The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount: Collected Essays 3161632699, 9783161632693

Citation preview

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved. Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:16:50.

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber / Editor

Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors

Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) · Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

514

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:16:50.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved. Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:16:50.

Joseph Patrich

The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Collected Essays

Mohr Siebeck

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:04.

Joseph Patrich, born 1947; Emeritus Professor of the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. orcid.org/0000-0002-0839-5022

ISBN 978-3-16-163269-3 / eISBN 978-3-16-163270-9 DOI 10.1628/ 978-3-16-163270-9

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

ISSN 0512-1604 / eISSN 2568-7476 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen ­Testament) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at https://dnb.dnb.de. © 2024  by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen, printed by Gulde Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:04.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Preface My occupation in the study of the Second Temple and the Temple Mount began more than forty years ago. It was never motivated by any messianic aspiration that a new Temple should be rebuilt. My interest was purely academic; I approached it as I would any other ancient temple, addressing all available sources of knowledge – literary and archaeological. The literary sources pertaining to the period at our concern – from the time of its restoration in year 538 bce, to its destruction in year 70 ce – are variegated: Jewish, Pagan and Christian, written in a variety of languages: Greek, Latin, Aramaic and Hebrew. The archaeological remains are quite few, since the Temple itself was long destroyed; only the impressive remains of the walls of the Herodian precinct survive, but, surprisingly, also many underground water cisterns; and their story is very telling. Chronologically, my research on the Temple and its precinct can be divided into two stages.1 My first paper on this topic (Chapter XV, first published in 1982), was an outcome of a seminar course on Talmudic Archaeology given by my teacher Prof. Lee Israel Levine; this was my first introduction to this fascinating field, that later nourished many other chapters of the book, as well as my academic work at large. The second paper, published in 1986 (Chapter XIII), was the outcome of a fruitful discourse with the late Prof. Yigael Yadin, on the occasion of a meeting at his home related to an entirely different subject: my Survey of Caves in the Judean Desert (he had kindly assisted in organizing and materializing this project). Following this study I became aware of the fact that m. Middot actually provides a blue-print, permitting a most detailed 3D reconstruction of the Temple. This resulted in Chapter XI (1994). Reading the description of the Sanctuary portal and the golden vine in the Latin version of Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 15.394–395 (the Greek version being corrupted), led to Chapter XII (1993–94). Some 15 years had elapsed until the second stage had started. The breakthrough came while writing a general paper on the Second Temple at the invitation of my dear late teacher, Prof. Yoram Tsafrir, for the book edited by Oleg Grabar and Benjamin Zeev Kedar (2009).2 On that occasion, I first realized that Water Cistern no. 5 was the water cistern that fed the Laver by means of a water wheel  A Hebrew version generally preceded the English one by a year or two.  Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade, eds. Oleg Grabar and Benjamin Z. Kedar (Jerusalem and Austin, TX: Yad Yizhak ben Zvi and University of Texas Press, 2009). I am deeply indebted to Prof. Kedar for his encouragement throughout. 1 2

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:14.

VI

Preface

(Chapter X, 2008), and that it actually is a precise extant pointer of the location and orientation (9.7° south of due east), of the altar, the Temple and some of the Gates (Water) and Chambers (Wood, Gullah) of the Inner Court (ʿAzarah) (Chapter VI, 2011). This was a real enlightenment that led to many of the other chapters in this book. A fresh reading of the passages pertaining to the House of the Laver and the House of Utensils in the Temple Scroll, pertaining to the PreHerodian Temple (Chapter IX, 2009), added literary evidence to the said conclusions, and most recently these were corroborated by an astronomical evidence (Chapter VII, 2023). Little attention was given in the past to the building project of Simeon the Just on the Temple Mount (Chapter III, 2011). This study permitted to differentiate four stages in the architectural evolution of the Temple Mount (Chapter II, 2013), not just three (as was earlier claimed by Leen Ritmeyer).3 Locating the chambers and gates of the Inner Court (ʿAzarah) according to Water Cistern no. 5 – an archaeological relic – permitted to conclude (unlike Maimonides and most later commentators) that m. Mid. 5:3–4, not b. Yoma 19a, is the correct version pertaining to the Chambers of the South and North of the ʿAzarah (Chapter VIII, first published here in English). Three other water cisterns located under the NE corner of the upper platform of the Temple Mount (Cisterns nos. 2, 34, 37), point upon the location of the Chamber called House of Stone (beth even), mentioned in m. Parah 3:1 (Chapter V, first published here in English). A special study is devoted to the Railing that barred access of gentiles beyond this fence, and to its gates (Chapter IV, first published here in English).

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

During the four decades of my studies of various aspects of the Temple and its precinct, I was assisted by several gifted architects, whose figures, drawn following my instructions, illustrate this book. These are (in a chronological order) Leen Ritmeyer, Idan Rabinowitz, Marcos Edelcopp and Roy Elbag. Thanks are due to them. I am also deeply indebted to Dr. Ruth Clemens for her translation and style editing of some of these essays, and for her useful comments. * * * The book, comprised of sixteen chapters, is divided into three sections arranged from the outer perimeter to the center; from the evolution of the Temple Mount to the Temple itself. The third section, comprised of two chapters, pertains to structures outside the temple precinct: A composite triclinium with a fountain located to the west of Wilson’s Arch (Chapter XIV), and the Lower Level aqueduct in the context of a legal controversy involving the Sadducees that is recorded  The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006).

3

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:14.

Preface

VII

in m. Yadayim (Chapter XV). Chapter XVI is the concluding chapter. Three chapters (IV, V and VIII), as well as the Introduction and the concluding chapter are first published in English here. For the sake of uniformity, the references and footnotes of all chapters were modified to conform to The SBL Handbook of Style2 (2014). A common bibliography, a list of abbreviations and index of literary sources, personal and geographical names, and subjects, were added to the book. Few sections were omitted in some chapters, in order to prevent repetition, but inevitably some still remain. For this end, some figures were also omitted.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

I am indebted to my dear friend Prof. Jan Willem van Henten of the University of Amsterdam, for useful advice on various aspects related to these studies of mine, and for directing me to publish this book of collected essays in the WUNT I series of Mohr Siebeck. Thanks are also due to Mohr Siebeck staff for their efficient and attentive work and to the previous publishers of some of these essays for allowing them to be reproduced here.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:14.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved. Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:14.

Table of Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII

Introduction

I. Historical and Geographical Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 III. The Pre-Herodian Temple: The Building Project of Simeon the Just on the Temple Mount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 IV. Segregating the Sacred: The Inner Court (ʿAzara) and the Latticed Railing (Soreg) of the Second Temple and their Gates . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 V. On the “House of Stone” (beth even) (Mishnah Parah 3:1) . . . . . . . . 91

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers VI. The Location of the Second Templeand the Layout of its Courts, Gates and Chambers: A New Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 VII. “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever” (Ps 44:24). On Jerusalem Temple Orientation, Dedication and the Sun Rise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 VIII. The Chambers of the South and of the North: Mishnah Middot 5:3–4 and BT Yoma 19a. The Contribution of Archeology to Settle a Disaccord Between Two Rabbinic Versions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:26.

