We're holding here on top of page 165. The שאלה of the שיחה was why the פסוק ויעש בצלאל את הארון and רש״י says that because he was gave his נפש for it more than the rest of the חכמים it's called on his name, why doesn't רש״י, the רבי asked, why doesn't רש״י say פשוט פשט that he made the ארון? בצלאל made the ארון, simple פשט, he himself made the ארון, why can't it be? So the רבי says רש״י the answer is based on a different רש״י. רש״י says in פרשת תרומה that the thickness of the כפורת was a טפח, and the question the רבי asks is, why does רש״י say it? רש״י only explains פשט in פסוק. Where is the הכרח from פסוק, and why is it רש״י add something which the פסוק doesn't say? Now when we learn the הערה, we realize that the קשיא is not such a big קשיא. The רבי himself makes the קשיא not such a big קשיא, because specifically by the משכן and by the בגדי כהונה, רש״י adds things which it doesn't say in פסוק, things that חז״ל say. Because רש״י, like says, he wants to give you a full picture, and רש״י himself says, רש״י wrote בכלל different in פרשת תרומה, תצוה, he writes different than he writes in other places, because it's a strange thing טאקע. In פרשת תצוה when it talks about the אפוד, first רש״י describes it, then he goes the whole thing, explains the whole thing how it looked, and then every פסוק he goes through to explain what the פסוק is. He already said everything, because רש״י wants to explain the פסוקים, so he goes by פסוק by פסוק, but he wants to give you a big picture of the whole thing. And he even adds things which is not at all from the פסוק, and רש״י says, ולבי אומר לי. All of a sudden, פשוטו של מקרא is from רש״י's heart? Because רש״י, so maybe it's not such a big קשיא, but nevertheless, a דיוק איז דאס: why does רש״י mention that it was a טפח? So the רבי says the

reason רש״י mentions a טפח, because otherwise there is a problem. What's the problem? There's another קשיא. Why does the פסוק say ועשו ארון עצי שטים? When דער אייבערשטער told משה to make the ארון, he said 'let them make', לשון רבים. By the other כלים it says, 'you shall make'. And when it says 'you shall make', it doesn't mean physically make, you overlook it. And he brings ראיות, especially from the פסוק that קין built a city. He built a city? קין himself with his hands built the whole city? He had it built, he overlooked it. So here also, so why couldn't the פסוק say by the ארון also ועשו? So let's learn the תירוץ: ועל כורחך צריך לומר, let's from the top, top of page 165, so we must say שזהו החידוש בעשיית הארון, ועשו לשון רבים, that's why by the ארון it says ועשו, they shall make, להורות, to teach us, שמלאכת הארון אינה על ידי איש אחד, פשוט to show that the ארון cannot be done through one person, כי אם על ידי רבים דווקא, דווקא through many. A one person could not make the ארון. מה שאין כן בשאר כלי המשכן, by the other כלים, כתיב ועשית, it says ועשית, לשון יחיד, שפירושו כולל יחיד ורבים. ועשית, what does ועשית mean? Could be one person, could be many. Doesn't mean that you have to make, like the רבי said before, it doesn't mean you have to make the whole thing, but it could mean many people also. But ועשו definitely means many. See, ועשית could be either, ועשו means definitely. So the פסוק says clearly, ועשו, דער אייבערשטער said ועשו ארון עצי שטים to tell you that the ארון cannot be made by one person. The other כלים, no problem. Make one, few people, if you need a few people, a few people, if need one, if one can do it, so one can do it. But the ארון, you have to have a few. Why? ולישב על דרך הפשט, so to explain על דרך הפשט, הקושיא מה נשתנה ארון משאר כלים, but then the קשיא comes up, why טאקע? Why the ארון, עפעס דער אייבערשטער wanted the ארון should be made by more than one person, what's the ענין? What's, why by ארון דווקא has to be more than one person? So in order to answer that שאלה, מוכרח רש״י להביא פרט שבארון, so רש״י has to explain one detail in the ארון, שלכן אי אפשר שיעשה ביחיד, because of that one פרט, it's impossible for a one person to do it. אף על פי שנמצא הפרט כי אם בתורה שבעל פה, even though this one פרט is not in חומש, it just in the חז״ל, תורה שבעל פה, and in חומש there is no indication to this פרט, but the פשט of the פסוק requires you to find some place, something in the ארון which will explain in פשט why they had to be more than one person. So what did רש״י do? So he looked up in חז״ל, and just like other places where רש״י quotes רבותינו אמרו, that he quotes חז״ל, even though in חומש we don't see it, but because in פשט it requires some answer to a question, and if you find in חז״ל an answer, רש״י brings it to enhance the פשט, to fill up the פשט, so רש״י does the same thing here. The קשיא רש״י has, why does it say ועשו? ועשו means they shall do, which means לשון רבים. רש״י has a קשיא, why? And that's a רש\"י

