Beit Habechirah - Chapter 4

Yoma 53b refers to that stone as the even hashtiah, “the foundation stone”, and explains that it was given that name because it was the foundation upon which God fashioned the world. According to certain views, the Dome of the Rock Mosque is located on the Temple site and the stone around which it is built is the same even hashtiah. Other Rabbinical sources, however, do not accept this claim.

There is a slight difficulty in the Rambam’s statements. The Jerusalem Talmud (Bava Batra 6:2) states that the Ark was placed in the center of the Holy of Holies. A similar statement is also found in the Midrash Tanchuma (Parshat Kedoshim, sec. 10). However, the latter source states that the Even HaShtiah was placed behind the Ark. Perhaps the resolution is that stone was large. It began in the center of the Holy of Holies, while the Ark was placed in its western portion.

Exodus 16:33 commands: “Take a vial and fill it with an omer of manna. Place it before the Lord as a testimonial for your descendants.”
Commenting on that verse, Rashi relates that in the time of Jeremiah, the people rationalized the fact that they did not study Torah, because of the pressures they faced in earning a livelihood. Jeremiah took the vial of manna from before the Ark and exclaimed: “See how God sustained your ancestors for forty years! Do you doubt whether He can sustain you today?”

After Korach’s revolt, God commanded all the princes of the tribes to place their staffs in the Sanctuary. Aharon’s staff blossomed, and produced leaves and almonds. Then, He commanded that Aharon’s staff be placed before the Ark “as a testimonial” (Numbers 17:21-25).

I.e., to preserve the Ark fashioned under the direction of Moses,

The last of Judah's righteous kings. He witnessed the spiritual decline of the Jewish people and foresaw the inevitable destruction of the Temple.

The entombment of the Ark is the subject of a debate among the Sages in the Talmud (Yoma 53b) and the Tosefta (Sotah:2). Although some Sages agree that the Ark was entombed as explained above, others maintain that it was one of the sacred articles plundered by the Babylonian conquerors. A third opinion agrees that it was entombed, but argues that it was entombed under the Chamber of Wood in the Woman’s Courtyard and not under the Holy of Holies.

Yoma 73b and the commentaries (Nachmanides and Rabbenu Bachai on Numbers 28:21) explain that the Urim V’Tumim were consulted as oracles by the High Priest. They provided guidance on all important questions involving the people as a whole. See the conclusion of Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash for a discussion of this issue.

Yoma 21b mentions the Urim V’Tumim as one of the five miraculous aspects of the First Temple service, which were lacking in the Second Temple. The Rambam quotes that statement in Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 10:10.
Nevertheless, they were not completely lacking. Exodus 28:43 commands the priests to wear all of the garments prescribed for them during their service in the Sanctuary. If even one garment was lacking, they would be punished by death. Thus, the High Priest had to wear the breastplate with the stones, the Urim V’Tumim. Otherwise, he would lack one of the eight garments he was required to wear. The Rambam explains that although the stones were embedded in the breastplate in the Second Temple as well, they lacked the spiritual dimension that they had possessed in the First Temple.

These garments are described in Exodus, Chapter 28, and in Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash, ch. 8.

The Ra’avad does not accept the Rambam’s statements concerning the Urim V’Tumim. He interprets the Urim V’Tumim as being mystical names of God engraved on the breastplate, rather than the stones themselves.
In his Chiddushim, Rav Yaakov Emden questions the reason for including this halachah: “On the surface, there is apparently no practical relevance to these matters in our behavior…. The Rambam generally does not include aspects which have neither halachic nor ethical significance in this text.” Why then is it important for us to know whether or not the Ark was entombed and where it was entombed?
Rav Emden then explains the question he posed, based on the Rambam’s statements in Chapter 6. There, the Rambam stated that after the exile, the sanctity of Bretz Yisrael was nullified regarding the laws of the Sabbatical year, the tithes, and certain other agricultural rulings. However, the holiness of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount always remained intact because:
The holiness of the Temple and Jerusalem comes about because of the Shechinah, and the Shechinah can never be nullified. Behold, God declared (Leviticus 27:31): “I shall destroy your Sanctuaries.” and the Sages commented (Megillah 28a): “Even though they are destroyed, their holiness remains intact.”
The Shechinah’s resting place was the Ark. Therefore, had the Ark not been “entombed... in deep, maze-like vaults,” on the Temple Mount, the sanctity of that site would also have been nullified. See also Chatam Sofer, Chullin 7a.
Likkutei Sichot (Vol. 21, p. 156-160) also discusses the same question. It explains that the Ark is a fundamental element of the Temple and the Temple building cannot be complete without it.
Therefore, from the very beginning of the Temple’s construction, the Ark had two locations:
a) the place for the Ark in the Holy of Holies,
b) the hidden vault where the Ark would be kept in the event of the Temple’s destruction.
On this basis, we can see the Sanctuary built by Moses, the two Temples in Jerusalem, and the Messianic Temple, as unified by one essential bond. Since the same Ark was present in all previous structures and it will be revealed again in the Messianic age, all four buildings share the same essence.

