Now, there is an issue, as it is not allowed to have any protruding wood in the Azarah (Rambam Hilchos Beis Habechirah 1:9). Now, in the first Beis Hamikdash this is not a problem, as the beams were sunk into the wall and covered with plaster (and it can be that this is the reason Shlomo made it like this, so there won't be a problem), however in the second Beis Hamikdash there is a problem, as the wood was not sunk into the wall or covered over.
   [There are those who say (Biurei Hagra to Middos 3:8) that only vertical beams are forbidden, as the issur is learned from the passuk that talks about a tree, so even regular wood is only forbidden when it is standing like a tree, but if it is laying down horizontally it is not a problem. Based on this, we can also answer our current question, as the beams in the walls were also lying down horizontally. However, most opinions don't mention such a differentiation, and it seems that they don't hold of it.]
   Some Mefarshim answer (Tiferes Yisrael Middos 1:6 Boaz #5, see also Teshovos Haradvaz volume 5 Teshuvah 1467, Ma'aseh Rokeach and Har Hamoriah on Rambam Hilchos Beis Habechirah 1:9) that the problem is only with protruding wood, but if the wood is flush with the wall, even though it is not sunken in, it is fine. However, the Lubavitcher Rebbe brings sources that hold that even if it is not protruding it is a problem, and it must be sunk in or covered over with plaster or gold (Likutei Sichos volume 28, page 220, footnote 21). In fact, the Alter Rebbe writes in Likutei Torah (V'zos Habrachah 99d) that the proof of the Gemara that the king of Persia soured is because he said to put in these wooden beams in a way that is forbidden.
   Now, based on this we can ask if they actually built it like he said. There are opinions that this Issur is M'drabanan (Ramban Devarim 16:21, Kesef Mishnah to Rambam Hilchos Avodah Zara 6:9), so we can say that Beis Din ruled that we can build it like this so as not to get into problems with the king (this is what Yosef Meiyers has written). However, even if we say this, most probably after the Greeks conquered Eretz Yisrael and the Yidden were not under Persian rule, they would have plastered over the beams, or cut into it to make it sunken into the wall, so there will be no problem.

   In the eastern wall of the Har Habayis there are two gates that still have some remains, these are the Sha'ar Harachamim, which is actually a double gate, and another double gate by the southeastern corner. By the Sha'ar Harachamim, the only parts that are from the times of the Beis Hamikdash are two large doorposts on either side of the gate, the whole rest of the building is from later periods. The same is true of the gate by the corner, all that is left is a few stones from the doorposts and the pier separating the two entrances of this double gate.  

  Furthermore, Josephus writes (Antiquities 15:11:1, Yosifun chapter 55) that Hurdus, in his speech to the Yidden to get them to let him build the Beis Hamikdash, says that the Yidden when they returned from Bavel, they did not build the Beis Hamikdash in its original size, but rather smaller, based on the instructions of the kings of Persia. From this we see that they actually made it smaller.

​    Now, about the width we could easily explain that it is talking about the interior, without the walls, and indeed from the Beis Horedes Hamayim in the south to the Mesibah in the north was sixty amos, if we don't include their exterior walls (Beis Horedes Hamayim-3, wall of the Ta-5, Ta-6, wall of the Heichal-6, the Heichal-20, wall of the Heichal-6, Ta-6, wall of the ta-5, Mesibah-3, total of sixty). We can alternatively say that it is talking about the length, since the Kodesh was forty amos long and the Kodesh Hakodoshim was twenty, this adds up to sixty. 
   However, the height is still an issue, as there is no measurements in the Mishnah about the Height that be added up to sixty and be explained that that is what the Passuk is referring to, and furthermore this has to be half as tall as Bayis Rishon.

​   The Ezras Kohanim (in one of his introductions, called Beis Hamiddos) tries to answer this question, but does not really come up with a good answer. Rebbi Shmuel Masnos, in his commentary on Ezra, says that each amah of Ezra was half of an amah of the one that Shlomo used, and since the Heichal in the first Beis Hamikdash was 30 amos tall (Melachim I 6:2), this is what Koresh gave permission to, but the passuk records it in the smaller amah to glorify the Beis Hamikdash, and says it was sixty amos. About the width, he says that if you add up the width of the Kodesh, which was twenty amos, and the width of the Ulam, which was ten amos in the First Beis Hamikdash (Melachim I 6:3), you come out with thirty, which if using the half amos is sixty. (It should be noted though, that width of the Kodesh is the measurement from north to south, and the width of the Ulam is from east to west, as that was the shorter measurement.) However, this works with the Passuk, but it doesn't explain the Medrashim.

    To attempt to answer these questions, we first need to figure out the exact height of the Heichal in the First Beis Hamikdash. There are two Pesukim that mention the height, that seem to say two different measurements. One Passuk says that the kodesh was 30 amos tall (Melachim I 6:2), and one says that the Ulam was 120 amos tall (Divrei Hayamim II 3:4). The commentator on Divrei Hayamim (who is not Rashi, but a different Rishon) writes that the main floor was thirty amos tall, but there were upper stories on top, which added up to 120 amos. The Radak gives this answer, as well as another answer, that the Kodesh was actually only thirty amos tall, and only the Ulam had upper stories, which made the Ulam 120 amos tall.
​
    Rashi on Ein Yaakov (Moed Katan 9a) writes that the 30 amos measurement includes even the amah of the klei orev (the spikes on the roof to prevent the birds from sitting there). [The regular Rashi printed in the Gemara in Moed Katan is actually not Rashi, rather it is based off Peirush Rabbeinu Gershom. The actual commentary of Rashi can be found partly in the Ein Yaakov and on the Rif, as well as in various manuscripts. It is printed in the margin of the Oz Vehadar Gemara under the title of Rashi Ksav Yad.] From this it comes out that Rashi explains the Passuk in Divrei Hayamim like the Radak; that the measurement of 120 is referring to the Ulam. We can also try to deduce this from the words of Rabbeinu Shmaya, a student of Rashi. In his Peirush on Maseches Middos he writes (Middos 4:7) that in the first Beis Hamikdash the Ulam was 120 amos high, as it says in Divrei Hayamim, even though the Kodesh was only thirty amos high.

​  [Based on this we can understand what Rashi says in a number of places, (see for example Yoma 51b) that in the first Beis Hamikdash the Kodesh was thirty amos tall, and in the second it was 100. The Tosfos Yom Tov, (Yoma 5:1) emends Rashi to say that in the second Beis Hamikdash the Kodesh was forty amos tall, as he seems to hold that Rashi holds like the commentator on Divrei Hayamim, that the whole building was 120 amos tall, possibly the Tosfos Yom tov held that this commentary is from Rashi himself. However, based on the above-mentioned Rashi in Moed Katan, there is no need to emend Rashi. Different Mefarshim (Chanukas Habayis Chefetz siman 55 and Lechem Shamayim Yoma 5:1) have already pointed out that Rashi can be explained this way.]

    Now, there is another Passuk (Melachim I 6:20) which says that the Kodesh Hakodoshim was twenty amos tall. Based on Rashi there it comes out that while the Kodesh was thirty amos tall, the Kodesh Hakodoshim was only twenty amos tall. So, it comes out that there were three different heights: The Ulam was 120 amos, the Kodesh was thirty amos tall, and the Kodesh Hakodoshim was twenty amos tall.

   Now, even though the Kodesh Hakodoshim and Kodesh were only twenty (or thirty) amos tall, it also had upper stories on top (which is included in the measurement, as even the roof spokes are included in the thirty amos of the Kodesh). This upper story on top of the Kodesh Hakodoshim is mentioned by Rashi, who explains (Melachim I 6:9-10) that there were two ceilings, with the lower one also being the floor of the attic. It is also mentioned with regards to Yoash, who was hidden in the "bedroom" (Melachim II 11:2) which the Midrash explains (see Rashi on the possuk) as referring to the attic of the Kodesh Hakodoshim. (As Rashi to Melachim I 6:20 explains, since the Kodesh Hakodoshim was shorter, the attic on top would have been on a lower level than the one on the Kodesh.)
   On top of the Ulam, however, there would have been many attics, probably four, with each one being 30 amos tall (with its ceiling), adding up to a total of 120.

    Now based on this we can explain the Passuk that says the structure of the second Beis Hamikdash was sixty amos, together with the Mishnah that says it was 100 amos tall. When Koresh gave the Yidden permission to build the Beis Hamikdash, he only gave them permission to build two floors, not four, (which is why Hashem was angry with him.) and since in the First Beis Hamikdash each floor was thirty amos tall, he said to build it sixty, and indeed this is how the Yidden started building it. However, Chagai Hanavi had a Nevuah (Chagai 2:9) that the Second Beis Hamikdash will be greater than the first. There is an argument in Gemara (Bava Basra 3a-b) in what way this is, with one opinion being that it stood for longer, 420 years as opposed to the First Beis Hamikdash’s 410, while another opinion is that it was taller, as the Kodesh in the First Beis Hamikdash was only thirty amos high, while here it was 100. Based on this Nevuah, the Yidden made each of the two floors they were able to make forty amos high, and together with the thickness of the ceilings it adds up to 100 amos. This was not going against the King's orders, however, as his main concern was that there should only be two floors, he only said the number sixty since in the first Beis Hamikdash that was the heights of two floors. However, the Midrash could still say that the First Beis Hamikdash was built sixty amos high, since when they started building it, that was the measurement they had in mind. (this also explains why the Midrash says that it was built (שנבנה) 60 amos tall, not that it was (שהיתה) 60 amos. 

    This is also what Hurdus meant when he said that the Yidden made it smaller because of the instructions of the king of Persia. Hurdus intended to build the Heichal back to its original height, by making the sloped roof 120 amos tall (this what it seems to be saying in Yosifun chapter 55). However, it seems like Hashem did not want this to happen, as this part of the roof collapsed (Antiquities 15:11:3). The Yidden got more wood and wanted to rebuild it, but before they had a chance to, the war that led to the churban broke out. (Wars of the Jews 5:1:5)

   This is not the only place where Chazal mention golden fruit bearing trees in the First Beis Hamikdash. The Yerushalmi and Medrash Rabba also mention it, but with a few differences. It comes in when discussing the different kinds of gold, one of which is Parvayim gold (mentioned in Divrey Hayamim II 3:6 as being used to plate the walls of the Heichal). 

     This is what the Yerushalmi (Yoma 4:4) says:
​זָהָב פַּרְוַיִים: רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר אָדוֹם, דּוֹמֶה לְדָמוֹ שֶׁלְפָּר. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים, זָהָב שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה פֵירוֹת....אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא בַר יִצְחָק, בַּשָּׁנָה שֶׁבָּנָה שְׁלֹמֹה אֶת בֶּית הַמִּקָדָּשׁ צָר כָּל־מִינֵי אִילָנוֹת לְתוֹכוֹ, וּבַשָּׁעָה שֶׁהָיוּ אֵילּוּ שֶׁבַּחוּץ [עוֹשִׂין פֵּירוֹת] הָיוּ אֵילּוּ שֶׁבִּפְנִים עוֹשִׂין פֵּירוֹת, הָדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב פָּרֹ֨חַ תִּפְרַ֜ח וְתָגֵ֗ל אַ֚ף גִּילַ֣ת וְרַנֵּ֔ן וגו׳. אֵימָתַי יָֽבְשׁוּ, אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק חִינְנָא בַּר יִצְחָק, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהֶעֱמִיד מְנַשֶּׁה צֶלֶם בַּהֵיכָל יָֽבְשׁוּ, דִּכְתִיב וּפֶ֥רַח לְבָנ֖וֹן אוּמְלָל׃
  Parvayim gold: Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish said, it is red like the blood of a bull [par], but some say, gold which produces fruits.... Rebbi Acha bar Yitzchak said, at the time when Shlomo built the Temple, he drew all kinds of trees in it and at the time when those outside where bearing fruit, those inside where bearing fruit. That is what is written, blooming the blossom and jubilate, also enjoying and singing, (Yeshayah 35:2). When did they dry up? Rebbi Yitzchak Chinena bar Yitzchak said, when Menashe put up at statue in the Temple they dried up, as it is written, The flower of Lebanon withers (Nachum 1:4).
  The Midrash Rabba (Shir Hashirim Rabba 3:10) is similar, saying the following:
זְהַב פַּרְוָיִם, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר אָדֹם דּוֹמֶה לְדַם הַפָּר, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה פֵּרוֹת, שֶׁכְּשֶׁבָּנָה שְׁלֹמֹה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ צָר בּוֹ כָּל מִינֵי אִילָנוֹת, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאִילָנוֹת שֶׁבַּשָֹּׂדֶה עוֹשִׂים פֵּרוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁבַּבַּיִת עוֹשִׂים פֵּרוֹת וְהָיוּ מַשִּׁירִים פֵּרוֹתָם וּמְלַקְּטִין אוֹתָם וּמַנִּיחִים אוֹתָם לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהֶעֱמִיד מְנַשֶּׁה צֶלֶם בַּהֵיכָל יָבְשׁוּ כָּל אוֹתָם הָאִילָנוֹת, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (נחום א, ד): וּפֶרַח לְבָנוֹן אֻמְלָל, אֲבָל לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא חוֹזֵר אוֹתָם, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ישעיה לה, ב): פָּרֹחַ תִּפְרַח וְתָגֵל אַף גִּילַת וְרַנֵּן.
Parvayim gold, Reish Lakish said: It is red like the blood of a bull [par], and some say that it produces fruits. When Shlomo built the Temple, he drew in it all sorts of trees. When the trees in the field would produce fruit, those [gold trees] in the Temple would produce fruit. The fruit would fall, and they would gather them and set them aside for Temple maintenance. When Menashe placed an idol in the Sanctuary, all those trees dried up. That is what is written: “The flower of Lebanon withers” (Nachum 1:4). However, in the future, the Holy One blessed be He will restore them. That is what is written: “It will blossom and will rejoice, even with joy and song” (Yeshayah 35:2).
  (It should be noted as a side point, that The Gemara Bavli Yoma 44b-45a also explains the different types of gold, but it only brings the first explanation, that it is called Parvayim because of its color.)
​
   The Midrash Tanchumah also talks about miraculous fruit growing in the First Beis Hamikdash, but it describes them as growing from the wood in the wall. It says the following (Tanchumah Terumah 11):
אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: כְּשֶׁהִכְנִיס שְׁלֹמֹה אֶת הָאָרוֹן לְבֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, הִרְטִיבוּ כָּל הָעֵצִים וְהָאֲרָזִים שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם וְעָשׂוּ פֵּרוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: שְׁתוּלִים בְּבֵית ה' בְּחַצְרוֹת אֱלֹהֵינוּ יַפְרִיחוּ (תהלים צב, יד). וְהָיוּ הוֹלְכִין וְעוֹשִׂין פֵּרוֹת, וּמֵהֶם הָיְתָה פַּרְנָסָה גְּדוֹלָה לְפִרְחֵי כְּהֻנָּה, עַד שֶׁעָמַד מְנַשֶּׁה וְהִכְנִיס אֶת הַצֶּלֶם בְּבֵית קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים, וְנִסְתַּלְּקָה הַשְּׁכִינָה, וְיָבְשׁוּ הַפֵּרוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וּפֶרַח לְבָנוֹן אֻמְלָל (נחום א, ד)
R. Levi said: When Shlomo brought the ark into the Temple, all the trees and cedars there came to life and bore fruit, as it is said: Planted in the house of the Lord, they shall flourish in the courts of our God (Tehillim 92:14). They brought forth fruit and supplied a large share of the provisions for the young priests. But when Menashe brought an idol into the Temple, the Shechinah departed from it and the fruit withered, as is said: The flower of Lebanon withers (Nachum. 1:4).

