Beit Habechirah - Chapter 5

The commentaries, basing themselves on the Jerusalem Talmud (Eruvin 2:5), explain that this figure was derived as follows:

Exodus 27:18 states: 'The length of the courtyard shall be 100 cubits and its width, 50 by 50.' This verse can obviously not be understood literally, for area has only two coordinates. Hence, the Sages explained that rather than refer to the courtyard of the Tabernacle, the verse describes a measure related to the future Sanctuaries. The Temple Tabernacle, the verse describes a measure related to the future Sanctuaries. The Temple Mount measured a total of 50 x 100 x 50 cubits in area, i.e., a total of 250,000 sq. cubits.

The Piskei Tosafot (Middot 5) relate that the total area of the Temple Mount was greater than 250,000 sq. cubits. However, only the latter figure was consecrated.

With the exception of the wall on the eastern side, the walls on all sides were very high. We know that their gates were 20 cubits high and the walls themselves were even higher. In modern terms, that would mean at least 10 meters (32.5 feet high).

Tumat Ohel refers to ritual impurity contracted by being under the same tent or structure as a corpse. Even thought the corpse is buried, ritual impurity can be contracted unless there is a vacant space between the corpse and the earth above it. To prevent the possibility of impurity from a grave under the Temple courtyard, the entire earth below was hollowed out. See Parah 3:3.

Though the Mishnah (Parah, loc. cit.) states that the earth beneath the Temple was hollowed out, it does not mention the construction of arches. However, since the Mishnah (ibid.:6) states that arches supported the ramp leading from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives, we may assume that a similar technique was used in the instance (Kessef Mishneh). See also the commentary to Chapter 1, Halachah 13.

With the exception of the Temple Courtyard.

Rashi (Pesachim 13a) explains that this roof was built to protect the visitors to the Temple fom rain.

Middot 1:3 relates that this gate was called Kaiphonus. The Shiltei Giborim explains that this means 'garden' in Greek. The name was given because a rose was planted outside this gate.

This gate was called the Gate of Shushan, and the image of the city of Shushan was engraved upon it. This was done at the command of King Cyrus of Persia, who gave permission for the Temple to be rebuilt.

It was called the Tadi gate, meaning 'hiddenness.' This gate was used when someone was forced to leave the Temple, but he did not want to publicize the circumstances (Middot 1:9, 2:2). Its construction differed from that of the other gates. Rather than have an ordinary lintel, it had two stones leaning against each other (ibid.:3).

These were the gates most frequently used to enter the Temple Mount. They were named after the prophetess Chuldah. In the time of the First Temple, she stood before these gates and urged the people to repent.

The tractate Sofrim 19:12 relates that there were two additional gates to the Temple Mount: one for mourners and one for grooms. The Jewish people would sit between these two gates waiting to console the mourners and join in the celebration of the grooms. The Kaftor ViPerach states that these gates were on the east, to the north of the gate of Shushan. They were called the 'gates of mercy.' Today, the term is used to refer to the two gates on the east side of the Temple Mount, which can be seen from the Mount of Olives and are permanently shut.

This was the standard size of the gates in the Temple complex.

In contrast to the gateway to the Entrance Hall, which had no doors.

Made of wooden shafts arranged in a crisscross pattern.

Rabbenu Asher explains that this structure was constructed to allow the articles to be carried on the Sabbath. Therefore, it was made 10 handbreadths high. The Temple Mount was surrounded by a wall and, therefore, could not be considered a public domain. Nonetheless, its size exceeded the limits placed by the Sages, and without this partition, there would have been a Rabbinic against carrying on the Sabbath.

The Tosafot Yom TOv (Middot 2:3) objects to this reasoning, explaining that the Rabbinic prohibitions regarding the Sabbath were generally relaxed within the Temple premises. Instead, he offers the hypothesis that this partition served to delineate the point beyond which gentiles were not allowed to proceed.