As the Rambam states in the conclusion of the halachah, a divider was necessary between the sanctity of the Holy of Holies and the Sanctuary. In the Tabernacle in the desert, a curtain, the Parochet, alone served this function. In the First Temple, a wall was also built in addition to the curtain.

I Kings 6:2 states: “And the length of the Temple Solomon built was 60 cubits.” The narrative continues (ibid.:17, 20): “The Sanctuary was 40 cubits long… and the space for the Ark was 20 cubits long.” Since the combined length of both chambers was only 60 cubits, the width of the wall had to be included in the measure of one of the chambers. However, it was not clear from which chamber it should be built (Jerusalem Talmud, Kelayim 8:4; see also Yoma 52a for a slightly different explanation).

The Marginita D’Rabbi Meir asks why the builders of the Second Temple were willing to add an extra cubit between the two chambers, when they hesitated to increase the width of the dividing wall. In resolution, it is explained that originally the eastern wall built by Solomon was seven cubits thick, while in the Second Temple, it was only six cubits thick. Thus, there was no change in the total length of the Temple building.

Bava Batra 3a, b explains that they did not build a wall because the Second Temple was higher than the First. The First Temple was only 30 cubits high. The Second Temple was 100 cubits high. A wall only a cubit thick would not be sturdy if built to such a height Nevertheless, the width of the wall was not increased, because its original width was established by Ruach HaKodesh, Divine revelation. Thus, they returned to the pattern established in the Sanctuary of Moses and utilized curtains as dividers.

Yoma 52b relates that the external curtain had an opening on the south and the inner curtain had an opening on the north. Thus, to enter the Holy of Holies, the High Priest had to go through the entire width of the Temple between the two curtains.

Tosafot (Yoma, ibid.) asks why they were not able to resolve their dilemma by hanging one curtain, a cubit in width.
In response, the commentary states that both curtains were necessary because the verse quoted above, “the curtain shall divide… “clearly implies that the sanctity of the Holy of Holies begins with the outer surface of the curtain. Thus, based on the possibility that the wall of the First Temple was included within the 20 cubits of the Holy of Holies, an additional cubit would have been included in this sacred area if only one curtain was used. From this perspective, the inner curtain had to be a distinct entity, marking the beginning of the most sacred chamber.
Conversely, based on the view that the wall had been included in the measure of the Sanctuary and that the wall and the Holy of Holies encompassed 21 cubits, a thick curtain would have been unnecessary, since the outer curtain was located where the division was required to be made.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the expression “First Temple” refers to the Sanctuary, for the First Temple itself had a wall rather than a curtain. However, Rav Yaakov Emden disputes this issue, quoting Yoma 54a which brings a number of Aggadot concerning the Ark and the curtain in the First Temple. The Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Middot 4:7) specifically states that there was a curtain in addition to the wall in the First Temple.

The source for the Rambam’s statements is Middot 4:6.

The Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah states that this base was embedded in the ground. In contrast, Rabbenu Shemaya explains that the base actually stood above the ground.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the addition of the word “resembling” in this halachah might imply that the Rambam changed his mind and adopted an interpretation similar to that of Rabbenu Shemaya.
Tosafot Yom Tov objects to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, explaining that it would be inappropriate to include the measure of this base in the height of the Temple. He also explains that in the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam adopted a different perspective. He thus defines the base as an extension of the steps leading to the Entrance Hall. These steps were six cubits high, the height of the base.
Tzurat HaBayit relates that there was a functional aspect to the base, and explains that it contained the lowest floor of the cells mentioned in Halachah 10.