X

Table of Contents

IX. The Pre-Herodian Temple: Reassessing the House of the Laver and the House of Utensils of the Temple Scroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 X. Water-Wheels at Service in the Second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem 193 XI. The Structure of the Second Temple. A New Reconstruction . . . . . . 201 XII. The Golden Vine, The Sanctuary Portal, and its Depictionon the Bar-Kokhba Coins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 XIII. The Mesibbah of the Temple According to Tractate Middot . . . . . . . . 227

Outside the Temple Precinct XIV. The ‘Free Masons Hall’ – A Composite Herodian Triclinium and Fountain on the West of the Temple Mount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 XV. A Sadducean Halakha and the Jerusalem Aqueduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 XVI. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

List of Original Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Literary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Personal Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Geographic Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:26.

295 297 321 329 331 333

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Abbreviations AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research BA Biblical Archaeologist BAIAS Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research b. Babylonian Talmud Ber. Berakhot Bik. Bikkurim BT Babylonian Talmud CAD A. Leo Oppenheim et al., eds., The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental ­institute of the University of Chicago, 26 vols. Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1956–2010. CIIP I.1 Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae / Palaestinae. Jerusalem. Berlin – New York: De Gruyter 2010. DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert DSD Dead Sea Discoveries DWhG Schriften der Deutschen Wasserhistorischen Gesellschaft ʿEd. ʿEduyyot ʿErub. ʿErubin ESI Excavations and Surveys in Israel HA Hadashot Arkheologiyot Ḥag. Ḥagigah Hor. Horayot HTR Harvard Theological Review IEJ Israel Exploration Journal INJ Israel Numismalic Journal IOSOT International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JJA Journal of Jewish Art JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JPS Jewish Publication Society JQR The Jewish Quarterly Review JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament supplement series JSPSup Journal for the study of the Pseudepigrapha supplement series JT Jerusalem Talmud Ketub. Ketubbot KJV Bible, King James Version LCL Loeb Classical Library m. Mishnah Macc. Maccabees Matt. Matthew Meg. Megilla

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:33.

XII

Abbreviations

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Menaḥ Menaḥot Mid. Middot Miqw. Miqwaot Neh Nehemiah NJPS Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text NSAJR New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region ʾOhal. ʾOhalot PEFQS Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly Pesaḥ. Pesaḥim PJb Palaestinajahrbuch des Deutschen Evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes zu Jerusalem. Qadmoniot Qadmoniot: A Journal for the Antiquities of Eretz-Israel and Bible Qidd. Qiddushin RA Révue Archéologique RB Révue Biblique RQ Révue de Qumran RSV Bible, Revised Standard Version Sam Samuel Sanh. Sanhedrin SCI Scripta Classica Israelica SCM Publisher (London) Shabb. Shabbat Shebu. Shevuʿot Sheq. Sheqalim STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah t. Tosefta Tehar. Teharot VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements y. Jerusalem Talmud; Talmud Yerushalmi Yad. Yadayim Zebaḥ. Zebaḥim Zech Zechariah ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:33.

Plates

XIII

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Plate I. Reconstruction of the Temple according to tractate Middot (drawn by L. Ritmeyer and I. Rabinowitz according to the instructions of the author). Plate II (back). Maps of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount (the course of the city wall is conjectural) (drawn by M. Edelcopp according to the instructions of the author). 1. In the Restoration Period. 2. In the time of Simeon the Just and the Seleucid Acra. 3. The Temple Mount of the Hasmonaeans. 4. The Herodian Temple Mount.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:40.

XIV

Plates

II.1

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

0

100

200 m

II.2 0

100

200 m

II.4 0

100

200 m

Jerusalem and the Temple Mount – in the Restoration Period (II.1) – in the time of Simeon the Just (II.2) II.3 0

100

200 m

The Temple Mount – in the Hasmonaean Period (II.3) – in the Herodian Period (II.4)

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:40.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved. Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

I. Historical and Geographical Introduction 1. A Historical Sketch

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The prevalent name of the period in the history of the Jewish people  – The Second Temple Period – reflects the centrality of the Temple in the life of the Jewish nation in this era. It began with the restoration of the Temple under the Persian Achaemenids and ended with its second destruction by the Romans. Its apogee was during its final century, better known as the Herodian Period. During this lengthy period, the Jews enjoyed political independence only for a short time, under the Hasmonaeans; the Herodians were client kings of Rome. But Jewish religious autonomy, including conduct of the Temple service according to their Law, was maintained almost throughout without any hindrance on the part of the Persians, Greeks, or Romans. According to the Roman author Pliny, at the time of its destruction Jerusalem was “by far the most famous city of the East and not of Judaea only.”1 The Temple was the largest and most impressive structure therein, the center of religious and national life and a goal of pilgrimage. In its splendor and importance, it eclipsed all other institutions of the Jews, both in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora. It was the one and only Temple of the entire nation. The Greek historian Polybius, writing in the second century bce, noted that Jews were a nation residing around a Temple called Jerusalem.2 The Roman historian Tacitus wrote: “Jerusalem is the capital of the Jews. In it was a temple possessing enormous riches.”3

1  Natural History 5.70 (Pliny, Natural History; English translation by Harris Rackham, Loeb Classical Library, 10 vols. [London and Cambridge, MA, 1938–63]); Menaḥem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 vols. (Jerusalem 1974–84), no. 204, 1:471, 1:477–78. 2  Quoted by Josephus, Ant. 12.136 (trans. Ralph Marcus, Loeb Classical Library [London and Cambridge, MA, 1943], 68–9). An English translation of all the writings of Josephus is in the Loeb Classical Library series. The English translation of Jewish Antiquities, Books 12–13 was done by Ralph Marcus; that of Books 14–17 by Marcus and Allen Wickgren; and that of Books 18–20, by Louis H. Feldman; the English translation of The Jewish War, The Life, and Against Apion was done by Henry St. J. Thackeray. 3  The Histories 5.8.1 (Tacitus, The Histories, with an English translation by Clifford H. Moore, Loeb Classical Library, 4 vols. [London and New York, 1925–37]); Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, no. 281, 2:28, 2:46–47.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

4

Introduction

1.1 The Persian Period (538–332 bce) After thirty years of exile, the Achaemenid Cyrus, who united the Persian and Median Empires, expanded his realm westward. He conquered Babylonia from king Nabonidus without resistance and was accepted unanimously as king. The so-called “Cyrus Cylinder,” discovered in 1879, asserts that he returned all of the deities “misplaced” by Nabonidus to their respective temples. The biblical Book of Ezra quotes, in Hebrew, the decree Cyrus issued to the exiled Jews in Babylon in 538 by which he permitted the Jews to return to Jerusalem, rebuild the Temple, and restore its cult: Thus said King Cyrus of Persia: The Lord God of Heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and has charged me with building Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Anyone of you of all his people – may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem that is in Judah and build the House of the Lord God of Israel, the God that is in Jerusalem; and all who stay behind, wherever he may be living, let the people of his place assist him with silver, gold, goods, and livestock, besides the freewill offering to the House of God that is in Jerusalem.4

In a parallel, more official memorandum, written in Aramaic and addressed to Cyrus’ administration, the goal of restoring the Temple and renewing its cult is more specific. Details are given about the Temple’s structure, dimensions, building materials, financing, and vessels:

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Memorandum: In the first year of King Cyrus, King Cyrus issued an order concerning the House of God in Jerusalem: “Let the house be rebuilt, a place for offering sacrifices, with a base built up high. Let it be sixty cubits high and sixty cubits wide, with a course of unused timber for each three courses of hewn stone. The expenses shall be paid by the palace. And the gold and silver vessels of the House of God which Nebuchadnezzar had taken away from the Temple in Jerusalem, and transported to Babylon shall be returned, and let each go back to the Temple in Jerusalem where it belongs; you shall deposit it in the House of God.”5