brings, quotes רבותינו אמרו, they quote חז\"ל, even though in חומש we don't see it, but because in פשט it requires some answer to a question, and if you find in חז\"ל an answer, רש\"י brings it to enhance the פשט, to fill up the פשט, so רש\"י does the same thing here. The קושיא רש\"י has, why does it say ועשו? ועשו means they shall do, לשון רבים. רש\"י has a קושיא, why? And that's a קושיא, פשוטו של מקרא. So that's what רש\"י says there must be something there to answer. Let's look. So רש\"י looked and looked, and he found הלכה מאי תקרא ש... פירוש רבותינו, that's why רש\"י brings what רבותינו said, ומקדים לזה, and he brings before that ומאריך, and he says באריכות, lashon is like this, ואף על פי שלא נתן שיעור לעוביה, רש\"י says even though the תורה does not give a שיעור how thick it was, כמו בכל הכלים שלא נתן שיעור לעוביה, just like other כלים, no כלי does it say exactly how thick it is. But כאן שאני, here it's different, here we have to know. By the ארון we have to know, why? Because שפירשו ולא אמרו כי אם פירשו, that רבותינו explained, and sometimes רש\"י says אמרו רבותינו, here he says פירשו. פירשו, what's the difference of the word פירשו? They didn't say something that they heard, that they had קבלה בקבלה, הלכה למשה מסיני. פירש is a פשט in the פסוק. They explained פשט in the פסוק, that פירשו רבותינו שהיה עוביה טפח, that it was thick a טפח. What was thick a טפח? The כפורת was thick a טפח. ומובן בפשטות שאין בכוחו של אדם אחד, it's impossible, one person לעבוד ולעשות חתיכת זהב רבת משקל כזאת, to work with a piece of gold that it's this heavy. If like I said, it was two and a half אמות long, one and a half אמה wide, thick a טפח of solid gold, and then don't forget the כרובים on top, to work with that, impossible. הכולל כוללת, this piece of gold contains זהב הכפורת, the זהב of the כפורת, וזהב רב שממנו נעשו שני הכרובים, the many much gold that the כרובים were made on top, it's impossible for one person to work with it, אם לא בסיוע של בני אדם, if you don't have other people helping you. ולכן נאמר ועשו לשון רבים, so here it had to be through many, בגשמיות פשוט, because it says ועשו לשון רבים, because only more than one, a few people together were able to do it, not less. So it's only because of the כפורת. So this answers why it says ועשו, and this answers why רש\"י brings something that the חומש doesn't say, that it was thick a טפח. Then the Rebbe

asks, ואף שגם בהקרשים כתיב ועשית את הקרשים, when you look by the קרשים, by the boards, it says לשון יחיד, you shall make the walls, the boards, ומפורש ברש\"י שלא היה יכול להקימם מחמת כובד הקרשים, no one could pick it up, it was so heavy. So if the קרשים were heavy, so also you had to have more than one person working on it. You had to have more than one person working, so how come over there it says ועשית? If the whole reason it says by the ארון ועשו because you have to have more than one, the קרשים also. So the Rebbe answers, הרי המדובר הציווי על דרך העשייה, we're talking about making it. ואפשר להיות מושכב, you can have a piece of board laying on the floor and one person works to prepare it, to make it. What one person couldn't do what רש\"י says is lifting it, picking it up. But working on it you could. ובפשיטות לא היה בזה דוגמת עניין ההגבהה מן הקרקע והנחה על גבי ארון כמו שהיה בכפורת. So you could work on the piece of wood on the floor, מה שאין כן the gold on the floor, I guess it doesn't say it but I guess it's harder to work, but בפרט that you had to then pick it up and put it on on the ארון. And putting the כפורת on the ארון is according to רש\"י the way the Rebbe learns part of making the ארון. You'll see in the הערה here, in הערה 22, just let's learn the second half of the הערה, ובפרט שבפשטות הכתוב משמע שנתינת הכפורת על הארון הוא גמר עשיית הארון. Very good. That putting on, you could surely say there's two things, there's