Although the total height of Solomon’s Sanctuary was 30 cubits, the returning exiles built the Second Temple higher, basing their decision on Haggai 2:9: “The glory of this later house will be greater than that of the former.”

The Rambam’s commentary on the Mishnah indicates that builders made designs of cement and stone in the ceiling. Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura explains that the ceiling was coated with gold and that designs were engraved inside.

Rather than seep through to the ornate ceiling.

In this text and in the Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam merely writes that the empty space was left for water to collect. The Ra’avad mentions the concept of drainage, implying that the Rambam had not conceived of it. However, it may be assumed that this was the Rambam’s intention, since it is difficult to conceive why one would leave a space for water to collect without installing a drainage system. Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura and other commentaries on the Mishnah render the term “Beit Dilpa” differently, explaining that it refers to a solid wooden base which supported the roof.

Deuteronomy 22:8 commands: “When you build a new house, you shall construct a guard rail for the roof.” Though, in general, synagogues are not required to have a guardrail, because they are not owned by one individual and are not used as a dwelling (Chullin 6a), a guard rail was constructed for the Sanctuary.

The Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah translates that term as “the M raven decimator” and explains that the sharp blade would cut off the birds’ feet

Note the accompanying diagram, copied from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah published by Rav Kapach.
A Depiction of the Height of the Temple
(Based on the Diagrams Attributed to the Rambam which Accompany Rav Kapach’s Edition of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah)
A - The Base 6 cubits
B - The Sanctuary 40 cubits
C - The Ornate Ceiling 1 cubit
D - The Beis Dilphah 2 cubits
E - The Roof 1 cubit
F - The Plaster 1 cubit
G - The Temple’s Upper Story 40 cubits
H - The Ornate Ceiling 1 cubit
I - The Beis Dilphah 2 cubits
J - The Roof 1 cubit
K - The Plaster 1 cubit
L - The Guardrail 3 cubits
M - The Kelah Orav 1 cubit

I.e., from the far end of the Temple to its entrance.

The Rambam’s statements are based on the Mishnah, Middot 4:7. However, his interpretation of the Mishnah varies from the literal meaning.
The Mishnah relates all the measurements from the wall of the Entrance Hall, the easternmost point of the Temple building, until the end of the Holy of Holies. Afterwards, it continues: “The wall of the Temple was six [cubits], the cell was six [cubits], and the wall of the cell was five [cubits].”
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:3), the Rambam explains that unlike the northern, southern, and eastern external walls of the Temple, the two walls mentioned in the above Mishnah were not solid. Rather, each wall mentioned by the Mishnah refers to two walls, each a cubit thick, with a vacant space in between. Thus, there were really four walls, with three vacant spaces between. The vacant spaces are called cells, ta’im, in Hebrew and discussed in Halachah 10. In particular, the measurements of these vacant spaces are slightly different, as the Rambam explains:

As mentioned above, the width of all these walls was one cubit.

The length of the Holy of Holies and the Sanctuary was the same in the Second Temple as in the First. The length of the Tabernacle built by Moses was one half the combined length of both chambers. However, the same 2:1 ratio was followed regarding the chambers’ length.

As explained in Halachah 2.

The intent is actually two walls, each a cubit wide, with empty space between them.

Unlike the other walls mentioned previously, this wall was solid.

See the diagram on page 63 taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah.

This halachah is based on the continuation of the Mishnah (Middot 4:7) cited in the previous halachah. In this halachah as well, the Rambam does not follow a perfectly literal rendition of the Mishnah.

This was a solid wall with no vacant space in between, extending the entire length of the northern and southern sides of the Temple.