Some of the vessels pillaged by Nebuchadnezzar (the Babylonian king [605– 562 bce] responsible for the destruction of the First Temple), were entrusted by Cyrus to Sheshbazzar, the newly installed governor of the province of Judaea. Sheshbazzar rebuilt the altar on its earlier base and the sacrifices were renewed, though the foundations of the Temple were not yet laid. Then the Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated and sacrifices associated with other feasts and new moons were resumed, as well as freewill offerings.6 Fifty years after the de4  Ezra 1:2–4. All quotations from the Old Testament are based upon the translation of the Jewish Publication Society. 5  Ezra 6:2–5. 6  Ezra 1:8–10, 5:13–16; in Ezra 3:1–8 this is attributed to Zerubbabel and Jeshua, under Darius, ca. 20 years later. See also Zech 4:9; Josephus, Ant. 11.11–13. Diana V. Edelman, The Origins of the ‘Second’ Temple: Persian Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem (London: Taylor and Francis, 2005), questions the historicity of Ezra 1–6, Haggai, and Zechariah as sources for

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

I. Historical and Geographical Introduction

5

struction of the First Temple, the initial foundations of the Second Temple were laid by Sheshbazzar in 536 bce. At the foundation ceremony priests officiated in their ritual apparel, with trumpets, cymbals, and songs of praise. However, full realization of Cyrus’ declaration was much more difficult to achieve due to the hardships of life in the deserted city, administrative obstacles, the animosity of neighboring nations, and friction between the returnees and those who were not exiled. These impediments led to a delay of over fifteen years in the construction of the Temple. Only after a copy of the official memorandum cited above was found in 520 bce in the Persian royal archives, did Darius I (522–486) allow the resumption of construction. Darius issued another decree, instructing his officials that supervision over the work be entrusted to the hands of the governor of the Jews, together with their elders, and that state funds be provided for the construction and daily provisions of sacrificial animals, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, so that they may pray for the life of the king and his sons.7 A service for the welfare of the supreme foreign ruler of the time, be he Persian, Greek, or Roman, became common practice throughout the Second Temple period. The regular provision of offerings by the central authorities was a privilege of the Temple city Jerusalem had become. This was a means of guaranteeing the loyalty of the priests, headed by the high priest, and of the people. Darius’ decree, together with the exhortations of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, expedited the completion of the Temple. On 12 March 515 bce, more than twenty years after the restoration of the altar and the renewal of sacrifice and about seventy years after the destruction of the First Temple, the Second Temple was completed. Built of stones, with timber laid in the walls, it reached a height of 60 cubits (ca. 30 m in present-day units).8 With its completion, the rite was better organized, according to the Law of Moses; priests were set in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses. The new Temple evidently lacked the splendor of the previous one. Describing the rededication ceremony of the Temple, the Book of Ezra contrasts the ecstatic joy of those who were too young to remember the First Temple with the mournful weeping of the old priests and Levites who had served in it.9 Moreover, several focal objects were not recovered from the pillaging of the First Temple: the Ark of Covenant, the two tablets of the Law, and the oracle of the high priest.10 the “origins” of the Second Temple. She maintains that both the rebuilding of the Temple and Jerusalem’s refortification took place at the time of Nehemiah, and that the return from exile under Zerubbabel and Jeshua should be dated around 465 bce. Peter R. Bedford, Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah (Leiden: Brill, 2001), attributes the beginning of works of restoration to Zerubbabel and Jeshua, under Darius I.  7 Ezra 6:8–10.  8  Josephus, Ant. 11.99.  9  Ezra 3:12–13. 10  M. Sheq. 6:1–2; m. Yoma 5:2; b. Yoma 21b. (For an English translation for all references to the Babylonian Talmud, see The Babylonian Talmud, translated into English with notes, glos-

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

6

Introduction

The sources are largely silent about the fifty years following the completion of the Second Temple. In the wake of a decree of King Artaxerxes I (465–424 bce) which invited the Jews of his empire to return to Jerusalem, Ezra, a royal scribe and priest, led a group of some 1,500 returnees in 458 bce. A letter carried by Ezra containing a record of the decree also bears witness to the king’s gifts to the Temple and to the authority bestowed upon Ezra. The king recognized the lofty status of Temple personnel by exempting them from tolls, tributes, and customs. Upon his arrival in Jerusalem, Ezra was distressed to discover that the Jews had been intermarrying with the indigenous nations, in direct violation of biblical law. Ezra’s public display of mourning stirred the people to repent and to enter into a new covenantal relationship with God, beginning with the banishment of their “foreign” wives. The covenantal ceremony presided over by Ezra, reading the Pentateuch in a street remote from the Temple courts, marks the emergence of a new expression of Jewish religiosity, alternative to the Temple. In later generations of the period that is at our concern, it evolved into the institution of the synagogue. Nehemiah, a cupbearer in the court of Artaxerxes I, took leave of his position with the king’s blessing and made the trek to Jerusalem. Serving as governor of Judah for twelve years (445–433 bce) he presided over the restoration of the city walls and gates and the rebuilding of the gates of the bira – a citadel of the period of Persian rule in Jerusalem – that was first built by an earlier governor. (The First Temple, being a part of the royal palace, did not have a separate citadel; this was an innovation of the Second Temple.) By the end of his tenure, the Temple was surrounded by a precinct wall with lockable doors. Nehemiah, like Ezra, emphasized separation from the Gentiles, refraining from mixed marriage, and keeping the Sabbath. Equally emphasized were laws which facilitated the Temple service and provided for the wellbeing of those entrusted with its administration and operation. The most basic of these contributions was the obligation to contribute yearly one-third of a sheqel for the Temple service.11 The constant need for wood, used in copious amounts for sacrifices, was met by choosing lay families by lot. Finally, the people also affirmed their commitment to provide for the priests and Levites through tithes of both produce and animals. Under Nehemiah and the prophet Zechariah we already hear about the courts of the House of the Lord, in the plural, indicating that by this time the built complex had already been expanded, including now more than an altar and a Temple. Around the courts were chambers which functioned as storage rooms sary and indices under the editorship of Isidore Epstein [London, 1935–48]. Further references to the Babylonian Talmud will be marked b.). 11 In later years it was raised to half a sheqel (equivalent to two Roman dinars) for every adult male; women were not obligated to contribute.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

I. Historical and Geographical Introduction

7

for various offerings or served high priests and other Temple officials. Since the people gathered in the “Street of the House of God,” there was not as yet an outer court for this purpose. Our next piece of information dates from about a century later. Under the Persian King Artaxerxes III (358–338 bce), an internal dispute erupted over the high priesthood, as a result of which the high priest John II murdered his elder brother Jeshua. Bagoses, the chief military officer of the Persian king, who had supported Jeshua, defiled the sanctuary by entering the sacred precinct and imposed on the Jews a penalty of 50 drachms (a Greek silver coin) for each lamb of the two daily sacrifices. This penalty continued in force for seven years.12