    As we can see, each of these sources talk about miraculous fruit growing in the Beis Hamikdash, but each one has different details.
   The first difference is where these fruit grew from. The Gemara Bavli says that Shlomo planted sweet fruit of gold, which implies that he made actual trees from gold. The Yerushalmi and Midrash Rabba, however, say that Shlomo drew trees, which is implying that it was not separate trees, but pictures of trees on the walls, as mentioned in the Passuk (Melachim I 6:29) that Shlomo carved palm trees and floral designs on the walls of the Heichal. This is further shown by the fact that the Yerushalmi and Midrash are talking about parvayim gold, which was used for plating the walls of the Heichal. The Midrash Tanchumah, on the other hand, does not talk about gold trees at all, but says that the wood in the walls became alive and bore fruit.

   Another difference is what these fruit were used for. The Bavli and Tanchumah say that the Kohanim would sell these fruits and get an income (or big income) from it (as the gold fruit are valuable, even if they are not edible, and the fruit growing from wood is definitely edible), while the Midrash Rabba says that it was used for Bedek Habayis, the upkeep of the Beis Hamikdash.

   A third Difference is when did this miracle stop. Both Midrashim as well as the Yerushalmi say it stopped when Menasheh set up an idol in the Heichal. [The Mefarshim on the Midrash Rabba note that the Passuk that describes the drying up was said by Nachum, who lived in the times of Menasheh.] The Gemara Bavli, however, says it continued until the goyim came in and destroyed the Beis Hamikdash, a while after Menashe's times.

     A final difference is who described the miracle in each source. The Gemara Bavli quotes it in the name of Rebbi Oshayah, the Yerushalmi in the name of Rebbi Acha Bar Yitzchak (that it existed) and Rebbi Yitzchak Chinena bar Yitzchak (that it stopped by Menasheh), and the Tanchumah in the name of Rebbi Levi.

Differences in the descriptions of the miraculous fruit

   What seems to come out from all of this that the different sources are not discussing the same miracle, but three separate ones.

   The first miracle is described by the Bavli by Rebbi Oshayah. Shlomo Hamelech planted golden trees in the Beis Hamikdash, and their fruit was used to support the Kohanim. These trees did not stop when Menashe put up an idol in the Heichal, possibly because they were not inside the Heichal, but in the Ulam and the Azarah, and since this has a lesser level of holiness than the Heichal, it was not such a big desecration and did not cause the miracle to stop. However, when the Goyim came in to the Beis Hamidkash, the trees stopped giving off fruit.

   The second miracle is described in the Midrash Rabba, and in the Yerushalmi by ​Rebbi Acha bar Yitzchak and Rebbi Yitzchak Chinena bar Yitzchak. This was that the images of trees on the golden plating of the Heichal gave off fruit. These fruit were sold, and the money given to Bedek Habayis. When Menashe set up his idol in the Heichal, in this holy place, near these golden walls, this miracle stopped.

   The third miracle is described by Rebbi Levi in the Midrash Tanchumah, that the wood in the Heichal walls gave fruit, which was used to support the Kohanim. This miracle also stopped when Menashe brought the idol in, as it also happened in the actual Heichal.

    Now, were there gates in this wall, and if yes, how many? the Tavnis Heichal (2:12-13) writes that there were two bridges, leading up to two gates in this wall. One of them was towards the eastern corner; and was used to bring in the animals after washing them (see my previous post, about the Bereichas Yisrael), and one led from the "business district" to the Har Habayis. Now, the source for the first gate seems to be from early non-Jewish (christian) sources, which mention a pool for washing animals next to a gate, called the "sheep gate", which the Tavnis Heichal seems to understand as a gate to the Har Habayis. The Tavnis Heichal does bring a source from Josephus for this paragraph, however this source (Wars 5:11:4) just mentions that there was a pool, called "The Struthion Pool", next to the Antonia fortress, it does not mention anything about a gate or washing animals, and it seems that the Tavnis Heichal just brought it as a proof that there was a pool of water next to the northern wall of the Har Habayis. However, the Tavnis Heichal did not know that there were actually three pools in this area, the Struthion pool by the Antonia fortress, the Bereichas Yisrael by the northeast corner of Har Habayis, and the double pool to the north of them.

   The second gate mentioned by the Tavnis Heichal has much better sources for it. The source for this gate is from Josephus, who mentions (wars 2:19:4-5) a gate in the northern wall of the Har Habayis. Josephus is talking about an unsuccessful attack on Yerushalayim by the Romans at the beginning of the war that led to the Churban Bayis Sheini, he writes the following:

    "But now Cestius, observing that the disturbances that were begun among the Jews afforded him a proper opportunity to attack them, took his whole army along with him, and put the Jews to flight, and pursued them to Jerusalem... And on the fourth day, which was the thirtieth of the month Hyperbereteus, [Tishrei,] when he had put his army in array, he brought it into the city.... But when Cestius was come into the city, he set the part called Bezesa, which is called Cenopolis, [or the new city,] on fire; as he did also to the timber market...... Thus did the Romans make their attack against the wall for five days, but to no purpose. But on the next day Cestius took a great many of his choicest men, and with them the archers, and attempted to break into the temple at the northern quarter of it; but the Jews beat them off from the cloisters, and repulsed them several times when they were gotten near to the wall, till at length the multitude of the darts cut them off, and made them retire; but the first rank of the Romans rested their shields upon the wall, and so did those that were behind them, and the like did those that were still more backward, and guarded themselves with what they call Testudo, [the back of] a tortoise, upon which the darts that were thrown fell, and slid off without doing them any harm; so the soldiers undermined the wall, without being themselves hurt, and got all things ready for setting fire to the gate of the temple."

   From this passage of Josephus, we see that there was a gate in the outer northern wall of the Har Habayis, which was accessible once the newer city (the area inside the second and third wall) was captured. The "business district" mentioned by the Tavnis Heichal seems to be the "timber market" which Josephus mentions together with Beseza, which was north of the first wall, indicating that the market was also in the same place. The Tavnis Heichal seems to understand Josephus's narrative going forward, that the Romans (under Cestius) went from one place to another, making that the market was on the way to the Har Habayis.
 
​ [We should mention here Juan Bautista Villalpando, a galach who wrote a commentary on Yechezkel, most of which was devoted to the Beis Hamikdash and the city of Yerushalayim. Most of his ideas are very strange (such as his assertation that the first, second, and third Beis Hamikdash were all identical), however he seems to have influenced the Tavnis Heichal in his discussion of the outer wall of the Har Habayis. He also made these two gates in the northern wall of the Har Habayis, one leading over a bridge to the pool, and one leading over a bridge to the timber market. (See a map of Yerushalayim based on Villalpando's books here.)]

   However, from where did the Tavnis Heichal know that these were two separate gates? maybe the road from the market led to the pool for washing the animals, and from there it led up to the Har Habayis? I am not able to find an answer to this question, but I can possibly find a source for there being two gates in the north from Yosifun. (The Sefer Yosifun is brought down by many Rishonim, and seems to be based on a translation of an Aramaic book by Josephus, although many additions and changes were added into it.)

   In Sefer Yosifun (chapter 55), he writes about Hurdus building the Beis Hamikdash, and describes the structure. However, his account there is very strange, as it seems to be describing the Heichal in the middle, with four large Ulamos projecting from its four sides, similar to a plus symbol (like this+), and at the edge of each Ulam, he makes a courtyard. This is obviously not how the Beis Hamikdash looked, and it seems that someone misunderstood Josephus's original description of the four porticos on the four sides of the Har Habayis, that surrounded the Beis Hamikdash. (We should note that Rashi, Yoma 23a, mentions these Ulamos of Yosifun.)

   The Gemara (Berachos 33b, Pesachim 13b, Sukkah 45a) also mentions these porticos on Har Habayis, and since when the Gemara talks about the Har Habayis, it is referring to the 500-amah square, which had the kedushah of Har Habayis, it must be that these porticos ran along the walls of the square Har Habayis, and not the Migrash or Herodian extension. (The Rambam Hilchos Beis Habechirah 5:1 writes clearly that these porticos were located in the 500-amah square Har Habayis.) Therefore, the courtyards in front of these Ulamos that Yosifun mentions must come from a description of the space in front of these porticos, i.e., the Migrash and the Herodian expansion.

   Now, Yosifun mentions four gates in the southern, western, and northern courts. It is commonly understood that one of the copyists or redactors of Yosifun took this description of four gates, which was originally just by the west, and copied it to the north and south. However, it could be that the original text also had these four gates on all these sides, and they were the following: In the west, Warren's gate, the gate above Wilson's arch, Barclay's gate, and the gate above Robinson's arch. The four gates in the south would be the two gates in the double gate, and two in the triple gate, while one of the triple gates must not have had a tunnel leading from it to the surface of Har Habayis, but rather was used to access Shlomo's stables. The gates to the northern court would be the two Sha'ar Harachamim, which exit to the northern part of the expanded Har Habayis, and two more gates in the north wall. If this interpretation is correct, we have a source for there being two gates in the northern wall of the expanded Har Habayis, like the Tavnis Heichal writes. 

   I should mention that in this part of the present northern wall of the Har Habayis, between the Bereichas Yisrael and the Antonia fortress, there is also two gates, the Bab al-Hittah gate and the Bab al-Etan gate, mirroring the situation that was there when the Har Habayis was first expanded, and it is possible that these gates and the roads leading to them are built on remains from the Herodian era.

​    I found a possible source for there being two gates in Josephus. He writes (Wars 6:2:7) that the romans, put up banks to attack the square Har Habayis. One of the places they did this was by "the northern building between the two gates", since the northern wall of the square Har Habayis only had one gate (sha'ar tadi), these two gates must be in a different wall. It could be talking about the northern wall of the expanded Har Habayis, however it could also mean between two gates of the Azarah. So, while this is a possible source, it is not definite. 

 A computer rendering of the two gates in the northern wall and the paths leading to them. I have made the "bridge" to the gate where they would bring in the animals as a tower with stairs, as opposed to a regular "bridge" with steps, since there is not enough space between the Bereichas Yisrael and the gate for that.

   This pool is 38 meters [126 feet] wide (north to south), and around 110 meters [360 feet] long (east to west). It is built in a valley, that runs approximately from the northwest in a southeastern direction, until it meets the Bezesa valley, and together they run into the Kidron valley. The east wall of the pool, as mentioned in the previous article, is a continuation of the Eastern wall of the Har Habayis, although here it is much thicker [14 m/46 ft thick!], and it serves as a dam wall for the pool, holding the water inside it. The southern wall of the pool is the northern wall of the Har Habayis, and is made of masonry; the northern wall of the pools is also made of masonry, while on the western side, the pool is enclosed by the bedrock, which slopes upwards.

   The bottom of the pool is located 708.6 meters (2325 feet) above sea level, which is 26 meters [85 feet] lower than the present-day surface of the northern area of the Har Habayis, which is 735.4 meters [2413 ft] above sea level. The bottom of the pool was found by Warren to be covered with a very hard concrete 41.9 cm [16.5 in] thick, made of alternate layers of small stones and mortar, on top of which was a layer of very hard and compact plaster, of cement and pottery; 6.3 cm [2.5 in] thick.

   The south wall of the pool is the north wall of the Har Habayis. The walls of the pool are lined with small, squared stones set with wide joints, packed with crushed stones, in order to give the cement facing a better hold. While Herodian stones are usually much larger, this does not disprove the theory that this pool is Herodian, as plaster does not adhere easily to the large, smooth, Herodian stones, while the smaller stones would have provided a better "grip" for the plaster. This south wall is actually made of two layers of stone facing outwards, while the middle is filled up with rubble. 

    The bedrock under the pool rises towards the west, until it rises higher than the pool, and serves as the western limit of the pool. Outside the pool, the rock continues to rise, making a sort of ramp leading down to the pool. Right by the edge of the pool, Warren found that stone steps were made, leading down into the pool. The first four steps are 39.2 cm [16 in] broad and 17.8 cm [7 in] high, after this there is a landing 2.4 m [8 ft] broad, and then a drop of 1.2 m [4 ft]. There is then another three steps, and then another landing, 162 cm [5 ft 4 in] wide, after which there is a drop. There is then another step, another landing, and then three more steps. Warren was not able to investigate further than this, so we don't know how the rest of the stairs are, and if there even are more steps. although most probably there are. Steps with landings, leading down into large pools, are found also in the large Shiloach pool, in the southern part of Yerushalayim, and the double Bezesa pool to the north of the city, which date to the end of the Chashmona'iy or the beginning of the Herodian era. An interesting thing by the Bereichas Yisrael, however, is that some of these steps are two steep to use, with large drops. We can say that Warren only dug at one spot, but at other spots there was a ramp, or more manageable steps, but this is all conjecture.

     The eastern wall, as mentioned previously, is a continuation of the eastern wall of Har Habayis, although here it is 14 meters [46 feet] thick. In this wall, Warren found a passage, running from east to west. The entrance to the passage is in the eastern face of the wall, it is 1 meter [3 ft 6 in] high, and around 75 cm [2.5 feet] wide. The level of the bottom of the entrance of the passage is around 716.1 meters [2349.6 feet] above sea level. Almost four stone courses [4 m/13.25 ft] above the entrance, there is a small slot in the wall, 7.6 cm [3 in] tall, and as wide as the passage. This slot opens into some sort of shaft, which slants down sharply to the passage; this seems to have been a light shaft for this passage. It reaches the passage roof about 3.6 meters [12 feet] into it, and the hole in the roof where it meets is around 60 cm [2 feet] long. Right under this point, there is a doorway in the southern wall of the passage, 68 cm [2 ft 3 in] wide, from which a staircase leads up, although Warren was not able to follow it.