This and the previous line reflect one of the major differences between the Rambam’s concept of the Temple building and that of Rashi, the Ra’avad, and other commentaries.
The above mentioned Mishnah concludes: “The rear of the Temple was narrow and its front wide, resembling a lion as it is said (Isaiah 29:1): ‘Oh Ariel, Ariel (lit. Lion of God), the city where David encamped…’”
Rabbenu Shimshon, the Ra’avad and others explain that the Temple building had a T shape. The Entrance Hall and its adjoining chambers were 100 cubits wide. However, the Entrance Hall was only eleven cubits long. The remaining 89 cubits of the Temple’s length were only 70 cubits in width. The Mishnah states, “from north to south there were 70 cubits” and lists the division of that area. Afterwards, it concludes: “The Entrance Hall extended fifteen cubits to the north and fifteen cubits to the south… “implying, according to these authorities, that there were two measurements of the Temple’s width, one including the Entrance Hall and one without it.
In contrast, the Rambam conceived of the Temple as being shaped like a trapezoid. See the accompanying drawing taken from his Commentary to the Mishnah. See also Halachah 9.
At its easternmost point, the Entrance Hall, it was 100 cubits wide. However, that width was slightly diminished as one proceeded westward, so that it would be “lion-shaped.” His opinion is reinforced by the opening statement of Mishnah 4:6, which declares: “The Temple was 100 cubits by 100 cubits and 100 cubits tall,” implying that it was shaped like a cube, except for the slight reduction of its width towards the rear.
The Trapezoidal Shape of the Temple
(Based on the Diagrams Attributed to the Rambam which Accompany Rav Kapoch’s Edition of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah)
A - The Eastern Wall of the Temple
B - The Western Wall of the Temple
C - The Northern Wall of the Temple
D - The Southern Wall of the Temple

The abovementioned Mishnah reads:
The wall of the winding stairwell, five; the winding stairwell, three; the wall of the cell, five; the cell, six; the wall of the Sanctuary, six; the [Sanctuary’s] enclosed area, twenty; the wall of the Sanctuary, six; the cell, six; the wall of the cell, six; the drainage chamber, three; and the [outer] wall, five.
Again, the Rambam explains that the walls mentioned by the Mishnah were not solid, but rather, each was a cubit thick, with a hollow space in between. The Mishnah can be understood in terms of the Rambam’s words according to the clauses that follow:

This refers to the “winding stairwell” mentioned by the Mishnah on the north side and the “drainage chamber” on the south side.

This clause explains why the Rambam does not define “the walls” as solid structures. It is difficult to conceive that a three cubit chamber would be surrounded by two walls, each five cubits in thickness (Tzurat HaBayit).

This refers to “the wall of the cell.”

This refers to “the cell.”

This refers to “the wall of the Sanctuary.” According to the Rambam, the names for the cells mentioned above refer only to the lowest floor. The equivalent cells in the upper storeys were not called by these names.

In Solomon’s Temple as well, the Sanctuary was 20 cubits wide. In the desert, Moses’ Tabernacle was only 10 cubits wide. However, its length was also only half that of the Temple’s inner chambers.

According to the Rambam’s diagrams and Rav Kapach’s notes to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, the two wickets are placed at the entrance to the spaces between the fourth and fifth walls (counting from the outside) on the north and south sides respectively (see the diagram accompanying Halachah 4). This area is referred to as “the cell” in the abovementioned Mishnah.

The verse continues: “because the Lord, God of Israel enters through it.” The Midrash Tanchumah explains that this is an expression of God’s humility. Rather than enter through the “great gate,” God chooses to approach the Sanctuary through the modest wicket.

This halachah quotes Middot 4:2 and explains the manner in which the gates to the Sanctuary were opened each morning. Rather than open them from the front, the priests came in through the Entrance Hall, turned to the right, and entered through the wicket. They continued walking between the walls until reaching an opening from which they could enter the Sanctuary.

The term “great gate” is used because of the importance of its position, leading into the Sanctuary, and not because of the gate’s size. We find a similar example in Deuteronomy 1:7 which describes the Euphrates as “the great river,” though it is not physically large compared to other major rivers. The commentaries explain that this appellation was used because of its unique importance in marking the eastern boundary of Eretz Yisrael (Tosafot Yom Tov).
The Gates to the Temple
A - The Outer Gales
B - The Inner Gates

This was the standard size of the gates in the Temple (Middot 2:3).

Ezekiel’s vision of the Temple (41:13-24) explicitly describes “two doors to the Temple and to the Sanctuary… two doors for each [set ofj doors.”

Since this passage was six cubits long, the doors, each only five cubits wide, could not cover the walls entirely. Therefore, they were positioned one cubit inside the passageway (Kessef Mishneh). See the accompanying drawing.