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

1.2 The Hellenistic Period (332–37 bce) The imperial and religious stability which typified the waning years of the Persian Empire in the first half of the fourth century bce ended in a series of bloody bids for royal succession. Simultaneously, Alexander “the Great” of Macedon embarked on an ambitious mission of territorial conquest that would bring an end to the Persian Empire in 330. That same sweeping campaign brought Judaea under Alexander’s control in 332 bce, without encountering any resistance. Thus ended more than two centuries of Persian rule over Jerusalem and the Temple. The tumultuous aftermath of Alexander’s death witnessed wars between his successors. Judaea’s strategic location between Egypt and Syria turned the area into a flash-point for the succession battles between the Ptolemaic dynasty which controlled Egypt and the Seleucid dynasty which controlled Syria. Judaea was first under Ptolemaic rule (301–198 bce) and then under the Seleucids (198– 142 bce). Though information about the condition of Jerusalem and the Temple during the Ptolemaic period is scanty, we do know that the high priest was appointed to serve as governor of Judaea, his principal responsibility being the collection of municipal taxes. The Ptolemies initiated the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. Legend has it that it was commissioned by Ptolemy II Philadelphus (283–246 bce), with great ceremony and at great expense, and carried out by seventy sages from the Temple circles; hence it is called the Septuagint. It is also said that he contributed to the Temple many golden and silver vessels, and an elaborately worked golden table.13 Even if a legend, this reflects the Ptolemaic custom of presenting gifts to the Temple, as is attested by other sources. 12 Josephus,

Ant. 11.297–301.  The entire story of the Bible translation is given in the Letter of Aristeas. For an English translation see Moses Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates: Letter of Aristeas (New York: Ktav, 1951); Rowland James Heath Shutt, “Letter of Aristeas,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, 2 vols. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 2:7–34. 13

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

8

Introduction

The reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (221–205 bce) is best known for Ptolemy’s sound defeat of the Seleucid king Antiochus III the Great (223–187 bce) at the Battle of Raphiah (217 bce), on the border with Egypt. After routing Antiochus and his army, Ptolemy continued on an extensive campaign northward, reconquering his territories. He is said to have reciprocated for the gifts bestowed upon him by Jews in celebration of his victory at Raphiah by visiting Jerusalem and offering sacrifices in the Temple. Impressed by the Temple’s beauty, he wished to enter the Holy of Holies, a request which was summarily denied by the priests because of the biblical injunction against anyone entering this sacred precinct except for the high priest, and even that only on the Day of Atonement. Ptolemy’s insistence on entering aroused a great turmoil among the people who wept and prayed for salvation. Ultimately, legend has it that Ptolemy fell ill, had to be pulled out of the Temple by his bodyguards, and returned to Egypt.14 In 198 bce Jerusalem and the Temple fell to Antiochus III, and after over a century of Ptolemaic control Judaea was now part of the Seleucid Empire. As the Jews came to the aid of Antiochus in his conquest of Jerusalem, the king rewarded his supporters accordingly, granting tax exemptions to Temple personnel, earmarking provisions for the Temple service, and – most importantly – guaranteeing freedom of religion for the Jewish people.15 Antiochus III also issued two edicts to guarantee the state of purity of the Temple and city. First, Gentiles were prohibited from entering the Temple, a ban that was in effect also in the Herodian period (see below). Second, Antiochus forbade the breeding of impure animals within Jerusalem, alongside a ban on bringing their skins or meat into Jerusalem. Antiochus issued a permit for the completion of the restoration of the Temple, including the porticos, and exempted all necessary materials from customs.16 That the Temple required renovation is but another testimony to the damage inflicted on Jerusalem during the tumultuous years preceding Antiochus  III’s decisive victory, in which Jerusalem passed back and forth between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids.17 The high priest, relegated to cultic duties by the later Ptolemies, returned to prominence under Antiochus III with new diplomatic and economic duties. Simeon II (d. ca. 196 bce), the high priest who served during Antiochus’ reign, is credited with repairing the damage sustained as a result of 14  Ptolemy IV Philopator’s failed attempt to enter the Holy of Holies is documented in the apocryphal book 3 Maccabees (1.8–2.24). For discussion see Hugh Anderson, “3 Maccabees: A New Translation and Introduction,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 2:510–12. 15  Josephus, Ant. 12.138–146. The custom of providing allocations for the Temple service is first attested under Cyrus and Darius and seems to have been maintained by the Ptolemies, as well as by the later Seleucids (2 Macc. 3:3 – pertaining to Seleucus IV; see also 2 Macc. 9:16; 1 Macc. 10:39–44; Josephus, Ant. 13.55, all relating to Demetrius I, 152 bce). 16  Josephus, Ant. 12.141. See also infra, Chapters III and IV. 17  Ibid., 12.129–144.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

I. Historical and Geographical Introduction

9

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

the wars. The extent of Simeon’s renovations features prominently in the Book of Ben Sira – a work written in the first quarter of the second century bce – which provides an elaborate and detailed description of the glorious Simeon arrayed in his vestments, officiating at the altar surrounded by his colleagues, radiant “like the sun shining resplendently on the king’s Temple, and like the rainbow which appears in the cloud.”18 Simeon’s renovations included fortification of the Temple, building high retaining walls, and digging a cistern (miqveh), which Ben Sira described as vast like a sea.19 The retaining walls are the deep and high quadrangular foundations for the Temple courts, usually identified with the basic square of the inner court whose dimensions were 500 × ​500 cubits,20 which was later encompassed within the outer court of the Herodian precinct (see below). The hewn-out reservoir may be one of the huge cisterns under the Ḥaram. The contemporary Letter of Aristeas, written in Greek, provides much information regarding the Temple structure and furnishings. According to the Letter, the Temple, built on a grand scale, occupied a prominent position and was enclosed within three precincts. A curtain drawn downward from above, of exquisite workmanship and impressive in its strength, was laid over the doorway of the Sanctuary. The House faced eastward. It was surrounded by a floor paved with sloped stones to permit easy drainage of the water used for cleansing the blood of the sacrifices. Hidden openings installed in the base of the altar also assisted the drainage. Seven hundred priests ministered there. The Temple had an abundant supply of flowing water, as if emerging from a spring located within the precinct. There were also magnificent underground, well-leaded, and plastered reservoirs placed around the foundations.21 Antiochus III mounted a final military campaign in 192 bce which brought Asia Minor and Greece under his control. But a series of defeats at the hands of the Romans nullified Antiochus’ newest territorial gains and compelled the latter to accept the terms of the peace treaty of Apamea (188 bce), by which the Seleucids were forced to pay heavy tribute to the Romans. His treasuries depleted by the costly wars, Antiochus was compelled to loot temple treasuries

18  Ben Sira 50:1–12. English translation of the Hebrew text in The Jewish Temple: a Nonbiblical Sourcebook, ed. Charles T. R. Hayward (London: Routledge, 1996), 41–43. See also infra, Chapter III. 19 Ibid., 50:1–3. For an English translation of the Greek version see Hayward, The Jewish Temple, 73–75. 20 M. Mid. 2:1. These dimensions are in accordance with the LXX to Ezek 42:15–20; 45:2. But see infra, the more updated Chapters II and III, according to which the 500 × ​500 cubits square should be attributed to the Hasmonaeans. 21  Letter of Aristeas, paragraphs 84–91. Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 14–15, has suggested that the curtain may have been the one looted by Antiochus IV and donated by him to the temple of Zeus at Olympia.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