      The passage is around 75 cm [2.5 ft] wide, and was probably around the same height. At a point around 3.3 meters [11 feet] before the end of the passage, the roof steps down 1.2 meters [4 feet], and it seems that the floor starts sloping down here too. At the end of the passage, it is closed by a perforated stone, with three round holes, with a diameter of 13 cm [5.5 in], forming the shape of a segol (one on bottom of the other two). It seems that water would flow from the pool, through these holes, into the passage, and probably collected in some sort of basin here.

​     This whole passage seems to be an outlet for the pool, to allow the excess water to leave. Based on this, the water level in the pool cannot have been higher than 715 meters [2347 feet] above sea level, while the floor of the pool is 708 meters [2325 feet] above sea level, making the water 6.7 meters [22 feet] deep. Based on this calculation, the pool would have contained 5926023 gallons of water! If the water level would have risen above this level, it would have poured out of the entrance of the passage, and drained away into the Kidron Valley. If this pool is from Herodian times, then the door in the southern wall of the passage, under the light shaft, would have led up to the tower that was located in this corner, and would have allowed them secret access to water. 

   We mentioned earlier that there are different opinions on when the pool was built. Condor dates it to the time of Hadrian, "as there is no description of this pool in the works of Josephus, and it is very improbable that he would have omitted to mention so enormous a reservoir had it existed in his time. The masonry of the pool is inferior in character and resembles the later Roman work in Syria. This reservoir appears to be mentioned by the Bordeaux Pilgrim (in the year 4093-333 C.E.) as already existing, and would therefore most naturally be referable to Hadrian." (The survey of Western Palestine, Jerusalem, page 10)
    He further writes "It is worthy of notice that the masonry of the pool is similar to masonry found in Byzantine ruins in various parts of Palestine, not only because of the size and square proportions of the stones, but also because the wide joints are packed with small cubes of stone." (The survey of Western Palestine, Jerusalem, page 237)

    David Jacobson (The Plan of Herod's Temple, pp 38-41) dates it to Byzantine times, also based on the fact that the masonry in the southern wall of the pool is smaller and inferior to regular Herodian masonry, and resembles Byzantine masonry; as well as from the fact that Josephus does not mention it, and it is first mentioned by Al-Muqadassi, in the tenth century. He also bases it on the fact that the east Har Habayis wall goes past the present northern limit of the Har Habayis; he argues that this proves that the Herodian Har Habayis originally extended further to the north, making it impossible for this pool to be here. [He does not accept that the stones by the northeast corner are original Herodian work; rather he says they are there in secondary use.]

    Leen Ritmeyer, (The quest, pp 118 -122) however, dates it to the Herodian period. This he does based on the fact that the Herodian eastern wall of the Har Habayis continues past the northern boundary of the Har Habayis, he says that the stones in the northeast corner are from the original Herodian structure, based on their design of header-and-stretcher. Since the Har Habayis ended there, this part of the east wall must have been built for some purpose, he proposes that it was to serve as a dam wall for the pool, which also explains its thickness. As to the south wall being of smaller stones, he explains that this was done to provide the plaster with a better grip, as I mentioned previously in this article.

   This opinion (that the pool is Herodian) seems to me to be the most logical. As to the fact that Josephus does not mention it, there are many things that Josephus does not mention, or only mentions incidentally as they played a role in some historical episode he was writing. An example for this is the double Bezesa pool, which is directly to the north of this pool, and archeological remains have shown to be from the Herodian period. Therefore, it is not such a big surprise that he does not mention the Bereichas Yisrael.

   Now, the question that arises is, what was the pool used for. The first thing would probably be as a protective moat for the northern wall of the Har Habayis, which at the time of Hurdus was also the northern wall of Yerushalayim. However, an interesting thing to point out is that around 50 meters [164 feet] to the north of this pool, there is a large, double pool, the Bezesa pool, which also dates to Herodian times. One has to wonder what was the point of constructing two large pools right near each other, as opposed to, for example, making one even bigger pool. We must say that they served two different functions, thus necessitating two different pools. 

   The Tavnis Heichal (2:12) writes that in the northern wall of the enlarged Har Habayis, there was a road used to bring in animals, after washing them from dirt in a nearby pool. While this seems to derive from non-Jewish sources, we will accept it for now, as they might have got it from firsthand accounts of Yerushalayim during the end of the Second Beis Hamikdash period. (But see Rashi, Pesachim 20a, that People use to wash the Korbanos by passing them through a river before shechting them, especially by Shelamim, as then the hide goes to the owner.) Now, some say (Based on some artifacts discovered by the it) that the double Bezesa pools were a temple dedicated to a roman idol of healing, which would explain the fact that there were two major pools here, one (Bezesa) for idolatry, for the roman inhabitants of Eretz Yisroel, as well as the soldiers stationed in the nearby Antonia fortress, and one (Bereichas Yisrael) for washing the Korbanos, before offering them to Hashem. However, S. Gibson, in his report on the Bezesa pools, writes that these artifacts are from the later Roman period, when Yerushalayim was rebuilt as a pagan city, inhabited by romans. (This also makes more sense, as it is highly unlikely that the Yidden would have allowed an idolatrous place to be built right next to the Beis Hamikdash.) Instead, he holds that it was built by Hurdus as a large public Mikveh, with one pool being the otzar, and one being the actual place you immersed in. Based on this, we can explain that the Bezesa pool was for humans, and the Bereichas Yisrael was for animals.

Reference

Conder, Claude Reignier, and Warren, Charles. The Survey of Western Palestine: Jerusalem. London, 1884.

​Gibson, Shimon. “2005 The Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem and Jewish Purification Practices of the Second Temple Period.” Proche-Orient Chretien 55: 270-293, 2005.

S. GIBSON, THE EXCAVATIONS AT THE BETHESDA POOL IN JERUSALEM, Preliminary Report on a Project of Stratigraphic and Structural Analysis (1999-2009)​

Jacobson, David. “The Plan of Herod's Temple.” Strata (BAIAS) 10, 36-66, 1990.
​
Ritmeyer, Leen. The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Israel: Carta, 2006.

Warren, Charles. Plans, elevations, sections, etc. shewing the results of the excavations at Jerusalem, 1867-70: executed for the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund, London 1884

​Wikipedia contributors. (2021, August 5). Birket Israel. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 04:49, October 24, 2022, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birket_Israel&oldid=103718 7479


​
​

   Some people have tried answering the question by saying that the present northeast corner of Har Habayis is from more recent times, and originally, the northern wall was further to the north, where the eastern wall ends. Since almost the whole present northern wall of the Har Habayis is from more recent times, this theory sounds viable. However, in the eastern corner of the wall, some Herodian stones can be seen, although they are heavily damaged and patched up with smaller, more recent stones. These are not in secondary use, as they are laid in the normal Herodian corner fashion of header and stretcher (see this earlier post).

​There must be a different solution to the problem. Directly to the north of the Har Habayis was a large pool of water, the bereichas Yisra'el. This extra part of the eastern wall would have been a dam wall for the front of this pool, and this part of the wall is in fact thicker than the rest of the wall, it is a full 14 m (46 feet) thick! (The rest of the wall, by contrast, is 2.88 meters (9 ft. 6 in.) thick.) This supports the idea that this part of the wall had a separate function than the rest of the wall.

  A northern counterpart to Shlomo's stables?

    ​In the southeastern corner of Har Habayis, there are underground vaulted area, known as Shlomo's stables (see my earlier post about them). These were made to support the platform on top, as the original ground sloped downwards in that area. Now, the area under the northeast corner of the Har Habayis also slopes down, and in fact goes slightly lower that the southeast corner. The question that now rises is, were there also underground vaulted area over here?

    Rabbeinu Ovadia MiBartenura, in his letters describing his travels to Eretz Yisroel (Darchey Tzion), writes the following about the Har Habayis: "At the north-east corner is a tower of very large stones. I entered it and found a vast edifice supported by massive and lofty pillars; there are so many pillars that it wearied me to go to the end of the building. Everything is filled with earth which has been thrown there from the ruins of the Temple. The Temple-building stands on these columns, and in each of them is a hole through which a cord may be drawn. It is said that the bulls and rams for sacrifice were bound there." However, his description matches perfectly descriptions of Shlomo's stables from that era, and there could be a mistake, and he meant the southeast corner, not the northeast.

​    Another description of underground vaults in this area is given by Peter Richardson, a tourist who visited the Har Habayis. In a letter to Walter Besant, the secretary of the PEF, he writes the following:     "In the year 1867 I was in the Temple area as one of a party of four. After issuing from the Mosque [Dome of the Rock] I asked our guide privately to show me some underground buildings which I know either from testimony or conjecture existed between the Golden Gate and St Stephens [Lion’s Gate]. He denied repeatedly the existence of such buildings, but on my resolutely affirming it he said: ‘Come away then by yourself.’ He took me in a direction, I think, about N.E. from middle of platform of mosque, led me close to eastern wall, showed me a rough hole of 3 of 4 feet in diameter and bade me jump down. On executing this feat, adjusting my eyes to the situation I found myself among a forest of arches, forty or fifty feet high [about 12-15 m]. Of the pillars supporting them I remember nothing now, whether in regard to bulk or character. There was a small opening through which, if I mistake not, the daylight came; and as it seemed to me to be on the northern side of the subterranean structure, it must have communicated with the so-called Pool of Bethesda [Birket Israel]. If that is correct, the Pool, I should think, must be part of a natural depression abutting on the Kedron valley, and the underground buildings artificial support of surface of Haram area. It never occurred to me to doubt that the buildings exist at the spot indicated. The rough entrance, close by Eastern wall, seemed about halfway between Golden gate and northern extremity of Haram". (PEF Archives/WS/71)

    Adding this to the testimony of Rabbeinu Ovadia MiBartenura, it seems that there is enough evidence for underground vaults in this area, forming a northern counterpart to Shlomo's stables.


​Here are some computer renderings of how it might look, based on the above-mentioned descriptions.

Reference

​Conder, Claude Reignier, and Warren, Charles. The Survey of Western Palestine: Jerusalem. London, 1884.
​
Gibson, Shimon. “Archival Notes on Robinson's Arch and the Temple Mount/Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 153.3 (2020): 222–243. Web.

Gibson, Shimon and David Jacobson (1996), Below the Temple Mount in Jerusalem: A Sourcebook on the Cisterns, Subterranean Chambers and Conduits of the Haram Al-Sharif​.​

​Ritmeyer, Leen. The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Israel: Carta, 2006

    In front of this part of the wall were found remains of structures, apparently dwellings, and workshops for production of stone slabs and stone inlays; among the wares were handmade vessels. The finds, which are mostly fragments of pottery and stone vessels and coins, are mostly of Herodian date, although some are from Chashmona'iy times. The generally accepted opinion is that the third wall of Yerushalayim (This wall was started by king Agrippas I to encompass the newer neighborhoods of the city; and was finished during the preparations for the war with Rome than ended with the Churban) ended at the northeast corner of the Har Habayis. However, based on this find, some have concluded that it continued, and ran along the eastern Har Habayis wall, slightly to its east, until it met the first wall. This actually fits better with Josephus, who writes (Wars 5:4:2) "it joined to the old wall at the valley called the Valley of Kidron".

​   This northern section of the eastern wall has been supposed by many to not be from the Herodian expansion of Har Habayis. Some have thought that it was from much later times, while others have supposed it to be from the third wall of Yerushalayim, built by Agrippas I, with the tower being one of the many towers in the city walls. However, a careful examination of the stones shows them to be the exact same style as the stones in the southern and western walls of the Har Habayis, indicating that they are all from the same time. These stones all have drafted margins, and smooth bosses, while the ones that were under ground level during the times of the Beis Hamikdash have rough, projecting bosses, as since they were not visible, there was no need to smooth them down. In this part of the east wall, this level was apparently 714.9 m (2345.5 ft) above sea level.

    The tower at this corner, mistakenly called the "tower of Antonia", is 25.5 m (83 ft 10 in) wide, from north to south. Similar to the tower by the southeast corner, this tower projects from the rest of the wall, and above the present ground level, it projects 2.14 m (7 ft). This projection starts 17 stone courses below the present ground level, at a level of around 714 m (2342 ft) above sea level. The projection is formed by the fact that the courses of the tower are barely not set back from each other, unlike the rest of the Har Habayis walls. (The courses of the wall are set back 10-17 cm [4-7 in] in this area, while the courses of the tower are set back 3 cm [1 1/4 in].)

   Below the southern end of the tower, by the third stone course above the rock, there are three red letters painted on one of the stones, like the letters by the southeast corner of the Har Habayis. The boss of this stone is not smoothed; however, a large piece was chipped off, creating a flat surface for these letters. [See my article about that corner (The Eastern Wall of Har Habayis, part 2) for more about these letters and their meaning.]

    This part of the eastern wall, as mentioned previously, crosses over a valley. The bottom of the valley is located around 18.5 m (61 ft) to the south of the southern edge of the tower, the rock is here at a level of 694.4 m (2,278.2 ft) above sea level, the lowest known point in any of the Har Habayis walls. The rock has been cut into different "steps", to better receive the stones of the walls.

Reference
​
אוצר ירושלים והמקדש, יצא לאור ע"י אנציקלופדיה תלמודית, ירושלים התשע"ג
​
רייך, רוני, and אלי שוקרון. "Jerusalem, Golden Gate / ירושלים, שער הרחמים" Hadashot Arkheologiyot / חדשות ארכיאולוגיות קו (1996): 134–134, 
​
The Archeological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem, site 409

Conder, Claude Reignier, and Warren, Charles. The Survey of Western Palestine: Jerusalem. London, 1884.​

Ritmeyer, Leen. The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Israel: Carta, 2006.​

    Now, where on Har Hazeisim was the Parah Adumah burned? From the above-mentioned passuk, we learn that it was directly to the front of the Beis Hamikdash. From the Gemara in Yoma (16a) we see that this location was located along an axis that went from the door of the Heichal, through Sha'ar Nikanor, the gate of the Ezras Nashim, and Sha'ar Shushan, and until this point. From the Yerushalmi (Eiruvin 5:1) we know that the Beis Hamikdash was built directly on an exact east-west axis, making this place directly to the east of the Heichal. In Middos (2:4), the Mishnah states that the Kohen "stood on the top (בראש) of Har Hamishchah", indicating that the burning was done on the top of the mountain; however, it should be noted that in the manuscripts of the Mishnah, it does not say "on top".