Middot 4:1, which is the source for this halachah, continues: “The entire Temple was plated with gold except for the space behind the doors.” Thus, when the doors were opened, they were folded against the wall and they covered that space with gold as well.

This was the largest gateway of the entire Temple complex.

The commentaries explain that this gateway, the entrance to the Temple, was always open. In the same way, each Jew has an open pathway of prayer through which he can approach God at any time. Nevertheless, as stated in Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 7:17, there was a curtain covering this entrance.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Middot 3:7), the Rambam notes that attractive designs and forms were carved into these beams.

Chapter 1, Halachah 9, states that we are forbidden to build the Temple with wood that protrudes. The Tosafot Yom Tov notes this apparent contradiction and explains that these beams were embedded into the wall and were thus not “protruding.”

The entrance was twenty cubits wide and the five beams each extended one cubit on each side. Thus, the total length of the uppermost beam was thirty cubits.

To further enhance the appearance of the entrance.
Note the drawing accompanying the following halachah for a depiction of these beams and their position.

See the commentary to Halachah 5.

These balconies are explicitly mentioned in I Kings 6:5-6 and in Middot 4:4. However, the Rambam’s conception of these structures differs from that of other commentaries and has been the subject of much debate.

According to the Rambam, these balconies extended outward from the outermost wall of the Temple on every side except the east (the Temple’s facade, when approaching from the entrance to the Temple Courtyard).
On the surface, there is some difficulty with the Rambam’s statements. As stated above, the Rambam conceived of the Temple building as a trapezoid. The wings of the Entrance Hall continued to the rear of the building, and the wall surrounding them was the Temple’s most external wall. If so, it would seem that the balconies mentioned here should have extended out from that wall and not from the wall of the winding stairwell.

A projection served as a roof for the lower balcony, and above it was another balcony having the same length as the projection. See the accompanying diagram which was copied from Rav Kapach’s edition of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah.
The Balconies Surrounding the Temple
(Based on the Diagrams Attributed to the Rambam which Accompany Rav Kapach’s Edition of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah)
A - The Temple’s Outer Wall on both the Northern and Southern Sides
B - A Balcony of 5 cubits
C - A Pavement of 6 cubits
D - A Balcony of 6 cubits
E - A Pavement of 7 cubits
F - A Balcony of 7 cubits

From the north, south, and west; corresponding to the right, left, and rear of the Temple when facing it from the entrance to the Temple Courtyard.
As mentioned above, the Rambam’s conception of these balconies differs from that of the other commentaries. Rashi and the Ra’avad explain that the verses and the Mishnah mentioned above refer to the cells mentioned in Halachot 4, 5, and 10. According to those commentaries, there were no balconies at all. The Tosafot Yom Tov mentions the Rambam’s opinion. However, the diagrams drawn by the Rambam himself and accompanying his Commentary to the Mishnah (as published in Rav Kapach’s edition) were not at his disposal. Hence, there may be some imprecision in his interpretation of the Rambam’s words.
To understand the Rambam, we must return to the original sources. However, even that is not easy, since most available translations and even most commentaries in Hebrew follow Rashi’s view.
The following is a rendition of the verses in Kings, according to the Rambam:
And on the walls of the House, he. constructed a side-structure surrounding the walls of the House, the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies. He made projections around [the House]. The lowest structure was five cubits wide; the middle one, six cubits wide, and the third, seven cubits wide. He placed structures diminishing in size for the House, surrounding it on its exterior, so that [the people] will not take hold of the House.
The Mishnah interprets those verses as follows:
The lowest [balcony] was five [cubits wide - as mentioned in the verse]. There was a projection of six cubits [the projection mentioned in the verse.) The middle one was six cubits, and there was an additional projection of seven cubits. The upper one was seven cubits wide.
The Rambam’s diagrams show a straight outer wall of the Temple, and balconies which diminish in length on their outer side (in contrast to the explanation offered by the Tosafot Yom Tov).
The balconies in the Rambam’s drawings were built as a protective measure, to insure that the priests show proper respect for the Temple and do not lean against its walls.