Middot 2:3 states: 'The Chayl, ten cubits.' In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Middot 1:4), the Rambam describes the Chayl as a rampart. He, therefore, interprets this statement as referring to its height. In contrast, Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura does not define the Chayl as a wall. Rather, he refers to it as an empty space, 10 cubits wide.

In this halachah, the Rambam does not mention the Women's Courtyard (See Halachah 7), because he intends to list the dividers which circumscribe an area of the Temple Mount on all four sides. The Women's Courtyard had the same dimensions as the Temple Courtyard on the north and south. Hence, it was not mentioned in this place.

See Halachot 12 and where the Rambam details the space allocation of the Temple Courtyard.

This statement raises a number of problems: Three mishnayot in the tractate of Middot mention the number of gates to the Temple Courtyard:

Mishnah 1:1 states: "The Levites [stood guard] in twenty one places: five at the five gates of the Temple Courtyard...."

Mishnah 1:4 states: "There were seven gates to the Temple Courtyard...."

Mishnah 2:6 states: "Thirteen prostrations were carried out there. Abba Yossi ben Chanan declared: 53[These were instituted] because of the thirteen gates... 54

It is difficult to conceive that the Mishnah would contradict itself within the same tractate. The apparent discrepancies can be explained as follows: The Sages do not disagree about the number of entrances to the Temple Courtyard. They did, however, debate the question of which entrance met the legal criteria for a gate. Guards were required to stand watch over every entrance that was considered a gate.

Similarly, although a person who is ritually impure may not enter the Temple premises, it is not clear whether he would be obligated to bring a sin offering if he came in through an entrance which is not considered a gate. See Chapter 8, Halachah 8, and Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 18, p.212-217.

These gates were:

a) the gate of the spark. A two-floor structure with an entrance to the chayl.

b) the gate of the offerings. The most sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity, were slaughtered on the north side of the courtyard, and were brought in through this gate.

c) the gate to the Chamber of the Hearth. See Halachah 10.

The Gate of Nicanor. It was most commonally used to enter the Temple Courtyard. The notes to the following halachah offers an explanation of that name.

This was the standard size of the gates on the Temple Mount.

See Chapter 1, Halachot 11 and 19.

As mentioned in the beginning of Chapter 6, the Temple was built on an incline and had steps leading from the Women's Courtyard to the gate of Nicanor. Hence, the gate leading to the Women's Courtyard was referred to as the lower gate, and the gate of Nicanor, the Upper Gate. See Hilchot Klei HaMikdash, Chapter 7, Mishnah 6.

In honor of the noble person who donated its doors.

Yoma 38a relates that Nicanor journeyed to Alexandria to ask the skilled bronzeworkers there to fashion these gates. When the gates were finished, he set sail with them to return to Eretz Yisrael.

At sea, a violent storm almost capsized the vessel. After other measures failed, the crew members decided to jettison some of the ship's cargo to reduce its weight. Immediately, they tossed one of the heavy bronzed gates to the waves.

The danger did not cease, and the crew wanted to cast the second gate overboard as well. Hearing this, Nicanor protested and declared that he would have to be thrown into the sea before the gate. Directly after he made that statement, the storm subsided and the ship was able to proceed.

Throughout the remainder of the journey, Nicanor was overcome with remorse. Why, he thought, hadn't he defended the first gate as well? How great was his joy when the ship docked at Acre and the gate emerged from under its hull.

When the financial situation of the Jewish people improved, they replaced all the Temple's bronze gates with gold-covered gates. Nevertheless, they allowed Nicanor's gates to remain in memory of the miracles which occurred. The Sages declared: "Their bronze shined like gold."

As mentioned above (Halachah 2), the main entrance to the Temple Mount was on the South. Therefore, more space was left in this direction, and more Temple functions were carried out on that side.

In deference to the Holy of Holies, no mundane business was carried on behind it. Hence, less space was left there than in the other directions.

According to most opinions, the Wailing Wall at which we worship today, is the western wall which surrounded the Temple Mount (Kaftor Viperach).