​The Radvaz, in his Peirush on the Rambam (Hilchos Beis Habechirah 6:5), asks, that in the Mishnah in Middos (2:4), it says that they had to make the eastern wall of Har Habayis shorter, so that the Kohen on Har Hazeisim could see the opening of the Heichal, because if it was the same height as the other walls, it would have blocked his view. However, the Radvaz asks, the top of Har Hazeisim is currently much higher than the Har Habayis, so he could look down over the walls, and easily see the door of the Heichal, even without making the wall shorter (see picture)! He answers with two answers. The first one is that it must not have been burned on the top of Har Hazeisim, but lower down on the hill. (It seems he had the manuscript version of the Mishnah, where it does not say that it was burned on the top.) The second one is that Har Habayis used to be much taller, as he explained in another place (שאלות ותשובות, סימן תרל"ט, see my article on this Teshuva here).

​Another thing than can be learned from this Mishnah is that the location also had to be at the same elevation as the door of the Heichal. If it could have been lower, than he could have looked at an angle upward through the gates; and see through the door of the Kodesh without them having to lower the wall. Therefore, we must say that we learn that it must also be opposite it in height. (To see more about this idea, see R' Yoav Elan's blog post about this; Beis Hamikdash Topics: Elevation of the Kohen on the Mount of Olives.) Now, if the Har Habayis was taller than Har Hazeisim, as the Radvaz says, how can this be, there is no place that is on the same height level as the gate of the Kodesh? We must say that this was done by making the platform on which the Parah was burned reach this level, even though the natural ground doesn't. 

   Identification of this place during the times of the Rishonim
   One of the people who visited Eretz Yisrael during the times of the Rishonim, and left us a detailed account of what he saw, was a student of the Ramban. He writes the following (see here for the original):

• "We walk in the valley until opposite the platform on Har Hazeisim, the place where they burned the Parah Adumah. We go up the mountain to the platform, it is a very tall mountain; this platform is directly opposite the entrance of the Heichal. From there you can see the Har Habayis and all the structures on it, and therefore they daven there, opposite the Beis Hamikdash." (Later on, he asks the question how Har Hazeisim is taller than Har Habayis, if the Gemara [Zevachim 54b] says that the Beis Hamikdash was the highest place? He answers that the Har Habayis used to be much higher, like the second answer of the Radvaz.)

  Reb Shmuel ben Reb Shimshon, in his account of his journey in Eretz Yisrael, also mentions the place of the burning of the Parah, as a place still know, and he even davened there.

   The Kaftor Vaferach also mentions the location of the burning of the Parah as a known place, and even says where on Har Hazeisim it was located, however his words are not so simple. He writes: "עוד היום מקובל המקום ההוא, והוא צפוני לקבר חולדה כמטחוי קשת שפל ממנו מעט-Until today this location is identified, it is north of Chuldah's grave, and slightly lower than it." This location is strange, as any location that is north of Chuldah's Kever is opposite the northern side of Har Habayis, while the Kaftor Vaferach clearly writes that Sha'ar Shushan, which was directly opposite the Beis Hamikdash, was to the south of Sha'ar Harachamim, making the Beis Hamikdash either in the southern side of Har Habayis, or in the center, and therefore the place of the Burning of the Parah has to be opposite this part of the Har Habayis. (See my article The Eastern Wall of the Har Habayis, part 3 (the gates in the middle of the eastern wall) for more on the Kaftor Vaferach's identification of Sha'ar Shushan, as well as his location of the Beis Hamikdash.)

   R' Zalman Koren has also pointed out another interesting thing. (See his article in Kovetz Ma'alin Bakodesh, גיליון לא, pp. 102-105, it is also reprinted in the Sefer איה מקום כבודו, pp. 263-266.) The place identified as the grave of Chuldah is located pretty much directly to the east of Sha'ar Harachamim. Now, the Kaftor Vaferach writes that both Sha'ar Shushan and the location of the burning of the Parah are located the same exact distance (כמטחוי קשת-a arrowshot or two arrowshots) away from this axis of Sha'ar Harachamim and Kever Chuldah. Both of these two locations, Sha'ar Shushan and The Burning Place, are known from other sources to have been along the same axis. The only problem is that the Kaftor Vaferach says that one is on the northern side, and one is on the south. Because of all this, he says (taking after Avraham Luntz, in his edition of the Kaftor Vaferach,) that it seems there is a mistake in the Kaftor Vaferach, and it should really say that also The Burning Place was located south of Kever Chuldah. [This kind of mistake is fairly common, and he shows how it appears other times in the Kaftor Vaferach.] We could propose to change the description of Sha'ar Shushan to say it is in the north, but that would mean having to emend the Kaftor Vaferach twice, once when he says Sha'ar Shushan is located in the southern part of the wall, and also when he says that Sha'ar Harachamim is to the north of Sha'ar Shushan.

    Now, where exactly is this location? Based on this Kaftor Vaferach, we should be looking around at the top of Har Hazeisim, at a distance of around 100 meters (which, based on other times the Kaftor Vaferach uses the expression of an arrowshot, especially the distance from Sha'ar Shushan to Sha'ar Harachamim, this seems to be the approximate size he wants to convey) from Chuldah's Kever. This area is directly opposite the dome of the rock, and the ground level here is slightly lower than by Chuldah's grave. Looking in this area, it appears that this location was in the area now occupied by the Pater Noster church. In the times of the Rishonim, this church did not exist, and there could have been a platform there. This fits even with the versions of the Mishnah (Middos 2:4) that say that this location was on the top of Har Hazeisim, as this obviously does not mean that it was located on the tippy top, but in the general area of the top of the mountain, where this place is indeed located. (The top of the mountain is 808 meters [2650 feet] above sea level, this place is 795 meters [2608 feet] above sea level.)

    From the Mishnayos in Parah (chapter 3), as well as the commentaries on it, we get the following information about the platform on which the Parah was burned:
    This whole platform, like the Kevesh leading to it from the Har Habayis, was built on arches, so that no tumah can rise up from underneath it. On this platform there was a mikveh, in which the Kohen burning the Parah immersed himself before doing the avodah. [Right before doing the Avodah, the elders of the Beis Din would make the Kohen tamei, and he would then have to immerse himself before doing the avodah. This was done as when someone immerses himself in a mikveh, he does not become fully tahor (in regard to Teruma and Korbanos) right away, but rather has to wait until nightfall. During this time period, he is called a tevul yom-someone who immersed that day. Now, the Chachamim have a tradition that in regard to the Parah Adumah, when the Passuk says it must be done by a pure man, it means even if he is a tevul yom, since in regard to Ma'aser Sheini, he is Tahor. The Tzedokim, however, who did not hold of the Torah Sheba'al Peh, said he must be completely tahor, and not even a Tevul Yom. In order to completely negate the Tzedoki opinion, the Chachamim would intentionally make the Kohen a tevul yom  before he burned the Parah.]

    On the platform there was a ditch, like a wine vat, in which the pyre was built. The pyre was made from cedar wood, laurel wood, boxwood, and smooth fig wood. (All the wood had to be smooth, but the other types are always smooth, so there is no need to mention it; fig wood, however, is sometimes smooth and sometimes not smooth, so the Mishnah [Parah 3:8] has to specify that we need smooth ones.) The pyre was set up in a pyramid shape, wider at the bottom and narrower at the top, as this made the fire concentrate on the Parah, located at its top. There were spaces ("windows") among the logs, this was done so the wind could travel between the logs and fan the flames, making the fire bigger. On the western side of the pyre, facing the Beis Hamikdash, was a large opening, in which the fire was placed to light the wood. 

   After the Parah was burned, its ashes were divided into three parts. One was put in the Cheil, next to the gate of the Ezras Nashim, one was kept on Har Hazeisim, and one was divided among all the Mishmaros (divisions) of Kohanim. These three parts were each used for a different purpose. The one in the Cheil was placed there as a safekeeping, like the Passuk (Bamidbar 19:9) says: וְהָיְתָה לַעֲדַת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת-it shall be for a keepsake for the community of Bnei Yisroel. (These ashes were also used to purify the Kohen before he burned the Parah, see Parah 3:1) The one on Har Hamishchah was used by the Kohanim, and the one given out to all the Mishmaros was used by the Yisra'elim if they became tamei. (This is how our version of the Tosefta [Parah 3:8] explains the uses of the three parts. Rambam, however, seems to have had a different version of the Tosefta, as he writes [Hilchos Parah Adumah 3:4] that the one on Har Hamishchah was used by the Yisra'elim, and the one given out to the Mishmaros of Kohanim was used by the Kohanim.) I have made another room on the platform of the Parah, for storing the ashes that are to be kept on Har Hamishchah.

​Rashi's opinion: two locations

   The general opinion is that all the things done with the Parah: its slaughter, sprinkling its blood, and burning it, were all done at this same place, near the top of Har Hamishchah. Rashi, however, argues with this. From his words in Menachos (7b, ד"ה בשלמא, במאי מקנח), we see that he holds that the slaughtering and burning of it were done towards the bottom, of Har Hazeisim, and the Kohen would take the blood to the top of the mountain and sprinkle it there. Rabbeinu Shimshon (commentary to Parah 3:9) asks on Rashi from a Gemarah in Zevachim, which states that we learn out the slaughtering and burning of the Parah from the sprinkling, that they all have to be done opposite the Heichal. Tosafos, however, (Menachos 7b ד"ה אלא אצבעו במאי מקנח) answer this question; explaining that both of these locations were opposite the Beis Hamikdash, just one was higher up on the mountain, and one was lower. (It would seem from this that you only need the strict definition of opposite the opening, that it is also opposite in height, only by the actual sprinkling, where the passuk is written, and not by the slaughtering and burning, which are only learned out, but this seems kind of forced, as it is learned from the burning, and probably this is Rabbeinu Shimshon's question.)

    [According to Rashi, you would need the Kevesh to continue, or there would be another Kevesh,  going past the burning place, to the top of the mountain, as the Kohen who is doing the Parah also has to be protected from tumah on his way up to sprinkle the blood.]

The order of the Avodah of the Parah Adumah (from the Rambam, Hilchos Parah Adumah 3:2) [English translation Copyrighted by Moznaim Publications, used under a CC-BY-NC license]

The Mishnah in Parah (3:6) says:
וְכֶבֶשׁ הָיוּ עוֹשִׂים מֵהַר הַבַּיִת לְהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה, כִּפִּין עַל גַּבֵּי כִפִּין, וְכִפָּה כְנֶגֶד הָאֹטֶם, מִפְּנֵי קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם, שֶׁבּוֹ כֹהֵן הַשּׂוֹרֵף אֶת הַפָּרָה, וּפָרָה וְכָל מְסַעֲדֶיהָ, יוֹצְאִין לְהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה: They made a Kevesh from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives, being constructed of arches above arches, each arch placed directly above each foundation [of the arch below] as a protection against a grave likened to the depths (a grave that we don't know if it is there, which is like the depths that are covered over), whereby the priest who was to burn the cow, the cow itself and all who aided in its preparation went forth to the Mount of Olives. (Tumah from a corpse rises upwards, and anybody that is even partially on top of it becomes Tamei. However, if you have an empty space a tefach high, on top of which is a roof, this prevents the tumah from rising past that; this is called an Ohel. However, if the tumah is right under the foundation of the arch, it does not block the tumah, as there is no empty space to block it. Therefor they made two layers of arches, so that tumah can't rise to any point on the top of the Kevesh.)

Now, what exactly is a Kevesh? In this context, it is usually translated as a bridge, and indeed, most Mefarshim on Yerushalmi Shekalim 4:2, say that the Kevesh was basically two bridges-גשרים on top of each other, with the arches supporting the upper one not being parallel to the arches supporting the lower one; rather the space of one arch is parallel to the foot of the other. However, the Rambam, in his Peirush Hamishnayos (Shekalim 4:2), writes that a Kevesh is a ramp that slopes upwards (like by the Kevesh of the Mizbeach, and many other places). The Meiri (on Shekalim 4:2) also writes this, and so too does Rabbeinu Nosson Av Hayeshivah explain (on Parah 3:6).

    However, these two opinions do not necessarily argue. It could be that a large bridge was built, leading from the Har Habayis, but the top surface of it was a ramp sloping downwards (with a ratio of 1:3), until it almost reached the ground, at which point it started sloping upwards, along the rise of Har Hazeisim, until it reached the platform on which the Parah Adumah was burned. This Kevesh would have started from Sha'ar Shushan, in the east wall of the sanctified Har Habayis, as the Mishnah (Middos 1:3) says "The Eastern gate, over which was a representation of the capital Shushan, and through which the high priest who burned the red heifer and all who assisted with it would go out to the Mount of Olives". 

    An interesting thing is that the Rambam, in his Peirush Hamishnayos (Shekalim 4:2), writes that a Kevesh is made out of wood. However, in the peirush of Rabeinu Hay gaon on mishnayos taharos (Zavim 3:1) he writes that although generally speaking, most Kevashim are made of wood, the Kevesh of the Parah Adumah was made of stone. You also can learn the Rambam as saying that in general Kevashim are of wood, and not specifically this Kevesh, however this explanation is somewhat forced. Alternatively, it could be that just the top of the Kevesh and the walls and ledges (see next paragraph) were made of wood, while the supporting arches were made of stone. This would be easier for a number of reasons; like the fact that wood was not so cheap in Yerushalayim, and that a stone structure would be much sturdier.

   It should be pointed out that Rebbi Eliezer or Rebbi Elazar (or according to the Rash Mishantz's version, Rebbi Yehudah), in Tosefta Parah 3:5, argues, and says that there was not a whole Kevesh, rather it was just simple marble pillars, on top of which were placed wooden boards. The Tosefta also adds that really it was not necessary to bring the Parah Adumah on the Kevesh, as live animals cannot become tamei. Rabbeinu Ovadia MiBartenurah (on the Mishnah in Parah) explains that nevertheless, they still brought it on the Kevesh, as a special stringency by the Parah Adumah.

   The walls and ledges   

   The Gemarah in Shekalim (Yerushalmi Shekalim 4:2) brings down a Baraisa that says that there were walls and ledges on either side of the Kevesh, so the Kohanim don't look over (another version is: go out) and become Tamei. The Mefarshim have different explanations what was the concern, and how did these walls and ledges remove it.