10

Introduction

throughout the kingdom. In 187 bce Antiochus III was murdered while seeking to loot a temple in Susa. Despite the circumstances surrounding his father’s death in Susa, Seleucus IV Philopator (187–175 bce) set his eyes on the treasures of the Jerusalem Temple where, in addition to the funds allocated for the daily sacrifices and Temple maintenance, donations, incomes, and deposits were accumulated there along with the trusts of widows and orphans.22 In 176 bce Seleucus sent Heliodorus, his highest ranking minister, to confiscate the treasury under the pretext that donations from the royal treasury went well beyond the needs of the Temple. By this action the asylum right of the Temple was violated. The lone account of this episode relates that Heliodorus was stopped by supernatural intervention and punishment so severe that he urged the king to send one of his enemies should he decide to plunder the Temple again.23 Heliodorus murdered Seleucus IV in 175 bce, though not before he repatriated his brother Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 bce), the younger son of Antiochus III, who had been held hostage by the Romans pursuant to the treaty of Apamea. Under Antiochus IV the high priesthood became a commodity, sold to the highest bidder with the most rigorous program for the Hellenization of Jerusalem, that is, imposing Greek culture. The first was Jason, who offered the exorbitant sum of 440 gold talents for the privilege of serving as high priest. Jason’s tenure (175–172 bce) ended when the priest Menelaus pledged to the king 300 talents over above and above Jason’s payments. Antiochus acceded, and Menelaus, following the example of prior Seleucid kings, stole gold vessels from the Temple to guarantee his ability to pay. As if this wasn’t enough to spark the rage of Jerusalem’s Jews, Onias, who publicly exposed Menelaus’ misdoings, was murdered at the latter’s urging. Riots ensued in Jerusalem resulting in some fatalities, but Menelaus was acquitted of any misdoing after bribing the appropriate authorities.24 Antiochus IV mounted a successful preemptive invasion of Egypt in 169, and turned the Ptolemaic stronghold into a puppet regime. In the autumn of 169, on his way back from Egypt, he stopped in Jerusalem, where Jason, the former high priest, had stirred up a revolt against Menelaus. Driven to avenge Jason’s uprising or, perhaps, by the heavy expenditures entailed by the war, and guided by Menelaus, Antiochus plundered the Jerusalem Temple, taking the golden incense altar and the lampstand (menorah), with all its vessels, the table and other vessels of gold, as well as the curtain over the sanctuary en22  See 2 Macc. 3:10–11. Some donations were placed in the open, to be seen and admired (Josephus, War 2.413; idem, Ant. 12.249–250). 23  2 Macc. 3:7–30. On the historicity of this event relating to Heliodorus and his role in the Seleucid administration, see Hannah M. Cotton and Michael Wörrle, “Seleukos IV to Heliodoros: A New Dossier of Royal Correspondence from Israel,” ZPE 159 (2007): 191–205. 24  2 Macc. 4.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

I. Historical and Geographical Introduction

11

trance.25 A subsequent invasion of Egypt ended prematurely, with Antiochus retreating to Judaea after an embarrassing confrontation with a Roman general who demanded that Antiochus retreat or suffer Roman retaliation. Antiochus, reeling from the devastating ultimatum of the Romans, returned to Jerusalem in 168, and again pillaged the city.26 Jerusalem’s houses and walls were destroyed, and a Seleucid citadel (Akra) was built in the City of David, to the south of the Temple.27 The Temple was desecrated and dedicated to the Olympian Zeus. The altar was desolated and an “abominating idol” placed there in 167. The perpetual daily offerings ceased for the first time in over three centuries. Some Jews passively resisted the religious persecution of the Seleucids, preferring to die as martyrs rather than violate the laws of the Torah, while others displayed compliance with the program for Hellenization. A family of priests of the house of Jehoiarib, led by their patriarch Mattathias, embarked on a revolt for the preservation of the Jewish religion. Led by Judas Maccabaeus, one of Mattathias’ five sons, this Jewish army emerged victorious in a series of engagements with Antiochus’ generals. In 164 Jerusalem was recaptured. Under the Hasmonaeans (164–37 bce) a new chapter began. Judas found the Temple deserted, the altar defiled, the gates burnt, the courts covered by wild vegetation, and the chambers ruined. Judas purified the Temple, rebuilt its inner parts, restored the gates of the chambers, and installed their doors. He refortified it, blocking up the thirteen breaches caused by the Greeks.28 The Temple Mount (that is, Mount Zion) was surrounded by a tall wall with massive towers that encompassed the outer court. It was garrisoned as a means of protection against the Seleucids, still in the Akra.29 This wall was later removed by Herod.30 New vessels and a curtain were provided by Judas and the Temple façade was decorated by golden crowns and tablets. The defiled stones of the altar were set in a separate chamber on the northwest of the inner court,31 a new altar was built, and the liturgy resumed. Exactly three years after Antiochus IV had defiled the Temple the altar was re-inaugurated in an eight-days-long feast, maintained to the present as the feast of Hanukkah, beginning on 25 Kislev 164 bce.32 Meanwhile, political rivalry in the Seleucid court caused a change of attitude towards the Jews. Rivals competing for the throne issued letters granting the Jews the right to conduct their rite according to their laws and privileges to the 25 1 Macc.

1:20–24, pages 102–7 in Rappaport’s edition; Josephus, Against Apion 2.83–84.  2 Macc. 5:11–16, 21; Josephus, Ant. 12.249. 27 1 Macc. 1:31–33. 28  1 Macc. 4:36–61; m. Mid. 2:3. See also infra, Chapter IV. 29  1 Macc. 4:60. 30  The inner court had another wall, which Alcimus tried to tear to the ground in May 159, but his plan failed (1 Macc. 9:54–57). 31  M. Mid. 1:6. 32  1 Macc. 4:52. 26

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

12

Introduction

city and to the Temple, and acknowledging the status of the Hasmonaean ruler as high priest.33 Thus did the high priesthood of the house of Zadoq come to an end. In 142 bce, as a result of the continuing disintegration of the Seleucid state, Simeon, the last brother of Judas Maccabeus, declared the independence of Judaea from Seleucid rule. The new status of Judaea was recognized by the reigning Seleucid monarch. This marked a new stage in the fate of the Temple, the city, the state, and the nation. In 140 bce Simeon’s position as high priest was confirmed by the Great Assembly.34 From then on the high priesthood became hereditary in the house of the Hasmonaeans until Herod’s time, when it ceased to be so and became an issue of Temple politics. In 139 bce the independent status of Jerusalem and the Temple was confirmed by a letter of the Seleucid king Antiochus VII Sidetes (139–129 bce) to Simeon.35 Gradually, mainly under the rule of Simeon’s son John Hyrcanus I (134– 104 bce) and his grandson Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 bce), the Jewish state had expanded in all directions. Religious zeal led to the persecution of pagan cults, the destruction of alien cities, and annihilation of their population. Contacts with the Jewish communities in the Galilee and across the river Jordan were improved. Some of them, harassed by Gentiles, were transferred or immigrated to Judaea and into Jerusalem, which subsequently expanded topographically and demographically. The Temple had to serve an ever-growing population, and the rite became more and more intricately organized. This gradual process reached its apogee in the coming generations, under Herod the Great and his successors. Imitating customs of the neighboring Hellenistic monarchies, Judas Aristobulus – Simeon’s second son – was the first to assume a royal title in 104 bce. The Hasmonaean state became a centralized quasi-Hellenistic kingdom, with the Temple city of Jerusalem as its capital. Its king served simultaneously also as the high priest, arousing protest in some circles. Thus, the demand of the Pharisee sages36 that Alexander Jannaeus be content with kingship alone resulted in bloodshed.37 It is also related that once, while officiating at the altar, he was insulted and pelted by the people with their citron fruits on the Feast of Tabernacles. He is said to have built a barrier around the altar so as to protect him from such further altercations with the people.38 Dispute over the Temple rite as conducted by the Hasmonaeans and the lunar calendar they had adopted in the Temple cult were the major reasons for the splitting off of the Dead Sea Sect and their formation as a separate sect some time in the second century bce, 33 2 Macc. 11:25. See also 1 Macc. 10:18–20, 25–45, 11:27, 11:37, and 11:57; Josephus, Ant. 13.45–46. 34 1 Macc. 14:35, 41. 35 1 Macc. 15:7. 36  The spiritual-religious leadership of the nation during the Second Temple period. 37 B. Qidd. 66a. 38  Josephus, Ant. 13.372–373. See also b. Sukkah 48b.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

