learn the brackets. ומצינו כבר, we find already, שלשון על דרך ועשית, a לשון which is not the word ועשית, but something similar, מתאים, fits, גם באם לא יעשה הדבר במו ידיו ממש, even if it's not him himself doing it. We see it in other place. As it's a מוכרח הוא, we find it very clear. במה שכתוב, there's a pasuk that says, ויהי בונה עיר. It says by Kayin, Kayin built a city. ופירש Rashi, Rashi says, that what it says בונה means קין בונה עיר. Kayin built a city. What does that mean? וכי בכוחו של אדם אחד לבנות עיר שלמה? One person, Kayin himself with his hands built a whole city? אלא הפירוש שנבנה על ידו, it means it was built through him. He took care, he made sure it should be built. אם כן, הפירוש בועשית, שייעשה על ידך. ועשית means it should be done through you. So since ועשית means should be done through you, so why doesn't the Torah write by the ארון also ועשית? Before we get to the answer, I just want to learn, let's learn הערה 13. The Rebbe says in the sicha here that why, he asks the shaila, why does Rashi say it was a tefach thick? And he says Rashi wants to answer a kushya, he didn't say how we didn't learn how he answers it yet, but he wants to answer a kushya. Derech agav, by the way, by writing it he answers a shaila. The shaila why does it say ועשו, not ועשית? But the Rebbe used a לשון, and here just to show how the words in the sicha is meduyak. He just said that Rashi comes to tell us by the way, why the Torah changed from ועשית to ועשו. What does it mean \"by the way\"? This is the reason why he says it, not by the way! \"By the way\" means it could be a different reason, and by the way, it also means this. Why does Rashi Why does the Rebbe say here that Rashi is telling us by the way to answer a kushya? So the Rebbe says here it's by the way, כי אין העניין שרק זהו כוונתו, we don't say that he writes that it was a tefach just to answer this kushya, and if not for this she'eilah, Rashi wouldn't have written it. Why? It's not that. שהרי בעשיית המשכן וכליו ובגדי כהונה, because when it comes to making the Mishkan and making the בגדים, מביא רש״י הרבה דברים שאין להם הכרח בפשוטו של מקרא. This is an exception. Rashi brings a lot of things when it comes to the Mishkan, things which are not hinted in the pasuk, and we find it in the Chazal. Here specifically Rashi does it. Why? כי מובן גם לבן חמש למקרא, cuz everyone understands, even a kid, שהפרטים המבוארים בכתובים אינם כל הפרטים שהיו בהם. Everyone understands when the Torah gives us details, definitely there were more details that the Torah doesn't mention. The Torah doesn't give every every aspect of it. It doesn't say exactly how they made the thread, it doesn't say exactly, some of the details it doesn't say. ומוכרח בפשטות שהיו עוד כמה וכמה פרטים. For sure there were more things there that are not written in the Torah. ולכן הפרטים הנלמדים מחלק ההלכה וכולי שבתורה, therefore, if there are more details found in Gemara or in other חלקי התורה, אינם סותרים הפירוש הפשוט בכתובים, it doesn't contradict the פסוק, מביאם רש\"י. Rashi brings it בכדי לבאר מראה הבגדים והכלים, to show us exactly what they looked like. So since Rashi wants to tell us what they looked like, so Rashi brings other So mimela, what the Rebbe is trying to do here, making light of the kashya he asked in the sichah. In the sichah he asked a kashya, why did Rashi write it was a tefach? Where does it say in Chumash? The Rebbe says it's not such a terrible kashya. Because Rashi in the in the Mishkan just brings things, because, after all, there were more things. L'mashal, I'm just thinking in my mind, Rashi says that the way the words on the ציץ were written were קדש לה', two lines. Where does Rashi take it from? The Gemara. But Rashi writes it. Why? Because it's a prat that's noga, because they had to know how did they write it, even though it doesn't say, because he wants to make us understand what they looked like. And then the Rebbe even quotes עיין Rashi Tetzaveh. Look in Tetzaveh Rashi, by the חושן and the אפוד. Rashi describes the אפוד. You know what Rashi says his source is? ולבי אומר לי. I have a feeling. That's what it looked like. ועוד אומר לי לבי, I have another feeling in something else. And Rashi adds, אני כותב מעשיהן כמו שהוא למען ירוץ הקורא. I'm writing the way it is so people should be able to understand it, to run through it and understand it. So we see here Rashi does write extra things which is not written in Chumash. And he says ולהעיר מהפטרה דתצוה. He says in the haftara, parashat Tetzaveh, when it speaks about the בית המקדש, הגד את בית ישראל את הבית ויכלמו מעונותיהם ואם נכלמו ממעשיהם. Tell the Yidden the Beit HaMikdash and let them this will take away from their aveirot. So we see it's a good idea to know the details, so here Rashi does. But nevertheless, the Rebbe says that, by the way, even though it's not such a big kashya, but the Rebbe, in this case, we understand even more why Rashi brings that it was a tefach, because this answers a kashya in pshat. And what's the kashya? The kashya is, why by the Aron does it say ועשו rather than ועשית? Now, we didn't learn how that answers, but can anyone think of how it answers? Think of a sevara. The Rebbe guided us so far. By the Aron, it doesn't By everything it says ועשית, here it says ועשו. Let's think, let's use our brains. Based on what the Rebbe started saying that the reason that that how is it answered by telling us that the כפורת was a tefach? How does that answer the she'elah why it says ועשו? What's the, yeah, I'm saying with a tefach, no, but Think, just let's think a sevara. You got to think of a sevara. Not only it's because the gold is soft. Can one person work with such a big chunk of gold? A chunk of gold that's four feet long and two feet wide and a tefach thick, and then you have the כרובים on top, who could pick it up? One person could do it? Impossible. It's impossible. So the pasuk says ועשו, they shall do it, לשון רבים. But if it wouldn't be a tefach, let's say the כפורת would be very thin, then, it's quite heavy, but a strong person could pick it up. But this, how much, can you imagine the weight? A ton? I don't know A chunk of gold four feet, five feet, whatever, according to which cheshbonot. Could be five feet according to one cheshbon. So, must be, so the pasuk says ועשו. Okay, to read this further