making it and then there's putting it up. You could make the ארון, you could make the כפורת and then later and you have one person do it לכתחילה, and then you have a few people pick it up and put it down. But the Rebbe learns as we'll see later in the שיחה that by the כפורת, by the ארון, putting the כפורת on the ארון is not just putting the כפורת on the ארון. That is part of making the ארון. So when the אויבערשטער said ועשו ארון עצי שטים, includes putting the כפורת on. And that's impossible. It's impossible for a person to put on the כפורת, it's such a heavy כפורת. See in a different place the Rebbe says another ווארט why the כפורת had to be טפח connected to what I spoke about yesterday, because since it was solid pure gold, not 14 karat, it was pure gold which was how much someone said, 28 karat or something when it has nothing in it, pure pure. pure gold is very soft, if you'd have a thin כפורת so long and it's soft, it would not hold. It would definitely dip in. And the רבי when the רבי spoke about this and someone asked the רבי a שאלה on that שיחה, questioning it, so the רבי said אדרבה, take a piece of cardboard, a piece of קרטון, and make it in that proportion, a very thin piece of cardboard in this proportion, you'll see how it'll it'll go in. So the gold would have gone in, but if it's thick, then it held up, otherwise it wouldn't. That's another ווארט. But here the רבי says this ווארט, the ווארט is because it's impossible for a person to work with it since it's so heavy, that's why רש״י says it, since it was a טפח, it had it was very heavy, that's the reason why many more more than one person had to work on it. That's why רש״י felt that it's important to write the word טפח. Now, let's learn הערה 21. Like I said this time we're learning the whole הערות, so ממילא we should חזר'ן with the הערות. הערה 21 the רבי says, ואף שגם בנוגע להמנורה כתיב ועשית מנורת זהב טהור. Now, the מנורה was also made of a big chunk of gold. המנורה is a ככר זהב טהור, a whole ככר of זהב. And it's a big chunk of gold, and it says ועשית, לשון יחיד. Now, we said that if it's a big piece of gold, you had to say ועשו, because you can't make it yourself. One person couldn't do it. שגם זה משא כבד, it's also very heavy. ראה פירוש רש״י ק״כ ליטרא, it's 120 ליטרא, it's very heavy. So first of all, the רבי says, הרי היה זה משקלה עם כל כליה. It wasn't according to the רמב״ן the way he learns פשט in רש״י, that it wasn't the מנורה itself was a ככר. The מנורה including the כלים that was, and there were other כלים that were on the outside of the מנורה. So the מנורה really was less than a ככר. גם אם תמצי לומר שזה היה משקל המנורה בפני עצמה, even if you say no, it's like other מפרשים, the רא״ם says פשט in רש״י, that the מנורה itself was a ככר, and the other כלים were in addition to the ככר, הרי פירוש רש״י שמשה לבדו הטיל הככר והשליכו לאור, it says טאקע משה himself, it was a special thing that משה did it, so לפועל ממש משה רבינו picked it up. Well, how it was, I don't know, but רש״י says the fact was that רש״י that משה picked it up and threw it into the fire, because he couldn't make it. So now we know why it says ועשית. פארקערט, it says ועשית because the end is that one person did it, that משה did it. So we have so now it comes out like this: We have a few a few different. ועשית it says by the ארון, ועשית it says by the מנורה. Why does it say on the by other כלים also? Why does it say? Because one person did it. By the by the ארון it says ועשו, why? Because you couldn't have one person do it, you had to have more than one. Why? Because it was very heavy. The question is, by the קרשים now, why does it say there ועשית, even though it was also very heavy? But it was heavy to pick up, that's what רש״י says, but to work on it, it wasn't heavy. Wasn't hard, I guess. Now, לכאורה, based on what I told you yesterday בנוגע the other שיחה בנוגע נח, I'm just thinking: What did the רבי say, why did it take נח 120 years to make the תיבה? Because he had to do it all by himself. And to make it, I'm sure there are pretty heavy parts there, pretty big parts. So it took very, very long. So if it took, but finally he did it. He was מקיים the ציווי, he did it by himself. So here also, why couldn't it be that he should do it by himself, and it would take longer? So דער אייבערשטער could