I. Historical and Geographical Introduction

13

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

when the Wicked Priest (apparently Alexander Jannaeus), had persecuted their Teacher of Righteousness. Under Salome Alexandra (76–67 bce), the widow of Alexander Jannaeus, the non-priestly Pharisees, popular among the masses, assumed supremacy in regulating the Temple rite, which nevertheless continued to be conducted by celebrants of priestly ancestry, comprising mainly the Sadducees  – the rival Jewish sect. Besides the high priest, the Temple also had a chief administrator,39 both in the Hellenistic and the Herodian periods, treasurers, and officers, fifteen in number, in charge of specific tasks.40 Unlike the regular priests, who served for a week, in rotation, these were tenure posts, some of them hereditary.41 The Hasmonaean sacred precinct covered an area of 500 × ​500 cubits (infra, Chapter II). There were five gates: two to the south (the Ḥulda gates), one to the west (Kiponos),42 perhaps the one at the end of the bridge, one to the north (Tadi), and one to the east (Shoshan).43 Being fortified, the Temple precinct could withstand a siege. After the death of Salome Alexandra, when the struggle over the throne and the high priesthood erupted between her two sons, the younger Aristobulus II found refuge there in 67 bce in his struggle against the elderly brother Hyracanus II. Later, in 63 bce, he managed to escape there from Pompey, the Roman consul who converted Seleucid Syria into a Roman province. Pompey conquered Jerusalem and the Temple after a prolonged siege, bringing Judaea for the first time under the Roman yoke.44 According to one tradition the sacred precinct was captured on the Day of Atonement. Pompey’s forces breached the northern wall, entered the Temple, and are said to have killed 12,000 Jews, including priests in the midst of performing their cultic duties. With some of his men, he entered beyond the curtains of the Holy of Holies, the precinct so sacred that only the high priest was allowed to enter, and only once a year, on the Day of Atonement. But not only did Pompey not touch the Temple vessels and treasures, he even ordered that the Temple be purified, cultic rites 39  2 Macc. 3:4 (“prostates”); Acts 4:1, 5:24–6; Josephus, Ant. 20.131; Josephus, War 2.409, 6.294 (“strategos”). 40  M. Sheq. 5:1; m. Yoma 3:11; t. Sheq. 2:14; y. Sheq. 5, 49a. See also m. Tamid 7:3; m. Sheq. 5:2; y. Sheq. 5, 19a. 41  On the Temple officials, see Abraham Büchler, Die Priester und der Cultus im letzten Jahrzehnt der jerusalemischen Tempels (Vienna: A. Hölder, 1895), 90–118; Shmuel Safrai, “The Temple,” in Shmuel Safrai and Menaḥem Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), 865–907; Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 b.c.–a.d. 135), ed. Géza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), 275–91; Jostein Ådna, Jerusalemer Tempel und Tempelmarkt im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999), 91–95. 42 If named after Coponius, the Roman prefect of 6–9 ce, this will set our text in post-Hasmonaean context, unless it was an anachronistic name. The Herodian precinct had four gates on this side. For more about the Hasmonaean temple, see infra, Chapter IX. 43  M. Mid. 1:3. 44  Josephus, Ant. 14.56–76; Tacitus, Histories 5.8.1.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

14

Introduction

be resumed, and that Hyrcanus II be reinstalled as high priest.45 This example was not followed by another proconsul of Syria – Marcus Licinius Crassus – who plundered the Temple in 54 bce, in preparation for an advance against the Parthians. Sometime during the years 48–44 bce Julius Caesar issued a decree confirming the high priesthood of Hyrcanus II and his sons, and the title of ethnarch, but no longer a king. Hyrcanus was also granted permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem which had been breached by Pompey in 63 bce, and to fortify and control Jerusalem.46 In 37 bce Mattathias Antigonus, the grandson of Alexander Jannaeus and Salome Alexandra, was besieged in the Temple Mount by Herod, the former Hasmonaean governor of Galilee and now the newly nominated king of Judaea on behalf of the Roman senate, assisted by the Roman governor of Syria, Sosius. After the conquest Sosius offered a golden crown to the Temple.47 In this siege damage was caused to some of the porticos (stoai). Under the Hasmonaeans the city also largely extended over the western hill. A wooden bridge across the Tyropoeon valley connected the Temple with the upper city,48 which was encircled by the First Wall – the wall which encompassed Hasmonaean Jerusalem according to Josephus.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

1.3 The Herodian Period (37 bce–70 ce) Herod ruled as a Roman client king appointed by the Roman senate. After his death, and the short rule of his son Archelaus (4 bce–6 ce), Judaea was administered by Roman governors. With a short interlude between 41–44 ce, when it was reigned by Agrippa I, a grandson of Herod the Great, Roman procurators continued to rule Judaea until the eruption of the Great Jewish Revolt against the Romans in 66 ce. However, religious autonomy relating to the Temple rite was maintained throughout, with one exception: Emperor Caligula (37–41 ce), in a radical departure from the imperial cult of the Roman empire, declared himself a living God, demanding of all – including the Jews – to worship him accordingly. As for Judaea and Jerusalem, in 40 ce he insisted that his statue be set up and worshipped in the sanctuary, even fetching Petronius, the governor of Syria, with an army to see it done. This menace of abomination roused a wide protest, and Agrippa I, who was a friend and confidant of Caligula in Rome, was moved to interfere to prevent it. This intention came to an end only when Caligula was 45  Josephus, Ant. 14.72–73; idem, War 1.152–154. But according to Dio Cassius, History 27.16.4, all the vessels were plundered. See Marcus’ comment ad. loc. 46  Josephus, Ant. 14.190–200. 47  Josephus, War 1.343–375; idem, Ant. 14.465–488. 48  Josephus, Ant. 14.58; idem, War 1.143.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

I. Historical and Geographical Introduction

15

assassinated in January 41 ce.49 Claudius, his successor, issued a letter of toleration, thus restoring the former situation of religious freedom.50 Under Roman rule a daily sacrifice for the welfare of the emperor was offered on the altar, comprising two lambs and an ox. This was first instituted by Augustus and financed by the imperial treasury.51 Its cessation in 66 ce (see below), was an expression of revolt. The religious freedom, first conferred on the diaspora Jews by Julius Caesar and Augustus, had guaranteed, inter alia, that their sacred funds were to be inviolable and their right to send to Jerusalem legally, and without any hindrance on the part of Roman imperial or municipal authorities, the two drachms contribution to the Temple.52 However, from time to time, even before the imperial era, there were attempts to confiscate these sums.53 1.4 Conclusion The Temple was prominently located in the city, and in many respects – religious, political, judicial, social, cultural, and economic – it dominated and dictated the life of the city and of the entire nation. It was the only temple common to the entire nation. A tribute of half a sheqel was collected each year from every adult in the Land of Israel and abroad as tribute to the Temple. It was a meeting place for various sects and an objective of pilgrimage for Jews from Judaea, Galilee, and the Diaspora – especially since the time of Herod and later. Their number was especially numerous in the three annual pilgrimages of Passover, Sukkot (Tabernacles), and Shavuʿot (Pentecost).54 This is well reflected in a passage of the philosopher Philo (ca. 20 bce–45 ce):