These projections also are the subject of a difference in opinion between Rashi and the Rambam. The source for the debate is the interpretation of Middot 3:6 which states:
There were 22 cubits between the Entrance Hall and the Altar. There were twelve steps there. Each step was half a cubit high and one cubit wide. A cubit, a cubit; and a protrusion of three; a cubit, a cubit, and a protrusion of three; on the highest level, a cubit, a cubit, and a protrusion of four.
Rashi interprets the entire mishnah as referring to the steps leading to the Entrance Hall. In order to fill the space between the Altar and the Entrance Hall, platforms were inserted into the steps. Thus, there were three empty cubits before the first step, a step, a step, and a platform of three, etc. until one reached the Entrance Hall.
Rav Kapach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah sees the ishnah as referring to two separate subjects, the steps which had been mentioned previously and protrusions which he describes as follows:
Afterwards, [the ishnah] states that the wall of the Entrance Hall was built in the following pattern. A cubit long portion of the wall was left vacant as all the other walls… Above it there was a structure protruding from the wall, three cubits high… called a projection. Similarly, the entire height [of the wall)… had one cubit of[vacant] wall space, a projection of three cubits… until the uppermost projection, which was four cubits high.
Note the accompanying drawing on the next page copied from Rav Kapach’s edition of the Commentary to the Mishnah. Rather than picture the front wall of the Temple as a flat structure, the Rambam depicts it as being covered with these projections.

All four walls of the Temple were covered with projections to prevent the priests from leaning against them.
The Temple Eastern Wall
(Based on Diagram, Attributed to the Rambam which Accompany Rav Kapach’s Edition of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah)
A - A Projection, 3 cubits in height
B - An Empty cubit
C - The Uppermost Projection, 4 cubits in height

Extending out from the front facade.

See the accompanying diagram for an artist’s conception of the Temple’s front facade.
The Facade of the Eastern Wall of the Temple
A - The Steps Leading to the Temple
B - The Gateway to the Entrance Hall
C - The Beams of Oak which were Embedded Above the Gateway
D - The Tier of Stone Placed Between the Oak Beams
E - The Projections Mentioned in this Halachah.

As mentioned in the commentary on Halachot 4 and 5, the Rambam has a different conception of the cells than the other commentaries.
Middot 4:3 states:
There were 38 cells: five in the north, five in the south, and eight in the west. In the north and in the south, there were five above five, with five above them. In the west, there were three above three, with two above them.
Middot 4:7 states:
The wall of the winding stairwell, five; the winding stairwell, three; the wall of the cell, five; the cell, six; the wall of the Sanctuary, six; the [Sanctuary’s] enclosed area, twenty; the wall of the Sanctuary, six; the cell, six; the wall of the cell, six; the drainage chamber, three; and the [outer) wall, five.
Rashi and the Ra’avad explain the two mishnayot simply: The chamber referred to as “the cell” in ishnah 4:7 was, in fact, divided lengthwise into five cells on the northern and southern sides of the Temple, with three cells on the western side. All the other specific dimensions mentioned by the ishnah can thus be understood without any difficulty.
In contrast, the Rambam explains that the walls mentioned in the ishnah 4:7 were not solid. but rather, double walls, each a cubit in thickness, and with a hollow space in between. The five cells mentioned in 4:3 thus, refer to the five vacant spaces between the walls. These spaces extended the entire length of the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies on the northern and southern sides, and the three cells extended to the three vacant spaces between the walls on the western side.
Note the accompanying drawings copied from Rav Kapach’s edition of the Commentary to the Mishnah. The three divisions must be seen as being placed one on top of the other.
The Cells of the Northern and Southern Walls of the Temple
(Based on the Diagrams Attributed to the Rambam which Accompany Rav Kapach’s Edition of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah)
A, B, C, D, and E refer to the cells on the lowest storey of the northern and southern sides of the Temple.
A refers to “the wall of the winding stairwell” on the northern side and correspondingly, “the [outer] wall” on the southern side.
B refers to “the winding stairwell” on the northern side and correspondingly, “the drainage chamber” on the southern side.
C refers to “the wall of the cell” on both northern and southern sides.
D refers to “the cell” on both the northern and southern sides.
E refers to “the wall of the Sanctuary” on both the northern and southern sides.
F refers lo cells on the second and third stories which do not have a name
The Cells of the Western Wall of the Temple
(Based on the Diagrams Attributed to the Rambam which Accompany Rav Kapach’s Edition of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah)
A, B, and C refer to the first storey of cells.
D, E, and F, refer to the second story.
G and H refer to the third storey.