The Tosafot Yom Tov calculated the distances between the Temple Courtyard and the walls as follows:

Between the Courtyard and the southern wall, 250 cubits,

Between the Courtyard and the eastern wall, 213 cubits,

Between the Courtyard and the northern wall, 115 cubits,

Between the Courtyard and the western wall, 100 cubits.

The reason for this name is explained in Halachah 9 and notes.

Except for certain unique circumstances, people entered the Temple through this area.

The chambers were inside the walls of the Courtyard, and not on the outside.

The Mishnah (Middot 2:5) bases the latter statement on the prophecy of Ezekiel (46:21-22): "Then he took me out into the outer courtyard.... Behold, there was a chamber in each corner of the courtyard. At the four corners, there were roofless chambers...."

The chamber to the left upon entering the Women's Courtyard.

Numbers 6:18 commands: "The Nazirite shall shave off the crown of hair on his head before the Tent of Meeting. He shall take the hair... and place it in the fire under the peace offering." Nazir 45a explains that, in deference to the presence of the Shechinah, the shaving was not carried out before the Sanctuary itself, but rather in this chamber, while the door to the Sanctuary was open. See also Hilchot Nizirut 8:2-3.

The chamber to the right upon entering.

Leviticus 21:16-24 lists the physical deformities which disqualified a priest for Temple service and the relevant regulations. See also Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, Chapter 6.

Just as the choicest animals should be chosen for the sacrifices, so too, the wood used to burn them should be of the highest quality (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, 6:1-2).

The chamber on the right side before the entrance to the Temple Courtyard.

It contained a mikveh in which those seeking purification from tzara'at immersed themselves as part of their process of regaining ritual purity. See Hilchot Michusrei Kapporah, Chapter 4.

The chamber on the left side before the entrance to the Temple Courtyard.

Its name mentioned oil rather than wine, because a sacrifice is acceptable if a wine libation is lacking. In contrast, all meal offerings are invalidated if they lack oil (Yeriat Shlomo).

Women were not allowed to enter the Temple Courtyard except to perform certain rituals in connection with sacrifices which they had brought. However, they were permitted to enter this outer courtyard and therefore, it was named accordingly.

The Mishnah (Middot 2:5) relates that these balconies were a later addition to the Temple structure.

On the festival of Sukkot, the entire Jewish nation would gather in this courtyard to watch the Simchat Beit HaShoevah celebrations (the festivities associated with the water libation). Though the men and the women were seated in separate sections, the closeness between them aroused a certain dimension of frivolity which was not appropriate to the holiness of the occasion. To avoid such circumstances, these balconies were constructed. See also Sukkot 51b.

Although the Kessef Mishneh and other commentaries explain that half of the Chamber of the Hearth was positioned within the Temple Courtyard, and half on the outside, the diagrams drawn by the Rambam depict it as being positioned entirely outside the Courtyard's walls.

To the right upon entering the Temple Courtyard.

As a roof.

On which the priests slept at night (Tamid 1:1).

Because the priests kindled a fire there to keep warm.

Each morning, the priests entered the Courtyard through this entrance to prepare it for the morning sacrifices.

A priest who became impure at night and therefore, could not participate in the Temple services would leave through this exit.

Middot 1:5 describes the chambers as resembling "bedrooms opening out to a large hallway."

Note the accompanying diagram which was copied from the Rambam's drawings in his Commentary to the Mishnah.

Thus they were considered extensions of the Temple Courtyard. This distinction is significant in regard to the prohibition against eating the sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity outside the Temple Courtyard.

According to the interpretation of the Kessef Mishneh mentioned above, this statement is quite clear. Two chambers were situated inside the Temple Courtyard, and two were on the outside. However, according to the Rambam, the entire structure was situated outside the Temple Courtyard. If so, how could two structures be consecrated?