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Countless multitudes from countless cities come, some over land, others over sea, from east and west and north and south at every feast. They take the Temple for their port as a general haven and safe refuge from the bustle of the great turmoil of life, and there they seek to find calm weather […]. In fact, practically in every city there are banking places for the holy money where people regularly come and give their offerings. And at stated times there are appointed to carry the sacred tribute envoys selected on their merits, from every city those of the highest repute, under whose conduct the hopes of each and all will travel safely.55 49 Josephus, War 2.184–203; idem, Ant. 18.261–309; Philo, The Embassy to Gaius 181–261. For an English translation by Francis H. Colson, see Philo, vol. 10: The Embassy to Gaius, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA and London, 1962), 92–135. 50 Josephus, Ant. 19.278–291. 51  Philo, The Embassy to Gaius 157, 317–319 (English translation, 80–81, 158–159). 52  Josephus, Ant. 14.216; 16.162–166; Philo, The Embassy to Gaius 156, 311–316 (English translation, 78–79; 156–159). 53  Schürer, History, vol. 2,1, 116–23; Edith Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 124–28. 54  Safrai, “The Temple,” 898–904. 55  Philo, On the Special Laws 1.69 and 78 (English translation, 138–139, 144–145).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

16

Introduction

A lively description of a Pentecost pilgrimage to the Temple from towns and villages near and far, during the reign of King Agrippa I, is given in the Mishnah:

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Those [who come] from nearby bring figs and grapes, but those [who come] from afar bring dried figs and raisins. And an ox walks before them, its horns overlaid with gold, and a wreath of olive [leaves] on its head. A flutist plays before them until they arrive near Jerusalem. [Once] they arrived near Jerusalem, they sent [a messenger] ahead of them [to announce their arrival], and they decorated their firstfruits. The high officers, chiefs, and treasurer [of the Temple] come out to meet them. According to the rank of the entrants, they would [determine which of these officials would] go out. And all the craftsmen of Jerusalem stand before them and greet them, [saying], “Brothers, men of such and such a place, you have come in peace.” A flutist plays before them, until they reach the Temple Mount. [Once] they reached the Temple Mount, even Agrippa the King puts the basket [of firstfruits] on his shoulder, and enters, [and goes forth] until he reaches the Temple court. [Once] he reached the Temple court, the Levites sang the song, “I will extol thee, O Lord, for thou hast drawn me up, and has not let my foes rejoice over me” (Ps. 30:1).56

The Mishnah also includes similar detailed descriptions of the ceremonies and the sacrifices pertaining to all other feasts related to the Temple rite. The broad, well-paved streets, wide staircases, and lofty gates allowed the pilgrims convenient access and easy circulation. The vast water cisterns on the Temple platform provided plenty of water for their needs, as well as for the rite. They could gather in the Royal Stoa and in the porticos before or after worship. There were people who ascended to hear the words of the Law. An academy (beyt midrash) was located on the Temple Mount, where the Sanhedrin used to convene on the Sabbath and holidays as an academic, rather than a judicial, body.57 Several episodes in the life of Jesus Christ took place in the Temple courts. As a firstborn male Jewish infant he was presented in the Temple, dedicated to the Lord by a sacrifice of two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, as prescribed in the Bible.58 The Firstlings Gate, on the northern side of the Railing (Soreg), was the site of registration associated with this sacrifice. The episode that follows – of Simeon, a just and devout man who foresaw the infant Jesus to be the Messiah – could have taken place nearby, outside this gate. Growing up, at the age of twelve, Jesus left his parents who were back home from a Passover pilgrimage to the Temple, impressing the Sages by his knowledge, listening to them and asking them questions.59 This could have occurred near the stairs leading up from the south to the Triple Gate.60 The eastern portico is Solomon’s Porch; there, during the feast of Hanukkah, took place the encounter between Jesus and  M. Bik. 3:3–4. “The Temple,” 865–66. 58  Luke 2:21–24. 59  Luke 2:41–50. 60 Dan Bahat, “Jesus and the Herodian Temple Mount,” in Jesus and Archaeology, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge UK: Eerdmans, 2006), 300–8. 56

57 Safrai,

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

I. Historical and Geographical Introduction

17

Jews wishing to know if he was indeed the Messiah.61 The Beautiful Gate of Acts 3:2, where the apostle Peter, accompanied by John, cured a lame beggar, seems to be the adjacent gate, leading to the Women’s Court from the east. The site of the temptation of Christ “on the pinnacle of the Temple,”62 should apparently be located in the southeastern corner of the Temple Mount, or perhaps in that corner on the roof of the Royal Stoa. The location of the stalls of the money changers, and of the vendors of pigeons and other sacrificial animals reproached by Jesus before the feast of Passover, his last feast,63 seems to have been in the Royal Stoa. The next day, returning to the Temple where he was teaching the people, he gave his prophecy about the destruction of the Temple, after contesting there with the Pharisees and the Sadducees.64 The Temple was destroyed some forty years later. On the 10th of Av (29 August) 70 ce the Herodian Temple was set afire by the troops of Titus.65 Since then this event is commemorated by the Jewish People as a day of grief and fasting (set in later years on the 9th of Av – the date the First Temple was destroyed). This was the result of the Great Jewish Revolt against Rome that had erupted under the Roman emperor Nero, in 66 ce, when governor Florus stole seventeen talents from the Temple treasury and caused many other humiliations and much killing in Jerusalem.66 As a result of all these, at the instigation of the son of the High Priest, it was decided to suspend the daily sacrifice for the emperor. This was a clear declaration of revolt against Rome, and all efforts of the peace party in the city to revoke this dangerous decision were fruitless. The people adhered to this decision.67 Vespasian, sent by Nero to suppress the revolt, conquered Galilee, the Golan, and the whole of the northern parts of the province of Judaea. But suppression of the revolt was hindered as a result of struggles in Rome between four who claimed the throne after Nero committed suicide on 9th June 68. Meanwhile Jerusalem was struck by civil war. Many were killed in acts of terror as buildings were destroyed and stocks of food and other provisions were set on fire. When Vespasian ascended to the throne in 69 ce, the war was resumed. After the conquest of Judaea came the turn of Jerusalem. The city was surrounded by three massive walls that seemed impregnable. Inside, the Herodian Temple Mount, with its prominent walls, resembled a fortress. It was the stronghold of the zealots, headed by John of Gischala, who erected there four towers: 61 John

10:22–24. 4:5–7; Luke 4:9–12. 63  Matt 21:12–14; Mark 11:15–17; Luke 19:45; John 2:15–18. 64 Matt 21:18–24:2; Mark 11:27–13:2; Luke 20:1–21:38. Another account of teaching in the Temple, during the Feast of Tabernacles, is given in John 7:14–53. 65  Josephus, War 6.252–266. 66  Ibid., 2.293–308. 67  Ibid., 2.408–421; Schürer, History, vol. 1, 486. 62 Matt