• The one agreed on by most Mefarshim (P'nei Moshe, R' Dovid Oppenheim, R' Shlomo Sirilo, Rabbeinu Meshulam in his second explanation) is, that there was a concern that the Kohanim might lean over the edges of the Kevesh (to look at something), and they might become tamei. Therefore, high walls (at least higher than the height of a person) were built on both sides of the Kevesh, so the Kohanim can't lean out. (This, however, does not fully explain what the point of the ledges protruding were. Maybe so that even if part of the walls breaks, or there is a tall Kohen, and he leans a little bit over, there is still an Ohel under him to protect him.)
• R' Eliyahu of Fulda explains that if the Kohanim can see off the bridge, they might see a corpse there, and mistakenly say that they are tamei, forgetting that the Kevesh protects them. Therefore, they made walls, so they don't see out of the Kevesh. (This still does not fully explain why the ledges were needed. Maybe it was so that even if a kohen manages to somehow look out, he cannot see under the Kevesh, as the ledges blocked his view of underneath.)
• The Korban Ha'eidah explains that other Kohanim might come to see the procession, and by mistake touch the Kohanim and make them tamei. (In regard to the Parah Adumah we are very strict, and rule that anyone that did not purify themselves especially for it, is considered tamei.) Therefore, they made these walls so the Kohanim can't come and see and come to touch. (This still does not fully explain why the ledges are needed. Possibly it blocked the other Kohanim from getting close to the Kevesh and coming to touch the Kohanim dealing with the Parah Adumah.)
• [The Tiklin Chadatin explains that the Kohanim might see something that causes them to become tamei, maybe as a Baal Keri. The problem with this is, however, that even if they would become tamei as a Baal Keri, they could just go to the mikveh and become tahor, as for the Parah Adumah you do not have to wait for nightfall to become tahor. However, if they would have become tamei from a corpse, they have to wait seven days, so there it makes sense that we are worried about that.)
• Rabbeinu Meshulam, in his first explanation, as well as the Talmid of Rabbeinu Shmuel bar Shneur, explain (based on the version that we are concerned that the Kohanim go out) that we want to make sure that the Kohanim go on top of the Kevesh, where they are protected from corpse-tumah, and not on the ground next to it. They therefore made a ledge protruding alongside the bridge. This would make that if there was tumah at any point under the ledge, anyone under the whole ledge becomes tamei. (Just like an Ohel stops corpse tumah from rising up, it also spreads the tumah to anyone under that roof.) This made the Kohanim much more concerned to walk on the ground, and it made sure they walked on the Kevesh. 

   
​   We see that some of these explanations explain the purpose of the walls, and some the purpose of the ledges. It could be that they were built for more than one reason, and each one of the Mefarshim is just saying another one of the reasons, which were all taken into account when they designed the Kevesh.

The (re)building of the bridge

   The Mishnah in Shekalim (chapter 4) discusses what the money from the yearly half-shekel donation that everyone had to give to the Beis Hamikdash was used for. Three times a year, they would take out three baskets of the money from the room it was kept in, and use it for the various communal Korbanos, like the Korban Tamid brought twice a day, the korban Musaf on Yomim Tovim, and other Korbanos. Any remaining money left in the room at the end of the year was then used for various things. One of the things the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:2) mentions that it was used for building this Kevesh for the Parah Adumah, when it was necessary to build it. Abba Shaul argues; and says that the bridge was paid for by the Kohen Gadol who burned the Parah Adumah. (Even though it was not necessary for the kohen Gadol to burn it, but any Kohen could, almost every Parah Adumah was burned by the Kohen Gadol, as can be seen from the list in the Mishnah, Parah 3:5. [ראה עזרת כהנים, מדות א:ג, ד"ה כהן גדול השורף את הפרה, בשם הרמב"ם])

​    Rabbi Chanina, in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Shekalim 4:2) on this Mishnah, says that there was much arrogance in the families of the Kohanim Gedolim, as the bridge costed an astronomical sum, 60 Kikars of gold, or according to other versions, silver, and yet each one destroyed the previous Kevesh, and built a new one. [60 gold Kikars is worth, according to Rashi's conversion of weight, 140 million dollars; and according to the Rambam, 160 million dollars. 60 silver Kikar would be according to Rashi, 1.6 million dollars, and according to the Rambam, 1.9 million dollars.] Ulah asks on this to Rabbi Mana, that we learned in a Baraisa, that Shimon Hatzadik did two cows, and for each one he made a new Kevesh. Can we (Chas Veshalom) say that Shimon Hatzadik did this out of arrogance? Rather, they did this as a special honor to the mitzvah of burning the Parah Adumah.

    There are those who want to say (see for example, כבש פרה אדומה | Eyal Ben-Eliyahu - Academia.edu) that the Kevesh of the Parah Adumah was just an elevated walkway, elevated slightly above the ground. In order for an Ohel to block tumah, it must be 1 tefach (8 cm-3.1 inches) tall, so this walkway did not have to be too high to block tumah. They base this of the fact that this ramp was not found in the few excavations done on Har Hazeisim and Nachal Kidron, and from the fact that it is not mentioned by Josephus. From this Gemarah, however, we can disprove this theory, as a regular elevated walkway would not cost millions of dollars.

    R' Yaakov Emden, in his Sefer Lechem Shamayim on Mishnayos, deducts from the fact that the Mishnah says that they would "make" a Kevesh, that each Kevesh was destroyed after the Parah Adumah was burned, and therefore each Kohen had to build a new bridge. He writes that this was done to protect the city, as if they would have kept it, any enemy can easily go from Har Hazeisim to Yerushalayim; however, if there is no Kevesh, they have to go all the way down to the Nachal Kidron, and then go up to Yerushalayim. This, in fact, was the main fortification of the east, south, and west sides of Yerushalayim, that they were surrounded by valleys, and can't be easily approached. For this reason, most attacks on Yerushalayim were from the north, like Sancheriv's attempt, Nebuchadnezzar's attack, and Titus's attack.

     However, it seems like he forgot (or had some other explanation) about this Gemara in Shekalim, which number one, explains why they rebuilt the Kevesh each time, and number two, says that each Kohen Gadol broke the previous Kevesh and built a new one, which clearly shows that each one stood until it was broken by the next Kohen Gadol who burned a Parah Adumah.

    However, based on what he wrote we can explain the reason no archeological evidence of the Kevesh were found, and possibly why Josephus doesn't mention it. It would seem that when the Yidden prepared themselves for the Roman's attack on Yerushalayim, they would have destroyed the Kevesh to protect the city. (The stones might even have been used to fortify the city walls, as the city walls were also built with the remaining money from the half-shekel, as the Mishnah says in Shekalim 4:2.) It could be, that since during the end of Josephus's time spent in Yerushalayim, this bridge was not there, he did not mention it, especially since his main description of the city (in wars 5:4), is of how it was by the time of the Churban. (Another possibility of why he doesn't mention it is that it did not play a role in any major historical episodes, so he did not need to mention it.)

  In the previous article, we mentioned the Gemarah (Shavous 16a) that says in the name of Abba Shaul that there were two area on Har Hazeisim that were added to Yerushalayim. (This statement of Abba Shaul is also mentioned in Megillas Ta'anis Perek Vav, Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 1:3, and Tosefta Sanhedrin 3:2.) The Gemarah goes as follows:

 אבא שאול אומר, שני ביצעין היו בהר המשחה, תחתונה ועליונה. תחתונה נתקדשה בכל אלו, עליונה לא נתקדשה בכל אלו, אלא בעולי גולה, שלא במלך ושלא באורים ותומים. תחתונה שהיתה קדושתה גמורה, עמי הארץ נכנסין לשם ואוכלין שם קדשים קלים אבל לא מעשר שני, וחברים אוכלין שם קדשים קלים ומעשר שני. עליונה שלא היתה קדושתה גמורה, עמי הארץ היו נכנסין שם ואוכלין שם קדשים קלים אבל לא מעשר שני, וחברים אין אוכלין שם לא קדשים קלים ולא מעשר שני. ומפני מה לא קידשוה, שאין מוסיפין על העיר ועל העזרות אלא במלך ונביא ואורים ותומים ובסנהדרין של ע"א ובשתי תודות ובשיר. ולמה קידשוה, למה קידשוה, הא אמרת לא קידשוה, אלא למה הכניסוה, מפני שתורפה של ירושלים היתה, ונוחה היא ליכבש משם

Abba Shaul says: There were two ponds [bitza'in] on the Mount of Olives [Har HaMishcha], a lower pond and an upper pond. The lower one was consecrated during the time of the First Temple with all the procedures mentioned in the mishna, and it has the sanctity of Jerusalem for all purposes. By contrast, the upper one was not consecrated with all these, but rather it was consecrated by those who returned from the exile in Babylonia, without a king and without the Urim VeTummim. 
 
With regard to the lower pond, whose consecration was complete, amei ha’aretz would enter into there and would partake of offerings of lesser sanctity that may be eaten in all of Jerusalem there, but they would not partake of Maaser Sheini there. And Chaverim would partake of both offerings of lesser sanctity and Maaser Sheini there.
 
But the upper pond, whose consecration was incomplete, amei ha’aretz would enter into there and partake of offerings of lesser sanctity there, but not Maaser Sheini. And Chaverim would partake of neither offerings of lesser sanctity nor Maaser Sheini there. And why did they not consecrate the upper pond? It was because additions can be made to the city of Jerusalem or to the Temple courtyards only with a king, a prophet, the Urim VeTummim, and the Sanhedrin of seventy-one, and with two thanks-offerings and with a special song.
 
The Gemara asks: But why did they consecrate the upper pond if they could not do so properly? This Gemara responds: Why did they consecrate it? Didn’t you say that they did not consecrate it? Rather, why did they bring it within the walls of the city? The Gemara answers: Because it was a weak point of Jerusalem and it would have been easy to conquer the city from there, it became necessary to include it within the wall. (Translation from the Koren Talmud, through Sefaria)

    Now, where exactly are these two "ponds"? The Gemarah and Megillas Ta'anis says they were on "Har Hamishchah", which is Har Hazeisim (Mishchah-משחה means oil, Zeisim-זיתים means olives), while the Yerushalmi and Tosefta only say generally "in Yerushalayim". Most people (R' Yehosef Schwartz in Tevu'os Haaretz, R' Yechiel Michel Tucazinsky, and others,) prefer this version over the version in the Gemarah, and say it is talking about the areas added to Yerushalayim in the north, like the are inside the second and third wall, or other places. (See אוצר ירושלים והמקדש, עמוד 17, for the different opinions.) One of the reasons for this is that there are a lot of graves from the times of the first and second Beis Hamikdash on Har Hazeisim, as well as in Nachal Kidron, which separates the mountain from Yerushalayim. (For example, Kivrey Hanevi'im Chagay, Zechariah and Malachi on the top of the mountain, south of the place of Burning the Parah Adumah; Kever Bnei Cheizir and Kever Zechariah ben Yehoyadah in Nachal Kidron, and many others.) They also say that the word ביצעין-Betza'in means "to separate" (like לבצוע על הפת-to break bread), and not a pond or marsh. However, Rashi (as well as the Ri"d in his Pesakim) clearly writes that it means a marsh/pond. Also, it is clear that these Rishonim kept the version of the Gemarah, that it was on Har Hazeisim, (as Rashi explains that Har Hamishchah is the same as Har Hazeisim,) and generally speaking, usually the version of a Gemarah is considered more accurate that the Tosefta. Therefore, it seems we should take the Gemarah as we have it, and we should look for a place on Har Hazeisim for these two additions.

   There are two Sefarim which discuss where on Har Hazeisim to these additions were, and both of them point to the area directly to the East of Har Habayis. The first person is the Ri"d, in his Pesakim on Shavous. He writes as follows:
פי' בצעי מים היו כעין אגמים שהיו יורדין מי גשמים מהר המשחה ומתקבצין שם אותה שהיתה בשיפולי הר הזיתים סמוכה להר הבית קורא תחתונה ואותה שהיתה כמעט עולה בגובה בהר הזיתי' והיא רחוקה מהר הבית קורא עליונה-"The Bitza'in are like marshes, that rainwater would drain down from Har Hazeisim and gather there. The one by the bottom of the mountain, next to the Har Habayis, he calls it the lower one, and the one that was slightly higher on the mountain, and further from Har Habayis, he calls the upper one." Since he describes the lower marsh as being next to the Har Habayis, we can deduct that he locates them on the part of Har Hazeisim that is directly opposite it. 

​   The other source is Sha'alos Uteshuvos Mahari"t, volume 2 siman 37. He was asked about the grave of Chuldah Haneviah, which was said to be on top of Har Hazeisim, while the Tosefta (Bava Basra 1:7) says that it was in Yerushalayim. He answers by first asking another question, since the Halacha is that we may not bury people in Yerushalayim, how did they bury Chuldah inside the city? He answers that she was buried next to the upper marsh, which at that point was not part of Yerushalayim. When they extended Yerushalayim by the beginning of Bayis Sheini, they did not move her grave out. He proves that the wall of the upper march went around the top of Har Hazeisim, where she is buried, from the Gemarah. The Gemarah ends off its discussion about the two Bitza'in by asking why they included the upper one in the walls of the city, and answers "Because it was a weak point of Yerushalayim and it would have been easy to conquer it from there". He deducts from this that it would have been by the top of the mountain, as that that is the best defense post. 

   [I am not going to get into a discussion if this is, in fact, Kever Chuldah. While many, starting with the Kaftor Vaferach (Perek vav), do in fact mention this tradition, with R' Moshe Chagiz (Parshas Eileh Maasey, page 16) even writing that the Arizal confirmed it; R' Yehosef Shwartz argues extensively against it (Tevu'os Ha'aretz, Lunz edition, pp 348-352), and R' Zalman Koren (Kovetz Ma'alin Bakodesh, p 30, n 29) writes that the Arizal actually didn't confirm it.]

   From all this we can see that the two Bitza'in (ponds/marshes) added on Har Hazeisim were added directly east of the Har Habayis, as the grave of Chuldah is more or less directly east of Sha'ar Harachamim (If you draw a line from Sha'ar Harachamim to Kever Chuldah, it will turn only half a degree towards the north.). This would also explain Rashi (Sukkah 51a), who implies that there was a significant part of Yerushalayim to the east of Har Habayis. You do, however, have to draw the line of the walls carefully, so no graves from the times of either Beis Hamikdash are located in this area. Also, the place of the burning of the Parah Adumah, which was directly east of the Kodesh Hakodoshim, has to be outside of Yerushalayim. Based on all this, I have made an approximate plan of how these two walls would have looked. The only graves located in this area are from non-Jews, from the late Roman or Byzantine era.