have said ועשית, but it would take longer. I mean it's not a קושיא I'm asking, I'm just bringing, trying to just to bring out. Obviously, what? דער אייבערשטער didn't want it to take long. But דער אייבערשטער could have said ועשית, and then they would have to and they would do it, so one person would work on it and would work on it ten years, and he would finally do it, maybe. But obviously דער אייבערשטער didn't want that, דער אייבערשטער wanted that it should go fast. Over there דער אייבערשטער wanted that it should take long. Why did דער אייבערשטער want it to take long? So give him more people time to do תשובה. So he בפירוש told him to do it himself, כדי it should take long. Here דער אייבערשטער wanted the משכן to be built right away. And how long did it טאקע take them to make the משכן? Who knows? When did they when were they told to bring the נדבות to about the משכן? When were they told about it? This week's פרשה, ויקהל משה. What does רש״י say, when was ויקהל משה? רש״י says, ממחרת יום הכיפורים. He came down from הר סיני on יום כיפור. He came down He was on הר סיני how many times? Three. First, he went up the day after מתן תורה, ז׳ סיון, came down, came down and broke the לוחות. When was that? י״ז בתמוז. He went up the next day, י״ח תמוז, came down כ״ט אב. It was forty days every time. He went up ראש חודש אלול, was there again forty days, the third time, came down יום כיפור. The day after יום כיפור, he told them about the משכן. When was the משכן ready to be built, to be to be finished? When was it finished? Two things, when was it finished and when was it put up? Now, put up, you should know, because it's a פסוק in חומש. When it was finished, not a פסוק in חומש, but when was it put up? When? I can't hear.

When was it actually put up? Not when did they finish, when? ראש חודש ניסן. It says they put it up ראש חודש ניסן. Actually, for seven days in a row before that, they put it up every, put it up every day and took it apart, put it up the next day. I'm just thinking in my mind, imagine, look at that job is to to put it up, all the things every day. How many hours did it take? I don't know, but that's what it was. They had to put it up every day, take it apart in the evening, put it up the next day for seven days, then the permanent time when he put it up was ראש חודש ניסן. When was it finished? Not when it was put up, when was it ready to be put up and the אייבערשטער said, \"Wait\"? That doesn't say in חומש. When? On פסח it was, פסח was ready, the משכן was standing. ראש חודש ניסן was put up. So, it was put up from מוצאי from the day after יום כיפור, ראש חודש ניסן it was up already, or actually was up seven days before, כ״ג אדר it was up already. The שאלה is, when was it finished? חנוכה, כ״ה כסלו was up כ״ה כסלו, and they wanted to put up, and the אייבערשטער said, \"Wait.\" So, כ״ה כסלו was upset, I know what that means, but כ״ה כסלו was upset that the משכן was ready and now they're losing out. So, the אייבערשטער said to them to to to כ״ה כסלו, \"Don't worry, in the future, you're going to get it back.\" So came חנוכה, so then they put up the they were מחנך, rededicated the בית המקדש, which is similar to the משכן, to the putting up the משכן. So, how long did it take them to make it? I know how long it took them to make it, but from when, the moment משה told them and then they started collecting money, how long did it take them to collect the money? How much? No, we spoke about it in the שיעור yesterday, in the גמרא. Three days. The third day, that's when ויעבירו קול במחנה they shouldn't bring anymore, they shouldn't carry. It was three days. But then but they basically, from the day after יום כיפור till כ״ה כסלו, which is how long? It's, let's say, תשרי, חשוון, כסלו, so it's two and a half months, cuz תשרי, it's only twenty days, and חשוון, a full month, and then כסלו, twenty-five days. So, it's like less than three months that it took them to make the whole משכן. Had the אייבערשטער said, \"Make the ארון by yourself,\" would have taken them would have taken probably, who knows how long. So, the אייבערשטער didn't want, the אייבערשטער wanted to make it right away. Okay, ועל פי הנ״ל, let's go back there, ועל פי הנ״ל בפרשתנו. Now, going back to the beginning of the שיחה, that the רבי started with the פרשה, with this with פרשת ויקהל, where