This difficulty can be resolved as follows: The Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aser Sheni 3:4) states that chambers which are built on ground that was not consecrated, but which open up to the Temple Courtyard, are considered as consecrated. Should they open up to the outside, they are not sacred. According to the Rambam's diagram, the two southern chambers of the Chamber of the Hearth faced the Temple Courtyard, while the two northern chambers faced the chayl. Hence, the southern chambers alone were consecrated. See also Chapter 6, Halachah 8.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam defines "marking posts" as "a lattice divider, sometimes made of reeds, sometimes made of wood, and at other times, made of other building materials." They were placed on the ceiling of this structure.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid, loc. cit.), the Rambam writes that the priests only slept in the part of the chamber which was not consecrated. Hence, these marking posts were useful in clarifying this matter to them.

The chamber to the right when facing the Temple Courtyard.

Here the lambs to be offered as daily sacrifices were inspected to see if they had any disqualifying blemishes. The lambs were kept in this chamber before they were sacrificed. In Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 1:9, the Rambam writes that at least six lambs were always kept in this chamber.

The chamber to the left when facing the Temple Courtyard.

16The southeastern [chamber] - The chamber to the left when facing the Temple Courtyard.

Here, the Showbread offered each Sabbath on the Golden Table was baked.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 15.

The Greeks who occupied Jerusalem before the Maccabean revolt defiled the altar by offering sacrifices to idols upon it.

Tamid 3:3 mentions that there was a Chamber of Seals within the Chamber of the Hearth. There, the priests would authorize the sale of the wine and meal offerings. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Middot 1:5), the Rambam explains that this chamber was used for that purpose in addition to the entombment of the altar's stones.

As explained in the following halachah.

Tamid 1:1 relates that the priests slept in the Chamber of the Hearth. "If one of them had a seminal emission [in his sleep,] he would descend to the mikveh."

The emission of semen renders a man ritually impure (Leviticus 15:16). Thus, a priest who had a nocturnal emission may not enter the Temple premises or take part in its services. The process of ritual purification involves immersion in a mikveh and waiting until nightfall. In the morning, the priest left the Temple premises through the gate leading to the chayl (Tamid, loc. cit.).

An intricate chain of underground passageways was located under the Temple Mount, including this stairwell leading to a natural reservoir of water where a mikveh was constructed.

This halachah raises a question. As mentioned above, in this condition, the priests were not able to enter the Temple premises. If so, how could they enter these passageways which passed under consecrated ground?

The commentaries answer (see Chapter 8, Halachah 7) that since these underground passageways did not open to the Temple Courtyard itself, they were not consecrated. See Pesachim 86a.

The fire that the priests kindled at night, from which the entire chamber derived its name. See Tamid 3:3.

I.e., a toilet.

Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura wrote that no one ever entered this toilet while it was occupied by another person.

There are additional references to the Chamber of the Hearth and to the stairwell leading to the mikveh in Chapter 8, Halachot 5-7.

This measure did not include the width of the courtyard's walls.

As explained above, Chapter 3, Halachah 4.

The washbasin and the steps leading to the Entrance Hall (See Chapter 6, Halachah 4) were located here.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 7.

When they were not directly involved with the Temple services.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.

As explained in Chapter 7, Halachah 19, an Israelite was only allowed beyond this region for four reasons:

a) to perform semichah on an animal he had brought as a sacrifice;

b) to offer the confessional prayers that accompany the sacrifices;

c) to slaughter a sacrificial animal;

d) to wave the peace offerings.

The source for this halachah and those following is the fifth chapter of the tractate of Middot. It must be noted that the Rambam's text of the Mishnah does not have a fifth chapter. Rather, all these mishnayot are included as mishnah 8 of Chapter 3.

See the diagram of the Temple Courtyard at the conclusion of this chapter.

The Rambam describes the breakdown of this figure in this and the following three halachot.

In this instance as well, the width of the courtyard's walls are not included in the total measure.

This area included eight posts permanently affixed to the floor of the Courtyard. The posts were made of a short stone pillar in which was embedded a post of cedar wood. Each post had three iron hooks from which the sacrifices were suspended (Middot 3:5).