   (Based on this, it could be that the "שער המטרה" [Prison gate] mentioned in Nechemiah 12:39, which from the context there it appears to be near the Beis Hamikdash, is a gate from the original part of Yerushalayim, to the lower Bitza; and it is called the "prison gate" since even when you exit through it, you still remain enclosed in walls. Also, the Sha'ar Hamifkad mentioned in Nechemiah 3:31, might be a gate in the north of the Lower Bitza, leading out of the city. In Yechezkel 3:21 the word Mifkad also appears, when Hashem tells him that some of the Korbanos from the Chanukas Bayis Shlishi will be burned "in the Mifkad of the house" [במפקד הבית], which Rashi explains means outside the Beis Hamikdash, Mifkad meaning the end; or alternatively, the Radak translates it as "the command", meaning in the place where they are commanded to burn it". Based on this, this title would fit a gate in this area, which is by the end of the area Yerushalayim sanctified properly, with all the commandments involved done properly. But this is all conjecture, although it is pretty clear that these gates were located approximately in this area.)

Now, one more thing we need to explain is Josephus, who, in his description of the walls of Yerushalayim (Wars 5:4), does not mention this area. You could say that Josephus only describes the First, Second, and Third walls of Yerushalayim, which this is not part of any of them, so it sort of falls to the side. However, I have found a place where Josephus seems to mention that part of Har Hazeisim was included in Yerushalayim. When he describes the path of the siege wall erected by Titus, during the siege of Yerushalayim, he writes the following: (Wars 5:12:2) 
   "Titus began the wall from the camp of the Assyrians, where his own camp was pitched, and drew it down to the lower parts of the new town; from there it crossed over the Kidron to the Mount of Olives; it then bent towards the south, and encompassed the mountain as far as the rock called Peristereon (dovecotes, where doves were raised), and that other hill which lies next it, and is over the valley which reaches to Siloam...and there, on the east, was joined to Titus's own camp, where it began. The length of this wall was thirty-nine furlongs."

    We see from this that at least part of Har Hazeisim was included in the siege wall. Now, why would Titus make the siege wall cross over the Kidron valley, and surround part of Har Hazeisim, until the Peristereon, when he could just make it include the Kidron valley, and the whole Yerushalayim is closed up. We see from this that part of Yerushalayim was on Har Hazeisim, and he had to include that part. (You could say that he did not make it in the valley, as then the Yidden on top can easily shoot them. However, according to this, the length of the whole wall would be only 5,070 meters [3.15 miles] long, while Josephus writes it was 39 stadia, which is around 7,215 meters [4.48 miles], each stadia being at least 185 meters [606 feet], if not more. However, if it included a bigger area of Har Hazeisim, which only could have been if part of the city was there, it will be 5,989 meters [3.72 miles], which is much closer to the number mentioned by Josephus.)

  Now, Josephus does mention (wars 5:2:3) that one of the legions of Titus's army camped on Har Hazeisim, seemingly implying that it was outside the city. However, we need to remember that the Bitza'in are only on part of Har Hazeisim, on the area east of the Beis Hamikdash, and there is a lot more space on the north and south of this, facing the city. Also, Josephus writes that the Roman camp was located six stadia (1,110 meters-3641 feet) away from Yerushalayim, which is past the end of the Bitza'in. 

   (As an interesting sidenote, I should point out that Conrad Schick seems to have noted this Gemarah, and explained it literally, that it is talking about Har Hazeisim. In an article he wrote about Har Hazeisim (in the PEF quarterly statement, October 1889, pp 174-176), he mentions it, although he says that the area was just given the status of Yerushalayim; but was not actually encircled with a wall. This is obviously not correct, as from the Gemarah we see that it was walled, but it is interesting that he brings down this Gemarah. In another article (PEFQS January 1895, pp 37-40), he writes that there was a fortress-town at the top of Har Hazeisim. He theorizes that the Beis-Zur mentioned in the second book of Maccabees (chapter 11) is this fortress-town, and is different than the Beis Zur mentioned in Yehoshua (15:58), and in the first book of Maccabees (4:27), which is near Chevron. Although I have not looked into this theory, if it is true, Beis-Tzur could be a corruption of the word Bitzah.)

    When Warren was exploring Yerushalayim, he dug a tunnel under the Arab cemetery east of Sha'ar Harachamim, in order to examine the underground part of the Har Habayis wall. He dug a shaft at a distance of 43.5 meters (143 feet) east of the wall, and then tried to dig a horizontal tunnel to the wall. However, 14 meters (46 feet) to the east of the Har Habayis wall, (which is 29.56 m [97 ft] away from the start of his tunnel,) his way was blocked by a massive stone wall, running parallel to the Har Habayis wall. To the north of the point where Warren found this wall, it turned slowly towards the west, apparently until it would have met the Har Habayis wall. 

   (Warren attempted to break through this wall, but after getting in 1.5 meters (5 feet), this work was abandoned, as the stones were very big. This wall rose to a considerable height, and in fact, Warren writes that on top of it, in the Arab cemetery, there are some large stones lying on the same line as this wall. Warren also followed the wall for 4.5 meters (15 feet) to the south, but there was no sign of it stopping.)

​   This wall was made of large stones, with marginal drafts and a rough protruding boss, like the stones of the middle part of the eastern Har Habayis wall. The stones are around 76 cm (2.5 ft) tall, and around 1.5 meters (5 feet) long. The wall is over 1.67 meters (5.5 feet) thick, as Warren made a hole in the wall that deep, but still didn't reach the other side. In between the stone courses, there is a 30 cm (12 in) gap, filled up with small stones, 15 cm (6 in) cube, packed into a peculiar cement, which looked like an argillaceous stone with a conchoidal fracture. The Arab workers that were with Warren said that it appeared to be made of lime, oil, and virgin red earth. 

   This wall is the east wall of Yerushalayim, the fact that it turns and meets up with the east wall of Har Habayis is what Josephus refers to when he writes (Wars 5:4:2) that the eastern wall of Yerushalayim "joined to the eastern stoa of the temple".  The strange construction of this wall, with the cement between the stone courses, could have been just in the lower part of this walls, as a result of levelling operations, which were needed since the bedrock here has a steep slope. Since the stones are similar to the masonry of the middle part of the eastern wall, it would seem that this wall is also from the time of the first Beis Hamikdash, or alternatively, from the beginning of the second Beis Hamikdash period. 

reference

Conder, Claude Reignier, and Warren, Charles. The Survey of Western Palestine: Jerusalem. London, 1884.

Ritmeyer, Leen. The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Israel: Carta, 2006.​

   The middle section of the eastern wall, from the times of Shlomo Hamelech, has one gate currently visible in it, the Shaar Harachamim. This gate, which is located around 312 meters (1023 feet) away from the southeast corner, is built on the remains of the original gate that stood there in the time of the Beis Hamikdash. This double gate was built by Shlomo, one gate for chasanim, and one gate for mourners and people in Cherem. "On Shabbos the Yidden went and sat between those two gates; and they knew that anyone who entered through the gate of the bridegrooms was a bridegroom, and they said to him, May He who dwells in this house cause you to rejoice with sons and daughters. If one entered through the gate of the mourners with his upper lip covered, then they knew that he was a mourner, and they would say to him. May He who dwells in this house comfort you. If one entered through the gate of the mourners without having his upper lip covered, then they knew that he was excommunicated, and they would say to him, May He who dwells in this house put into your heart (the desire) to listen to the words of your associates, and may He put into the hearts of your associates that they may draw you near (to themselves), so that all Israel may discharge their duty by rendering the service of loving-kindness" (Pirkey D'Rabbi Eliezer, end of Perek Yud-Zayin).

   It seems hard to imagine that you could fit all the Yidden living in Yerushalayim, or even a large portion of them, in between these two gates. However, since Sha'ar Harachamim is much lower than the surface of Har Habayis, (The threshold is around 726-732 meters (2378-2400) above. sea. level.,) especially according to what I wrote (based on the Radvaz) in an earlier post, that the Har Habayis used to be much taller; there would have been a tunnel leading from this gate to the surface. The Yiden could have sat in the center of the tunnel, and there would have been two aisles, one from each gate, for the chasanim and mourners to walk through. (For more about this gate, see my earlier article, Shaar Harachamim.) 

The gate mentioned by the Kaftor Veferach
​ The Kaftor Vaferach writes (Perek 6)
"מכל זה יראה כי מה שאנו רואים היום בזמננו זה מהכותלים העומדים האלה, שהם כותלים מחומת הר הבית. עוד היום ניכר שער שושן למזרח והוא סגור אבני גזית. ואם תחלק זה הכותל לשלשה חלקים יהיה זה הפתח בחלק הראשון מצד קרן מזרחי דרומי וכן ניכרים שני שערי חולדה לדרום, וכן ניכר שער הקיפינוס למערב, שער הצפון שהוא הטדי אינו ניכר שאותו צד נחרב."

"From all this it is seen that what we see now from these walls, they are the walls of Har Habayis. Until today you can see Sha'ar Shushan in the east, blocked up with hewn stones. If you divide this wall into three parts, this gate will be in the first part from the south-east. The Chuldah gates are also visible in the south, and the Kiponos gate in the west. The Northern gate, Sha'ar Tadi, is not visible, because that wall is broken."
   (The Chuldah gates he mentions are probably the double and triple gates in the south, and the Kiponos is probably Warren's or Barclay's gate, although it might be one of the gates on top of Wilson's arch. The Shushan gate he mentions is not known and is probably now buried underground.)

   Now, we know that Sha'ar Shushan was directly opposite the doors to the Ezras Nashim, Azarah, and Heichal (Berachos 9:5, it also seems this way from Yoma 16a). So, since the Kaftor Vaferach says that Sha'ar Shushan is in the southern third of the eastern wall of the Har Habayis, it comes out that he holds that the Dome of the Rock is not the place of the Kodesh Hakodoshim! (The length of the eastern Har Habayis wall is 466 meters (1530 feet) long, a third of which is 155.3 meters (510 feet), while the dome of the rock is located 215 meters (705 feet) away from the southern wall of the Har Habayis!) Now this is strange, because the tradition that the Dome of the rock is the place of the Kodesh Hakodoshim was already widespread in his days, and if he was arguing, he should have said so clearly. 

  Another problem is that later he writes that Sha'ar Harachamim is located כמטחוי קשת-two bowshots (or just: a bowshot) away from his Sha'ar Shushan. Now, although this is obviously not an exact measurement, based on the use of this expression by the Kaftor Vaferach elsewhere, it comes out that it is around 70-120 meters (229-393 feet.) However, the distance from Sha'ar Harachamim to the southern third of the eastern wall is 150 meters (492 feet), which seems to be much bigger than what he calls "two bowshots". 

   To answer these questions, we need to remember that the eastern wall of the Har Habayis is also presently part of the eastern wall of Yerushalayim, and they both run along the same line. In fact, if you are looking at Yerushalayim from the east, you can't really tell where the Har Habayis ends. Therefore, Rabbi Zalman Koren has explained that when the Kaftor Vaferach talks about the southern third of the wall, he is referring to the whole east wall of Yerushalayim, not just the east wall of Har Habayis. 

​   It should be noted that around 100 years before the Kaftor Vaferach, the emir, El Malik Al-Mu'azzam isa, destroyed the fortifications of Yerushalayim, so that if the crusaders came back to it, they would not be able to fortify themselves in Eretz Yisroel. The walls were only rebuilt much later, by the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman, in the years 5297-5301 (1537-1541). This would seem to disprove Rabbi Koren's answer, as there would not have been a wall in Yerushalayim at the time of the Kaftor Vaferach, in 5073 (1313). However, this is not the case. Al Mu'azzam did not totally destroy the walls of Yerushalayim, rather he made big breaches, but there were still parts of the wall standing, as can be seen from pictures of Yerushalayim in that period. In fact, the east wall was left mostly standing, at least as far as some point to the north of Sha'ar Ha'arayos (the lions' gate). This gate located 545 meters (1788 feet) away from the southeast corner of Har Habayis. If we want to have Sha'ar Shushan opposite the dome of the rock, it needs to be located 210-215 meters (688-705 feet) away from the southeast corner. Three times this amount is 645 meters (2116 feet), meaning that the eastern wall only has to continue around 100 meters (328 feet) past Sha'ar Ha'arayos, which is not that much, and still leaves space for a breach in the northern part of the wall. Based on this, the Kaftor Vaferach does not argue with the dome of the rock being the location of the Beis Hamikdash. (It is true that he never mentions that it is the location. However, that could be because he did not feel the tradition to be reliable enough for a halacha that has Kares, going into the Beis Hamikdash while Tamei. However, he could still hold that it is the most probable location.) 

   Now, we have written that the extant eastern wall of Har Habayis is not from the 500-amah square Har Habayis, rather from the Migrash, in which case we need to figure out the purpose of this gate. It seems that (like the Kiponos gate), there was a gate in this outer wall, from which a tunnel led up to the surface of the Har Habayis, in front of Sha'ar Shushan. (The Kaftor Vaferach's opinion of where the borders of the square Har Habayis were still needs to be figured out. He seems to hold that the extant walls of Har Habayis are the walls of the square Har Habayis, although this seems strange. Hopefully one day Hashem will help someone figure this out.)