it says ויעש בצלאל את הארון, so we asked the שאלה, what was the שאלה in the beginning of the שיחה, who's going to tell me? Why does it say בצלאל? Why does רש״י טייטש, not why it single, why that's The קשיא was why does רש״י, why does the פסוק single out בצלאל? No, why does רש״י טייטש ויעש בצלאל not כפשוטו, that בצלאל made it? That he made it by himself, that's all. Why do you have to say he was מסר נפש and that's why it's like he did it? So, he says now, ועל פי הנ״ל בפרשה, based on this, in our פרשה, ויעש בצלאל את הארון. כוונתו בפשטות לכאורה לכאורה, what's the פשט בצלאל made it? שבצלאל בעצמו עשה את הארון. Normally you would טייטש בצלאל himself made the ארון, that's how that's how the רבי asks, לכאורה that's what you should טייטש. But the problem is if you say that, מסיירעראס הא קושיא, we get a great קושיא. What's the קושיא? What? See page 165, second column, סעיף ג׳. So what's the קושיא? We just finished saying that it was so big, so heavy, it was a טפח that the כהנים couldn't do it. So how could you say בצלאל himself made it? וערט הא קושיא הרי מפורש בפרשת תרומה, it says in תרומה, ועשו ארון, they shall make. And what does that tell you? שעשייתו תהיה על ידי רבים, that it should be made through many people. So how could one person make it? That's one קושיא, the תורה says more than one should make it, how come one make it? ועוד והעיקר the main קושיא is, not only it doesn't fit with the פסוק, הרי אי אפשר להיעשות על ידי איש אחד, it's impossible to be made through one person. Can't be. That's the main קושיא. Not only the פסוק says more than one, how could they not listen to the תורה? How could they not listen to what the אייבערשטער told משה? The main קושיא, it doesn't fit כפשוטו. Now somebody who is not so, will answer the second שאלה, \"What do you mean, the מציאות doesn't make sense? It doesn't make the מציאות doesn't make sense that they should make it through one. Who cares about the מציאות? תורה says, תורה is not limited to מציאות.\" Some people say that. Doesn't make sense? So who cares? What the תורה says that's what happened. So the first שאלה is a שאלה, it's against the תורה. How could more than one person do one person do it? It can't, תורה says more than one. But the other שאלה, and the רבי calls the other שאלה the עיקר שאלה. The עיקר שאלה is it can't be. So that doesn't mean it can't be. Why, בגשמיות it can't be. Who cares about בגשמיות? תורה is the בעל הבית. If תורה says בגשמיות, it doesn't make sense, it doesn't So לכאורה that's a that that's a main that so I know people say that. Doesn't say it was a miracle. Should have said that we don't find, we don't make up our own miracles if you learn. Maybe certain things if you can't say is a miracle, but if you have to say it, if you don't have to say it, the answer is no. תורה

fits with שכל. I remember an expression that the רבי once used by a פֿאַרברענגען, and I don't remember which פֿאַרברענגען it was. That expression is not found in לקוטי שיחות, and I don't remember which פֿאַרברענגען it is, and I don't even remember if it was put into the שיחה in the הנחה, maybe because it's only one one expression, but it's ממש I remember in the the וואָרט אין קאָפּ. The רבי once said like this, \"תורה is העכער פון שכל. תורה is נישט היפך השכל.\" תורה is beyond שכל, תורה is not against שכל. תורה is not going to say that one and one equals three. תורה is never going to say it. \"תורה is limited to גשמיות?\" Makes sense. תורה is not היפך השכל, תורה is למעלה מן השכל. Something that doesn't make any sense בגשמיות is פשוט קלעפּט נישט, האָבּט צאָ וואָרט, you can't say such a סברא בגשמיות, because תורה is not היפך השכל. This is נוגע to a lot of things, that you can't come up with ideas as a שיטה in תורה. Give an example. A פסוק in חומש which רש״י חוה, when a פסוק doesn't make sense, רש״י has to explain it. This is so obvious what the פשט is that רש״י doesn't even have to explain it. Just an example, there are many פסוקים like that, but this is an example. It says why was she called חוה? What does the פסוק say? ״כי היא היתה אם כל חי״. The בעלי קריאה should remember the פסוקים. ״כי היא היתה אם כל חי״. What does that mean? She was the mother of all living things, yeah? She was the mother of all the dogs, and all the lions, and all the the gorillas, I mean what does that mean? So רש״י should