Also, at this time, the limbs of the animal which was suspended on these hooks were cut off, and given to the priests to bring to the altar.

Middot 5:2 states as follows:

The ramp and the altar took up 62 cubits. From the altar to the rings, there were eight cubits. The area of the rings was 24 cubits wide. There were four cubits between the rings and the tables, and four cubits from the tables to the short pillars. From the short pillars to the wall of the Courtyard were eight cubits. The remainder [of the 5 cubits] was taken up by the short pillars and by the space between the ramp and [the Courtyard's northern] wall.

The Rambam's interpretation of the mishnah divides the 25 remaining cubits equally between the area of the pillars, the butchering area mentioned in the previous halachah, and the space between the ramp and the southern wall. The Rambam also combined the two measurements given for the space of the tables into one figure (Kessef Mishneh).

As mentioned on several occasions above, an effort was made to use gold for all utensils in the Temple. However, marble was sometimes used, because it is a poorer conductor of heat. In this case as well, marble tables were used lest the heat cause the meat to spoil.

This statement is somewhat difficult. Tamid 4:2 states that a sacrificial animal's internal organs, except for its stomach, were washed on these tables. It does not mention the washing of the meat at all. The Rambam states that the internal organs were washed in the Washing Chamber (see Halachah 17) and that these tables were used for washing the meat. The commentaries question the source for the Rambam's statements (Ra'avad). Kin'at Eliyahu emphasizes that the Rambam's wording indicates that here we are not speaking about meat offered on the altar, but meat cooked and eaten by the priests.

As a preliminary stage in the process of salting meat, the meat must be washed to remove all surface blood.

See Shekalim 3:4.

Tosafot (Yoma 16b) notes that Yoma 30b describes the tables as being placed between the pillars. Two possible explanations are offered:

a) there were two sets of tables: one between the pillars, and one to their left;

b) even though there was a small gap between the pillars and the tables, the expression "between the tables" could be used.

These rings were permanently affixed to the floor of the Temple Courtyard, at the request of Yochanan, the High Priest. The feet of an animal brought as a sacrifice were placed inside the rings to hold the animal in place while it was being slaughtered. (See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah 5:2. Note Rashi, Sukkah 56a for a different interpretation of the rings' use.)

There were 24 rings. There is a debate in Middot 3:5 whether there were six rows of four rings, or four rows of six. Though the Rambam does not specify which opinion he follows, his diagrams which accompany his Commentary to the Mishnah apparently tend toward the former opinion.

As mentioned in Halachah 16, the sacrifices of the most sacred order had to be slaughtered in the northern portion of the courtyard. The rings included in that region were therefore used for this purpose. The sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness could be slaughtered any place within the Temple courtyard. When many people brought their sacrifices at the same time, for example on the festivals, the priests took advantage of this leniency.

Note the accompanying diagram.

See Middot 3:5.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 7.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 13.

See the notes to Halachah 14 of this chapter.

The wall on the right upon entering.

More specifically, the base of the altar.

That measurement can be broken down as follows:

the space between the pillars and the northern wall 8 cubits,

the area of the pillars 12.5 cubits,

the area of the tables 8 cubits,

the area of the rings 24 cubits,

the space between the rings and the altar 8 cubits.

See Halachah 12.

Leviticus 1:11 declares that the burnt offerings are to be slaughtered "on the north side of the altar." Similar instructions were given in regard to sin offerings, guilt offerings, and communal peace offerings.

This definition of "the northern portion" of the Temple Courtyard follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah HaNasi (Zevachim 20a).

See Middot 5:3, 4 and 1:4.

These chambers were not situated parallel to each other.

The side of the Temple Courtyard to the left when facing the Temple building.

This chamber was named after a Gentile magician who dug an tunnel under the Temple Courtyard to observe the services. He was discovered and killed on the spot (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Middot 5:3).

The Rambam writes in Hilchot Issurei HaMizbayach 5:11:

It is a positive commandment to salt all sacrifices before they are brought up to the altar, as in Leviticus 2:13: "You shall offer salt on all your sacrifices."