הרב עזריה אריאל, ​שיטת הכפתור־ופרח בזיהוי מקום המקדש (קובץ מעלין בקודש גליון לה)

הרב זלמן מנחם קורן, תשובת הרדב"ז על כניסה לעליות סביב הר הבית, נספח ,2 דעת בעל הכפתור ופרח בעניין מקום קודש הקודשים, (קובץ מעלין בקודש גליון ל) 

הרב זלמן מנחם קורן, על עמדת הכפתור ופרח בנוגע למקום ההיכל [בתוך תשובת הרדב"ז על כניסה לעליות סביב  הר הבית (תשובה להשגת עמיחי אליאש)], קובץ מעלין בקודש, גליון לא, עמודים 93-106

(שלש מאמרים אלו נלקטו ונדפסו בספר איה מקום כבודו, ארץ ישראל ה' תשפ"ב)

    ​Above ground by this corner there are the remains of an arch, similar to Robinson's arch, and on top of that there are remains of a double gateway that led into Shlomo's stables. This arch, which is located 0.6 m (2 ft) to the north of the seam, is 7 m (23 ft) long, and is made of two stones. The bottom of this arch fragment is at an elevation of 723 m (2,372 ft) above sea level. Under this are three impost stones, the bosses of the southern two are eroded, however the smaller, northern one's boss is still pretty well preserved, and projects from the wall around 46 cm (18 in). The double gate on top of the arch, which is now blocked up, is 6.8 m (22 ft 4 in) wide, including the pier in between them. The doorsill is at the same level as Shlomo's stables, showing that this door was used to go inside it. This arch evidently supported a staircase leading up to the gate, similar to Robinson's arch. However, Warren was unable to find any remains of a pier for this arch, which leads us to say that after the Churban it was either dismantled and used for other buildings, or it fell down to the bottom of Nachal Kidron.​

The lowest stone course in the southeast corner, course g, is 1.11 m (3 ft 8 in) high, it is mostly sunk into the bedrock, and is 12.4 (41 ft) long, at which point the bedrock rises abruptly. The second course, course f, is 1.3 m (4 ft 3.5 in) high, and extends to the north for the same distance as the lower course, at which point, as mentioned, the rock rises abruptly. On the south side it extends to the west 2.5 m (8 ft 3.5 in), and is bedded in the rock, and completely covered at its western end. The second, third, and fourth stones in the row (going from the south to the north,) have peculiar margins: the second stone has a 21 cm (8.5 in) margin on the top, while the lower one is only 4.1 cm (1 5/8 in), it has normal side margins, and has letters carved into the middle. The third stone has no upper margin, and the lower margin is 42.5 cm (16.75 in). It has normal side margins, and has letters painted on it with red paint. The fourth stone has an upper margin of 31.7 cm (12.5 in), but no lower margins, the side margins are normal. The remaining stones of this course have regular margins, but the fifth stone has a red circle painted on its top left corner. 

​   The third course, course e, is 128 cm (4 ft 2.5 in) high, and extends 19.5 m (64 ft) to the north; it is set back 11.4 cm (4.5 in) from the course under it. The corner stone has no upper margin, and a 11.4 cm (4.5 in) margin on bottom. There are two letters/symbols on this stone course, one letter in red paint on the corner stone, on its top left corner, and another letter engraved on the bottom left of the sixth stone of this course. The fourth course, course d, is 110.5 cm (3 ft 7.5 in) high and is 23.1 m (76 ft) long; it is set back 6.3 cm (2.5 in) from the course under it. There are no letters or symbols on any of the stones in this course. 

   The fifth course, course c, is 1.11 m (3 ft 8 in) high and 24.3 m (80 ft) long; it is set back 11.4 cm (4.5 in). The second, fifth, sixth, and tenth stones, as well as the southern side of the corner stone, have letters painted on them with red paint. The eleventh stone, which has two letters/symbols carved into it, projects about 0.3 cm (1/8 in) too much, and about half of its surface has been worked over again. The thirteenth stone, which is 16.4 m (54 ft) from the corner, has no marginal drafts.

   The sixth course, course b, is 1.06 m (3 ft 6 in) tall; the seventh course, course a, is 1.21 m (4 ft) tall; and the eight course, course Z, is 1.37 m (4 ft 6 in) high. The ninth course, course Y, is 1.21 m (4 ft) high, although 19.5 meters (64 ft 3 in) north of the corner, the course gets 15.2 cm (6 in) shorter, and the tenth course is set into it. The tenth course, course X, is 1.11 m (3 ft 8 in) high, although as already mentioned, at 19.5 meters (64 ft 3 in) north of the corner, the height of the course increases to 1.27 m (4 ft 2 in), as the course under it gets 15.2 cm (6 in) shorter. This course is set back from the one under it 15.8 cm (6.25 in) for the southernmost 27.3 meters (89 ft 9 in). After this, the setback is increased to 24.1 cm (9.5 in), although the course on top of this, course W, projects 5 cm (2 in) over this part of course X.

   Starting from around course a, the courses go all the way to the seam, at which point they stop, and the older wall starts, the courses of which have different levels. For example, when course X stops, the course of the old wall starts 55.8 cm (1 ft 10 in) higher than the bottom of course X.

   ​As we mentioned, there are numerous letters and symbols painted or inscribed on the stones of this corner, as well as by the northeast corner of Har Habayis. Warren writes about the letters as follows: "The incised characters are cut with a tool to a depth of 3 inch (7.5 cm). The painted characters, in some instances 12 inches (30 cm) high, appear to have been put on with a brush. The paint used is red, probably vermilion, and easily rubbed off with a wet finger. There are a few red splashes here and there, as if the paint had dropped from the brush. The general impression from an inspection of the characters is that they...were painted on before the stones were laid in their places...On some of the stones there are no characters visible; on others, the whole of the surface within the draft is occupied by characters." (The Survey of Western Palestine, Jerusalem, pp 151-152).

   Warren consulted Mr. Emanuel Oscar Menachem Deutsch, an expert on semitic languages, about these characters. Mr. Deutsch examined these characters; and concluded as follows: "1. The signs cut or painted were on the stones when they were first laid in their present position. 2. They do not represent any inscription. 3. They are Phoenician. I consider them to be partly letters, partly numerals, and partly special masons' or quarry signs. Some of them were recognizable at once as well-known Phoenician characters; others hitherto unknown in Phoenician epigraphy I had the rare satisfaction of being able to identify on undoubtedly Phoenician structures in Syria." (The Survey of Western Palestine, Jerusalem, pp 152).

   However, recently Ronny Reich and Yuval Baruch have come up with a different theory for some of these letters. They say that these cannot be masonic marks, because if they were, they would be found on many stones of the Har Habayis walls, not just by the two eastern corners. They identify some of the letters as follows: The two letters on the southern face of the cornerstone of course c are clearly kufs (ק), two upside-down letters, a kuf and a ches (ח), on the second stone of course f, another upside down ches on the sixth stone of course e, and another two kufs, as well as a tav (ת), on a stone by the northeast corner. They say (based on the Mishnah, Ma'aser Sheni 4:11), that the Kuf stands for Korban, and the tav for terumah, both being used here to mean a donation to the Mikdash treasury. The ches they say stands for Cherem, also a term used to refer to donations to the Mikdash treasury, for the upkeep of the Beis Hamikdash (Erchin 8:6). Based on this, they say these stones were put down as part of a "laying of the cornerstone" (הנחת אבן הפינה) ceremony, to officially start off the expansion of Har Habayis. When these stones were placed, some were accidently placed upside down.

   (We know from Josephus (wars 5:5:1) that the expansion of the Har Habayis started in the north, so that explains the stone by the northeast corner; and to explain the southeastern corner's stones, based on this theory, we have to say that this corner was also built in the beginning, for some reason or other, maybe because it was deeper, or maybe by the official ceremony, they marked both new edges of the eastern wall.)

Reference

Conder, Claude Reignier, and Warren, Charles. The Survey of Western Palestine: Jerusalem. London, 1884.
​
Koren, Zalman Menachem. Beit HaMikdash: The Temple and the Holy Mount. United States: Shaar Press/ Mesorah Publications, in conjunction with the Western Wall Heritage Foundation, 2009.​
​
Reich R., Baruch, Y. 2016, THE MEANING OF THE INSCRIBED STONES AT THE CORNERS OF THE HERODIAN TEMPLE MOUNT, Revue Biblique, 123/1 (2016)' PP. 118-124

​Ritmeyer, Leen. The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Israel: Carta, 2006.

Ritmeyer, Leen. “Quarrying and Transporting Stones for Herod’s Temple Mount,” Biblical Archaeology Review 15.6 (1989): 46–48.

Warren, Charles. Plans, elevations, sections, etc. shewing the results of the excavations at Jerusalem, 1867-70: executed for the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund, London 1884

  In this wall you can see stones from the era of Shlomo Hamelech (the first Beis Hamikdash), and from the time of Hurdus, when he expanded Har Habayis (end of second Beis Hamikdash era). This is because when Hurdus rebuilt the Beis Hamikdash, he expanded the Har Habayis only on three sides (Josephus, wars 5:5:1), however, he did not expand it towards the east, as the Kidron valley which was there made it hard to expand in that direction. Therefore, the middle section of the wall is from Shlomo's Beis Hamikdash, however, the northern and southern sections are the walls of Hurdus's northern and southern expansions. 

    The Herodian stones in the southern end of the wall, goes until 32 meters (105 feet 6 inches) from the south edge, at which point there is a joint ("the seam"), where the Herodian masonry (which has flat middles) ends and the Solomonic masonry (which has bulging middles) begins. If you look closely at the seam, you can see the Solomonic masonry was cut into in order to place the Herodian masonry. 

   In the northern part of the wall, the Herodian masonry extends for around 121 meters (397 feet) to the south from the north-east corner, at which point there is another joint, and the Solomonic masonry begins. At this joint, the Solomonic masonry is set forward from the Herodian masonry about 60 centimeters (2 feet). (This joint is located 20.7 meters (68 feet) to the north of the Sha'ar Harachamim, and around 345 meters (1131 ft, 10 in) away from the southeast corner of the wall.)

   As I mentioned in an earlier article, the northern end of the Migrash of Har Habayis is actually a little more to the south of this northern joint. Therefore, we must say that there was a tower at this place, sticking out of the Migrash. This tower is very likely the Aliyas Hapinah ("upper floor of the corner") mentioned by Nechemiah (3:31), which was in this area. 

​This eastern wall of the Har Habayis was the tallest of all the walls, as the ground on which it stood was lower than the ground under the other walls. In fact, Josephus writes that the other three walls were 300 Amos high (wars 5:5:1), while this wall was four hundred Amos tall (Antiquities 20:9:7, see also Antiquities 8:3:9). This number, like most of Josephus's numbers, is an exaggerated estimate, (He did not go around the Beis Hamikdash with a measuring stick when he wrote his books, rather he was writing from earlier accounts of the Beis Hamikdash, as well as from memory, at least ten years after he last saw it,) but we see from here that the eastern wall was the tallest. 

    In the southeast corner, the bottom of the wall is 695 m (2280 ft) above sea level, the bedrock then rises towards the middle, reaching a height of about 715 m (2345 ft) in the area of Sha'ar Harachamim. (The lowest point of the other walls of the Har Habayis, near the western edge of the southern wall, is 697.6 m (2289 ft) above sea level.) The rock then slopes downward, until it is 694.3 m (2278 ft) above sea level. The rock then goes up, until by the northeast corner, it is at a level of 710 meters (2330 ft) above sea level. As can be seen from this, Hurdus's northern expansion of the Har Habayis went past the northern edge of Har Hamoriah, and crossed over a valley, the Bezesa valley, to the hill on the north of Har Habayis. (See this article for an estimate of how high the Har Habayis walls went to.)

Reference

אוצר ירושלים והמקדש, יצא לאור ע"י אנציקלופדיה תלמודית, ירושלים התשע"ג

Conder, Claude Reignier, and Warren, Charles. The Survey of Western Palestine: Jerusalem. London, 1884.
​
Ritmeyer, Leen. The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Israel: Carta, 2006.

Warren, Charles. Plans, elevations, sections, etc. shewing the results of the excavations at Jerusalem, 1867-70: executed for the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund, London 1884

  At 20.3 meters (66 ft 7 in) away from the southern corner of the eastern wall, a vertical line, or offset, can be seen in the wall, starting five stone courses below the floor of Shlomo's stables. This line is created from the stones on the south side of it projecting slightly from the wall. As the wall gets higher, and each stone course of it is set back more, the projection deepens. This is not a separate building than the rest of the wall, as is shown from the fact that the projection is sometimes cut out of the same stone, with the northern part of the stone being cut so it doesn't project as much as the southern side. Based on remains inside Shlomo's stables, Shaul Schaffer estimates that the tower extended 17 meters (56 feet) to the west.

    By this corner of the Har Habayis, remains of a blocked-up window, two stone courses high, can be seen in the southern wall, and three windows, each one three courses high, can be seen in the eastern wall. the lintels of the eastern windows are actually the springers of a vault, showing that the chambers in the tower had a vaulted roof. 

reference

​Conder, Claude Reignier, and Warren, Charles. The Survey of Western Palestine: Jerusalem. London, 1884

​Gibson, Shimon and David Jacobson (1996), Below the Temple Mount in Jerusalem: A Sourcebook on the Cisterns, Subterranean Chambers and Conduits of the Haram Al-Sharif​.
​
​Ritmeyer, Leen. The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Israel: Carta, 2006.

     This reconstruction of the vaulted area was most probably done by the Umayyads, when they built up the Har Habayis. Only part of one arch in the western wall of this hall is left of this construction. The vaults were damaged in the earthquake in the year 4794 (1033), and then rebuilt, probably by the Fatimids, and then renovated again by the crusaders. During all this time, the eastern part of the Har Habayis was lower than the western part, and these vaults were accessed through openings in their northern wall. Sometime after the crusader period, the Har Habayis was leveled, and Shlomo's stables were turned into completely underground structures. 

   As it stands now, the building is built with reused Herodian stones. There are 13 rows of vaults of a variety of spans, from 3.3-7.6 m (11 to 25 ft) east and west, north and south the spans average 3.5 m (11 ft 6 in). These vaults extend from the south-east corner to the Triple Gate, on the south side, and for about 62 m (203 ft) to north on the east side, and the floor of the hall is at a level of 724 m (2375 ft) above sea level, 12.5 m (41 ft) below the present surface of the Har Habayis. There are a total of 88 piers supporting these vaults, although including the piers engaged in the wall, there are 94. 

    These vaults were turned by the crusaders into stables, where the templar knights kept their animals. They pierced holes through the piers to tie their horses to, although these holes are now stuffed up. The name "Shlomo's stables" seems to come from then, when this hall was used as a stable. It was called Shlomo's stables, since it was located near the area of Shlomo's palace, which was on the south of the [original] Har Habayis (Tavnis Heichal 4:1, based on Radak to Yechezkel 43 8). [During the crusader period, the Al Aksa Mosque was actually called Templum Solomonis-Shlomo's temple (palace), since it was approximately in the same place as Shlomo's palace.] In fact, this is probably the place that Shlomo kept the horses that he had in Yerushalayim (Melachim Aleph 10:26), since Sha'ar Hasusim (the horse gate), where the king rode out on his horse, was in the eastern wall of Yerushalayim, next to the king's palace, right around this spot. (Yirmeyah 31:40 with Radak, Nechemya 3:28).