have explained something that that it doesn't make sense, not true. She's not אם כל חי, she's אם כל בני אדם! She's the mother of all people, but not the mother of all all living things. אלא מאי, what does it mean? She's the mother of all, חי here means living, means people, obvious. But the תורה says not. I, the reason we say it means all people because that makes no sense to say that she's the mother of all animals. It doesn't make sense, not true, just a So someone will come and say, \"Who cares it's Who cares it doesn't make sense? תורה is בעל הבית! תורה says, תורה says she's the mother of all animals. I, she's not? Who cares? It's a fact she is.\" I mean, it makes any sense? This is I'm just making playing the devil's advocate, I'm making a משוגעת to say that. So

when you have something that בגשמיות doesn't make sense, פשוט in שכל, you can't say that תורה says it and תורה is בעל הבית. תורה is again, you should remember that expression. It's a very it it it's נוגע to a lot of things. תורה is למעלה מן השכל, תורה is נישט היפך השכל. So therefore, when you have a קושיא from בגשמיות, the קושיא if they there are two קושיות here the רבי asks, from the תורה and from בגשמיות. From תורה, the שאלה שאלה is, how could you say that בצלאל himself made it when the תורה said more than one person should make it? That's a קשיא. Then you have עוד, the עיקר, the second קשיא is a גשמיותדיקע קשיא, it's just impossible. איי, someone will answer, who cares if it's impossible? But the תורה says so, so it's a fact. It's again, because in גשמיות, I'll tell you another example: When you have something that's understood פשוט על פי סברא, does it have a דין of דאורייתא, or have a דין דרבנן, or have a דין of a person's שכל, שכל אנושי? What's the דין of a סברא? So there are a few ראיות in גמרא, but

there's one ראיה the גמרא in כתובות says, how do you know the דין of הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר? We have this כלל, מיגו, הפה שאסר, if someone says something that the whole איסור that you know is based on the person, and the person finally says a היתר, so we believe the person. למשל, I'll tell you where the גמרא says it: If a person says, a woman comes and says, a woman who is captured, גמרא in כתובות, captured by גוים, she can't marry a כהן, because we suspect who knows what the גוים did to her? What happens if a woman come, we don't even know that she was ever captured. She herself comes and says, נשביתי וטהורה אני. She tells us she was captured, but she says nothing happened to me. If we know on our own that she was captured, and she says nothing happened, we can't believe her, no one is עדות on yourself. But we don't know, so the גמרא הפה שאסר הפה שהתיר, ממה נפשך, if you believe her that she was captured, and the only way you know is from her, believe her the second half also that she was טהורה, she's clean. If you don't believe her at all, don't believe her she was captured. If you don't believe her she was captured, how do you know she's אסור? That's the דין. פרעגט the גמרא, how do you know the דין of הפה שאסר הפה שהתיר? The גמרא brings a פסוק. פרעגט the גמרא, למה לי קרא, סברא הוא! Why do we need a פסוק? It's a סברא. What do you mean? A פסוק makes it a הלכה in תורה. You need a פסוק. And if it's a סברא? The

answer is תורה is not היפך השכל, and if it's a complete logical סברא that's 100% logic, תורה agrees with it. You can't say, \"Well, תורה maybe disagrees.\" If we wouldn't have a פסוק, maybe the תורה disagrees with the סברא, if that's a normal סברא. So that's over there where the סברא is not מוכרח, it only makes sense. But I'm talking about where a סברא is obvious, it's impossible differently. So the רבי's שאלה is, the קשיא is, how could you say that בצלאל himself made it? לכן מפרש רש״י that ויעש בצלאל לא כפשוטו. That answers, the answer is already in the שאלה. The שאלה was, why didn't רש״י say כפשוטו, בצלאל made it? Here we see why. רש״י can't say that, it's impossible, or doesn't fit to the פסוק. So what does it mean בצלאל made it? אלא לפי שנתן נפשו על מלאכת הארון נקראת על שמו, because he put himself so much into making the ארון more than the rest of the חכמים, so it's called in his name, we consider as if he made it. But otherwise, the word עשיה wouldn't make sense, and we understand why רש״י goes away from פשוטו של מקרא.