In Halachah 13 there, he continues:

They placed salt [on the sacrifices] in three places: in the Chamber of Salt, on the ramp [leading to the altar,] and on the top of the altar.

The Lechem Mishneh explains that salt for all the Temple's needs was stored in this chamber.

The hides of the sacrifices were given to the priests for their private use. They were treated with salt to preserve them.

16There is a difficulty with this halachah. In Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach (loc. cit.), the Rambam states that the hides were salted in the Chamber of Salt. The Lechem Mishneh resolves that difficulty by explaining that although the salt was stored in the Chamber of Salt, the actual salting of the hides was carried out in Parve's Chamber.

On Yom Kippur, the High Priest immersed himself in the mikveh five times. Except for the first immersion, all were carried out in this mikveh (Yoma 3:3).

As mentioned previously in Halachah 14, there is a slight difficulty with this statement. Tamid 4:2 states that the internal organs were washed on the tables, except for the lower digestive organs. They were not washed in the open since it was not proper to spill out their contents before the Temple building. However, the Rambam goes beyond that source and states that all internal organs were washed in this chamber.

Allowing access to the mikveh located there.

The name "Chamber of Wood" is somewhat problematic. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 9, it is forbidden to build a chamber of wood in the Temple Courtyard. The commentaries explain that the chamber itself was not made of wood. However, it was given that name either because it was used to store wood or because it had wooden paneling.

Only kings from the House of David were allowed to sit in the Temple Courtyard (Yoma 25a).

This name was given because of the seats of hewn stone upon which the Sanhedrin were seated. Two reasons are given for the placement of Israel's highest court in the Temple Courtyard. Firstly, to a large extent, they were involved with judging cases related to the priesthood (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:11).

Secondly, the holiness of the Temple inspired their decisions and provided them with additional insight. Once the Sanhedrin was forced to leave this site, it was not granted the authority to judge capital cases.

Considered as part of the Temple Courtyard.

Commenting on the Mishnah, the Rambam states that the chamber was situated entirely within the Courtyard. Nevertheless, half is considered unconsecrated because one entrance opened to the outside. In Chapter 6, Halachah 7, the Rambam states that even if a chamber is built within the Courtyard, if it opens to the outside, it is not considered consecrated. The Chamber of Hewn Stone had two entrances, one leading into the Temple Courtyard and one leading outside. Therefore, half was consecrated and half was not.

Nevertheless, there are unresolved difficulties concerning this Halachah. Among them:

a) How was it possible for all the judges and the students who would attend the sessions of the Sanhedrin to sit in so small an area?

b) Which entrance leading from the Courtyard is referred to? It was not mentioned among the seven gates mentioned in Halachah 5:4 or even among the 13 gates listed in Middot 2:6.

Seven days before Yom Kippur, the High Priest left his own home and adjourned to this chamber, where he busied himself, preparing for the service of that holy day (Yoma 2a).

Yoma 8b (note Rashi's commentary) explains that the name Parhedrin meant "officer of the king." This name was given to this chamber in the days of the Second Temple when the High Priests would purchase this office from the king at a high price.

These "High Priests" were not righteous and as a sign of Divine retribution, they would die within a year of assuming office. Upon their death, the position would be sold again. To emphasize that these "High Priests" received the position through bribery and not through merit, they were referred to as "the officers of the king."

Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura explains that one roof was placed over all three buildings. However, the Rambam's diagrams do not appear to subscribe to this idea.

See Middot 1:4.

The clothes-butler was responsible for weaving and knitting the priestly garments (Hilchot Klai HaMikdash 7:20).

According to the commentaries (Shekalim 5:1), the first person entrusted with this task in the second Temple was named Pinchas. Hence, all his successors were called by that name.

This term refers to a meal offering, prepared in a frying pan. The product resembled pancakes. This offering was prepared every day in this chamber and brought by the High Priest, as commanded in Leviticus 6:13-15.