   In 5760-1999, the Arabs built a large exit and stairway for the stables, which they had converted into a mosque. To do this, they bulldozed a large pit, more than 40 meters (130 feet) long, sloping down from north to south, with trucks carting away hundreds of tons of soil and debris. Through doing this, they broke through many archeological layers, and artifacts were destroyed. However, Gam Zo Latova, this too was for the good. Archeologists are not allowed to work on the Har Habayis. However, now that this dirt was off the Har Habayis, archeologists were able to start sifting through it and find many historical artifacts. Although it is not in the original context, so it has less archeological value, it is still the closest we can get to archeological work on the Har Habayis (which is anyways forbidden according to Halacha, as we cannot go on the Har Habayis today). This sifting work is done by the Temple Mount Sifting Project, and they have made many discoveries, from the Herodian tiles of the Har Habayis, to coins and weights, and many other things, from all historical eras. 

reference

Conder, Claude Reignier, and Warren, Charles. The Survey of Western Palestine: Jerusalem. London, 1884.
​
Gibson, Shimon and David Jacobson (1996), Below the Temple Mount in Jerusalem: A Sourcebook on the Cisterns, Subterranean Chambers and Conduits of the Haram Al-Sharif​.
​
Ritmeyer, Leen. The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Israel: Carta, 2006.
​
Seligman, Jon. “Solomon's Stables, The Temple Mount, Jerusalem: The Events Concerning the Destruction of Antiquities 1999–2001.” 'Atiqot 56 (2007): 33*-53*.

Wikipedia contributors, "Solomon's Stables," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solomon%27s_Stables&oldid=1049373608 (accessed June 30, 2022).

    To the east of the Triple Gate, remains (either burnt marks or foundations) of eighteen of these vaults have been found. Each vault is 60 cm (2 ft) lower than the previous one. Based on the normal height of steps then, you would need three steps to bridge this difference in height. Based on this, this part of the street either consisted of three steps and a landing; or was a ramp. This street would have descended around 11 meters (36 ft); and would have ended close to the southeast corner of the Har Habayis.

   These rooms were mostly built of stone, although some of them were hewn from the bedrock. In some of the rooms, remains of plastered floors have been found. The most westernmost of these rooms, right next to the Triple Gate, is the largest. The most easternmost vaulted rooms were also closed off on the southern side, so they probably were just built to support the street; and did not serve as stores. 

   ​The tunnel under the single gate

    32 m (105 ft) away from the eastern corner of the wall is a blocked-up arched gate. This gate, called the single gate, was most probably built by the crusaders to allow access into Solomon's Stables, where they kept their horses. The sill of this gate is one stone course (around 1 m-3.5 ft) lower than the sill of the Triple Gate. Five stone courses (5.68 m/18 ft 8 in) below this gate, Warren discovered an entrance into a tunnel (passage number 16 in Gibson and Jacobson's book). This tunnel is located 34 meters (111.5 ft) away from the southeast corner; and it runs perpendicular to the southern wall of the Har Habayis. The top of this passageway is 719.3 m (2360 ft) above sea level.

   The tunnel is around 1 meter (3 ft) wide; and is 21.1 meters (69 feet) long. There are two entrances to this tunnel, one above the other. The upper one is one stone course (1.14 m/3 ft 9 in) high, and the lower one is a little less than two courses high (it is around 2 m/6 ft tall). These two entrances are separated by one stone course, 1.11 m (3 ft 8 in) tall. The bottom of this stone was partly cut to allow headroom. 2.1 meters (7 feet) into this tunnel there are indications that there was a metal door here: a hole 24 cm (10 in) square, and of the same depth, is cut in one of the roof stones, and there is the mark of abrasion on one of the side stones, as though a metal gate has swung against it.

   The walls of the tunnel consist of three courses of stone, each one 1.14 m (3 ft 9 in) tall. These stone are dressed in the regular Herodian style, with marginal drafts, although they are of lower quality than the ones used in the Har Habayis walls. Some of the vertical joints between the stones are wider than the ones in the Har Habayis walls, and they are filled up with small stones set in a blackish mortar. The roof of the tunnel is also built out of Herodian stones. (The lower quality of these stones is most probably because they were used in an underground tunnel, where emphasis is more on strength than beauty.) The northern end of the tunnel is blocked up with broken stones and dirt, although all the stones end there in a straight line, indicating that the tunnel originally stopped here, and there was a doorway leading to another passage or a chamber.

    The purpose of this tunnel is unknown. Warren theorized that it was used to drain the blood from the Beis Hamikdash to the outside. [This was probably as part of the system mentioned in the Mishnah [Middos 3:2] that brought the blood and drainage water from the Azarah to the Nachal Kidron.] Leen Ritmeyer says that it might have been used by the builders after the southern wall was built, to go build the interior of the Herodian extension. Another possibility is that it led to some underground chamber, or to another passage, leading deeper into the Har Habayis. (Meir Ben-Dov (pp 346-347), unlike the other opinions, says that this tunnel was built by the crusaders with reused Herodian stones. He says that it would have been an emergency escape from the Har Habayis to outside the city, as at that point this part of the southern wall was already outside the city walls, like it is today. He even claimed to have found this entrance on an old drawing of Yerushalayim from the crusader era, the Cambrai manuscript, where a postern is marked in this area [bottom left of picture].)

  Warren's drawings of the tunnel

​reference

Baruch, Yuval, and Ronny Reich, "Second Temple Period Finds from the New Excavations in the Ophel, South of the Temple Mount", in: Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Archaeological Discoveries 1998–2018,
editor Hillel Geva, pp 84-93, Jerusalem 2019.

Ben-Dov, Meir. In the Shadow of the Temple: The Discovery of Ancient Jerusalem. Israel: Harper & Row, 1985.​

Conder, Claude Reignier, and Warren, Charles. The Survey of Western Palestine: Jerusalem. London, 1884.
​
Gibson, Shimon and David Jacobson (1996), Below the Temple Mount in Jerusalem: A Sourcebook on the Cisterns, Subterranean Chambers and Conduits of the Haram Al-Sharif​.

Ritmeyer, Leen. The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Israel: Carta, 2006.

    65.6 meters (215 feet) to the east of the double gate is the triple gate (sometimes called the eastern Chuldah gate). It is 15.5 meter (51 feet) wide; and is made up of three 4-meter (13-feet) wide arched doors, separated by two 1.8-meter (6-feet) wide piers. The lowest stone of the western gate jamb, which is part of the master course, has a decorative molding on it. This stone is the only surviving stone of the original Herodian gate that stood here, the rest of the gate is from a later period, most probably from the Umayyad period. During the Crusader period, when they turned this part of the wall into the city wall (as it is today), the crusaders blocked up this doorway.

​​ This stone is 1.22 meter (4 feet) long, of which 76.5 centimeters (30 inches) on the left are dressed like regular Herodian stones, and the remaining 45.5 cm (18 in) on the right have the molding. The first 8 centimeters (3 inches) of the molding are a flat band to distinguish between the rest of the stone and the molding. 

   Around 7.5 meters (7.5 feet) in front of the triple gate, there are three vaulted chambers, (two of them running parallel to the southern wall, and one more to the south of them,) cut into the bedrock. These chambers supported the staircase leading to this gate. In fact, the western edge of these chambers is aligned with the surviving doorjamb of the original gate.

   The total length of the two parallel chambers is around 14.3 meters (47 ft), and their width at floor level is around 4.8 meters (15 feet, 9 inches). They are separated by a quarried wall 70 centimeters (2 ft 4 in) thick, with a doorway 1.1 m (3 ft 7 in) wide linking them. The western chamber opens in the south to the third chamber. The northern wall of the two rooms, made of bedrock, is the tallest, it is 5.2 meters (17 ft) tall, and slopes slightly to the south. The top of this wall curved slightly up, forming part of the vaults covering these rooms. At the top of the wall, a shelf was cut into the rock, to support the masonry vaults. The southern wall of these chambers, also cut out of the bedrock, is shorter. Traces of grey hydraulic plaster, of the type used during the time of the Beis Hamikdash, were found on the northern wall.

   The eastern chamber, which is 6.7 meters (22 ft) long, has five steps in it, descending from the east to the west. The floor of the western chamber is 0.9 m (3 ft) higher than the bottom of the eastern chamber. The western chamber is 7.2 meters (23 feet, 8 inches) long. In the southern wall of the western chamber there is an opening, leading into a third chamber. The rock-cut walls of this chamber are irregularly shaped. The western side is 5.8 m (19 ft) long, the eastern is 3.2 m (10.5 ft) long, and the southern is 4.3 m (14 ft) long.

    None of the steps of the staircase on top of these chambers remain in place, unlike the staircase by the double gate, of which a lot remains. (The staircase seen now is a reconstruction made to help people understand how it looked.) However, a double step (two steps carved from one stone) has been found in secondary use in a wall of a Byzantine-era building. The tread of the lower step is 36 cm (1 ft, 2 in) deep, and the rise of the upper step is 25 cm (9.8 in). Also found was a railing, rounded at the top on one side, similar to the ones found near Robinson's arch. This railing is 35 cm (1 ft 1 in) thick (at the bottom), and 1 m (3 ft, 3 in) high. However, this stone is not sloped, showing that it was put in a level area, maybe a landing in the staircase. At the bottom of the flat side, for the bottom 20 cm (8 in), there is a projection sticking out 2 cm (0.8 in). This was most likely made in order to affix this railing in place, or to attach it to the floor under it.

    As mentioned before, the current gate is from the Umayyad period, with only the bottom stone of the westernmost jamb being Herodian. Therefore, it is not obvious how the original Herodian gate looked. In fact, there are people (Like in the famous Holyland Model of Yerushalayim, by Michael Avi-Yonah) who make it a double gate (see this picture). However, from the width of the staircase, we can deduce the original appearance of this gate. As mentioned, the western edge of the chambers supporting the staircase lines up with the edge of the western jamb of the triple gate. Therefore, it seems that the original staircase was only directly in front of the gate, unlike the staircase by the double gate. Now, the length of both chambers together are 14.3 meters (47 ft), and therefore it is deduced that the original Herodian gate was the same width. Since this is too wide to be a single or even a double gate, this gate must have been triple, with a central gate and two smaller pishpashim (wicket gates) on its sides.

   The question now is, what were the triple and double gates used for? It is commonly suggested that the triple gate was used for entering, and the double gate was used for exiting. However, Leen Ritmeyer has brought many proofs that this was not the case. First of all, the Mikva'os, which were used by the Yidden before going to the Beis Hamikdash, are located right next to the double gate, and not the triple gate, as would be expected if that was the main entrance gate. Furthermore, double gates were not generally built, and when they were, they were usually made for two-way traffic, with one for entering and one for exiting. Also, the double gate has a very wide staircase, while the triple gate has a much narrower staircase. Because of this, Leen Ritmeyer says that it seems that the double gate was used for entering and exiting, with the right (eastern) door used for entering, and the left (western) door used for exiting. The triple gate, on the other hand, he says was mainly used to access the underground areas over there, now called Solomon's stables. This gate would have also had a passageway to go up, but that was not its main purpose.

   Leen Ritmeyer also says that a tomb outside Yerushalayim, in the Hinnom valley, was designed to look like the triple gate. He says (based on Josephus, wars 5:12:2) that the one of the families of Kohanim Gedolim from the end of the second Beis Hamikdash period, (the family of Chanin, mentioned in Pesachim 57a), was buried here. He suggests that they wanted to transfer some of the glory of the Beis Hamikdash to their grave.

   Based on the results of the excavations near this gate, it is assumed that inside the triple gate there was a vestibule with decorated domes in the ceiling, like by the double gate, (although here there would have been nine domes [3x3]). (This vestibule would most probably have had an opening to Solomon's stables, as well as to the underground area between it and the double gate.) From here, a triple passageway, would have led up to the Har Habayis surface, like by the double gate (the aisles of the passageways would have been divided by walls, with arched openings inside them). The current vestibule and passages are from a later period (although parts of it are now blocked up); however, Warren (Recovery of Jerusalem, pp 230) has documented a stone from the original construction still in place. This stone is 18.2 m (60 ft) away from the southern wall of the Har Habayis, it is the lowest course of an engaged column. This column, which projects 46 cm (1.5 ft) from the passageway wall, has a flat middle, 1.04 m (3 ft 5 in) wide, and is rounded at its two ends. The southern rounded part is 61 cm (2 ft) long, and the northern one is 48 cm (18.75 in) long, giving the whole pilaster a length of 2.15 m (7 ft).

   The center of this pilaster is on a line with the center of the northern pier of the double gate vestibule, suggesting that there was some kind of link between them, maybe underground vaulted areas whose supporting pillars were on an axis with the piers of these vestibules. However, the floor of the northern part of these vaults would have had to be higher than the southern parts, as cistern number 10 (or 6, according to Schick's system) is directly to the west of the triple gate vestibule, and its top is at least at a level of 730 m (2,395 ft) above sea level, while the threshold of the double and triple gate is at a level of 726 m (2,381 ft) above sea level. (Although it should be noted, that although Gibson and Jacobson have dated this cistern to the middle of the Second Beis Hamikdash era, Leen Ritmeyer [in a reply to a comment on his website] has dated it to the crusader era, in which case there is no problem.)

Reference

Baruch, Yuval, and Ronny Reich, "Excavations near the Triple Gate of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem.” ’Atiqot / עתיקות 85 (2016): 37–95.

Baruch, Yuval, and Ronny Reich, "Second Temple Period Finds from the New Excavations in the Ophel, South of the Temple Mount", in: Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Archaeological Discoveries 1998–2018,
editor Hillel Geva, pp 84-93, Jerusalem 2019.

Ben-Dov, Meir. In the Shadow of the Temple: The Discovery of Ancient Jerusalem. Israel: Harper & Row, 1985.​

Gibson, Shimon and David Jacobson (1996), Below the Temple Mount in Jerusalem: A Sourcebook on the Cisterns, Subterranean Chambers and Conduits of the Haram Al-Sharif​.

Ritmeyer, Kathleen, and Leen Ritmeyer. “Reconstructing the Triple Gate,” Biblical Archaeology Review 15.6 (1989): 49, 51, 53.
​
Ritmeyer, Leen. The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Israel: Carta, 2006.

The Temple Mount during the Byzantine period (324-638 CE) – Ritmeyer Archaeological Design (in a reply to a comment on February 27, 2016)

​Wilson, Charles William, Warren, Charles. The Recovery of Jerusalem: A Narrative of Exploration and Discovery in the City and the Holy Land. United Kingdom: R. Bentley, 1871.