The lowest level was six cubits high, equal to the height of the Temple’s base. The other two levels were each twenty cubits high. As the Rambam states in Halachah 12, the roof of the cells was on the same level as the upper storey of the Sanctuary.

The addition of the words “on one level” is necessary. Since the pattern of cells differed in the west, one might think that rather than have only three levels as in the north and south, the ishnah’s words “two above them” could be interpreted as follows: There were four levels of cells, the latter two each possessing one cell. With this addition, the Rambam prevents this misconception from arising.

They were used for storage.

The source for this halachah is Middot 4:7. The Rambam’s interpretation again differs from that of Rashi.
Rashi would interpret right and left as lengthwise in the row of cells. According to the Rambam, the expressions right and left refer, as they have throughout the discussion of the Temple, to these directions as one faces the Holy of Holies, north and south respectively.

This refers to the bottom floor of cells which had openings to the cells above them and the upper floor which had openings to the cells below. The middle floor of cells had four openings, because it had openings both to the cells below and to the cells above.

This clause, a continuation of the above mentioned ishnah, represents one of the major difficulties in regard to the Rambam’s interpretation. The Rambam cannot contradict an explicit ishnah, yet his interpretation of the ishnah’s text is by no means straightforward. According to the Rambam, this cell is positioned above the cell called “the winding stairwell.” Though it is not the northernmost cell, it is still referred to as “the cell in the northeast corner.”

To the northernmost cell, the cell over “the wall of the winding stairwell.”

In the third storey of cells.

The cell below it.

“Towards,” but not “to.” The cell did not possess an entrance to the cell with the wicket, the latter being the second of the cells and the cell in question being the fourth.

Here, the word Temple is being used loosely. It does not refer to the Sanctuary itself, but to the Entrance Hall. Nevertheless, the latter can also be called the Sanctuary as evidenced by the Rambam’s statements in Chapter 1, Halachah 5.
Furthermore, there is an additional problem: The ishnah appeared to intend to single out this cell by the fact that it had five entrances. However, according to the Rambam’s interpretation, the cell with the wicket also possessed five entrances: One to the Sanctuary, one to the Entrance Hall, one to the cell above it, one to the cell below it, and one to the cell on its right.

According to the Rambam, one must differentiate between the chamber called the winding stairwell and the winding stairwell itself.
The chamber called the winding stairwell refers to the second cell on the right, on the lowest floor. The winding stairwell began at the easternmost point of this cell (the side closest to the Entrance Hall).

Walking within the cells a distance of approximately 66 cubits.

The stairwell ascended approximately 22 cubits across this length.

Proceeding within the cells a distance of approximately 50 cubits.

Ascending approximately 17 cubits along this length.

Ascending the remaining height (approximately 11 cubits).

Which was on the same level as the roof of the cells

Slightly beyond the dividing line between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies.

Which is the roof of the Temple building.

Some commentaries explain that these marking posts were placed on the roof of the upper storey. However, the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Middot 4:5), explicitly states that they were placed on the floor of the top level.
In addition to these marking posts, two curtains were hung in the upper storey, resembling the curtains which divided the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies (Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 7:17).

Chapter 7, Halachah 23, states that once every seven years, they entered the upper storey so that they could descend from there to inspect the Holy of Holies. Rather than enter the Holy of Holies directly, they used these apertures.

They would try to find craftsmen who were priests for this task. If no qualified priests could be found, they searched for Levites. If they could not find capable Levites, they would assign the task to Israelites (ibid.).

Tosafot Yom Tov writes that the boxes were closed on three sides and open on the fourth.

Pesachim 26a states that one is not required to bring a guilt offering for deriving

The source for the Rambam’s statements is Middot 3:4. However, it is difficult to understand which part of the Temple building was to be covered with cement. As explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 14, the exterior of the Temple building was made of fine marble, and at times, it was coated with gold. Surely, these attractive surfaces would not be covered with simple cement.
There are sources who suggest that it was the Temple ceiling that was coated with cement each year. It is our prayer that the Temple will be rebuilt in the near future and then, we will understand the Rambam’s intent.