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

18

Introduction

on the northeast and southwest corners, on the west controlling the bridge, and the fourth above the roof of the Temple chambers, overlooking the Antonia. The chief Roman commander was Titus, Vespasian’s elder son. The Jewish historian Josephus, who surrendered to the Romans in Galilee, was now in the service of Titus, trying in long and articulate discourses to persuade the Jews to surrender, this being the will of God. He was an eyewitness to the events. The attack came from the north. The Third Wall was the first to be stormed, in the month of Iyar (April/May). Nine days later fell the Second Wall. The Antonia fortress, located in the northwestern corner of the Temple Mount, against which four ramparts were laid, was finally conquered by night when its wall were secretly scaled. After its capture, the Antonia was razed to the ground.68 The day it was demolished, 17th of Tammuz (June/July), the daily sacrifices in the Temple ceased.69 The way to the Temple was laid open. The gates of the outer court were set on fire on the 8th of Av. On the following day (9th of Av) Titus held a war council, attended by all his officers, to decide about the fate of the Temple proper. This is Josephus’ narrative:

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Titus brought forward for debate the subject of the temple. Some were of the opinion that the law of war should be enforced, since the Jews would never cease from rebellion while the temple remained as the focus for concourse from every quarter. Others advised that if the Jews abandoned it and placed no weapons whatever upon it, it should be saved, but that if they mounted it for purposes of warfare, it should be burnt; as it would then be no longer a temple, but a fortress, and thenceforward the impiety would be chargeable, not to the Romans but to those who forced them to take such measures. Titus, however, declared that, even were the Jews to mount it and fight therefrom, he would not wreak vengeance on inanimate objects instead of men, nor under any circumstances burn down so magnificent a work; for the loss would affect the Romans, inasmuch as it would be an ornament to the empire if it stood.70

Titus decided to spare the Temple. But on the next day (10th of Av/August 29th), while repelling a Jewish attack coming out of the inner court, one of the soldiers threw a firebrand into the chamber of the Temple proper, and it was set on fire.71 Efforts to extinguish it by the orders of Titus were futile and the flames took an ever increasing hold as more and more firebrands were thrown in by the soldiers in the fury of battle. Titus managed to inspect the interior before it was entirely overwhelmed. Only the holy vessels were saved, to be demonstrated later to the  Josephus, War 6.68–93. 6.93–95; m. Taʿanit 4:6. 70 Josephus, War 6.237–243. This account of Josephus, drawing a sympathetic portrait of Titus, his patron, is at divergence with other sources narrating the destruction of the Temple. Thus Sulpicius Severus, a fourth-century Christian historian who derived his narrative from Tacitus, and Orosius, another Christian author and a contemporary of Sulpicius Severus, report that in the war council it was Titus who decided to destroy the Temple; see Schürer, History, vol. 1, 506–7; Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, no. 282, 2:64–67. 71  Josephus, War 6.244–253. 68

69 Ibid.,

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

I. Historical and Geographical Introduction

19

Roman populace in the triumphal parade. These are depicted to the present on the Arch of Titus in Rome. It took another month to conquer the upper city. Before leaving for Caesarea, Titus gave an order to raze the Temple to the ground.72 The deliberate destruction of the western portico can still be seen near the southwestern corner – huge fallen stones lying over the paved street.73 The destruction of the Temple marked a new stage in the history of the Jewish people and in the fate of its sacred precinct. A new, rabbinic leadership took the lead from the previous priestly elite. The synagogue replaced the Temple as the central institution of the Jewish nation. The Temple was never rebuilt, but its past grandeur nourished for generations hopes and aspirations for redemption.

2. The Temple within the city74

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

During the 600 years of its existence (538 bce–70 ce), Jerusalem gradually expanded over a vaster and vaster area. The returnees from the Babylonian exile resettled the south-eastern hill – “the City of David”. The Temple was located on a prominence to the north. In between stood a third hill which was occupied by the Royal Palace during the First Temple period. Antiochus IV Epiphanes erected there the Akra Fortress (168 bce), which served as a stronghold for the Greek garrison and for the Hellenized Jews. The Fortress was conquered and destroyed by Simeon the Hasmonaean (141 bce), and the summit of the hillock was leveled in order that it might not block the view of the Temple from the city.75 These three eastern hills, fortified by Nehemiah, were delineated on the east by the Kidron brook and on the west by its tributary – the Tyropoeon Valley.76 Under the latter Hasmonaeans (John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus), the south-western hill – much moderate and larger in area than the other three – was settled. It was delineated on the west and south by the Valley of Hinnom and on the north by a western tributary of the Tyropoeon. This was the upper city, encircled by the First Wall. Under the Herodian regime the city expanded farther north beyond this tributary, being encircled by the Second Wall, and still farther north, beyond the Temple Mount. This new city was known as Bezetha. 72 Ibid.,

7.1.  Ronny Reich and Yaacov Billig, “Excavations near the Temple Mount and Robinson’s Arch, 1994–1996.” Pages 340–50 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, expanded edition, ed. Hillel Geva (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000). 74  For further details and bibliography see: Hillel Geva, “Jerusalem,” The New Encyclopedia of Excavations in the Holy Land (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993, 2008), Vol. 2, 698–804; Vol. 5, 1801–25; Lee I. Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 b.c.e.–70 c.e.) (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2002). 75  War 5.137–139; Ant. 12.252. 76  War 5.136–162. 73

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

20

Introduction

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. I.1. Reconstruction of the Herodian Temple Mount and the Temple located therein. An aerial view from SW (drawn by L. Ritmeyer according to the instructions of the author).

The fortification of the northern suburb started under king Agrippa I (41–44 ce) and finished with the eruption of the First Jewish Revolt (66 ce). This was the Third Wall. At the time of its destruction, Jerusalem was “by far the most famous city of the East and not of Judaea only”.77 It was encircled by three walls and at its center, within a walled precinct, stood the Temple that resembled a fortress (arx), to the besieging soldiers of Titus, with walls of its own.78 The Herodian precinct, 144,000 sq m in dimensions, was one of the largest of its kind in the entire Roman world (Fig. I.1). Its south-western foundations were laid to the west of the Tyropoeon Valley (Fig. I.2). In early times the main access to the Temple Mount was from the south, where the early city extended. Under the Hasmonaeans, when the city expanded to the western hill, in addition to the two Ḥulda Gates, on the south, another gate was open to the west, and a bridge connected the Temple Mount with the Upper City. Under Herod the number of gates on the west increased to four, two (Warren’s Gate and Barclay’s Gate), from street level up, via a tunnel; the third opened to a new bridge, retained by Wilson’s Arch, and a fourth connected the Royal Basilica with street level by means of an elaborate stairway that was retained by Robinson’s Arch. The city streets did not follow a grid pattern, like many Greco-Roman cities of the time. Rather, the topography determined their run. The main one, stone 77 Pliny,

Natural History 5.70.  Tacitus, Histories 5.12.1.

78

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

I. Historical and Geographical Introduction

21

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. I.2. A W–E elevation of the southern side of the Herodian precinct, looking north (drawn by M. Edelcopp).

paved, ran parallel to the Tyropoeon Valley, from north to south. Two main drainage tunnels ran on either side of the Valley. Several main tunnels also drained the Upper City. The water supply, which evolved gradually, came from several sources. The water of the Gihon spring was collected into the Siloam Pool, located near the southern end of the city of David. The High Priest Simeon the Just erected a large reservoir, vast like a sea. Under the Hasmonaeans, when the number of citizens and of pilgrims largely increased, the Lower Level aqueduct was laid, bringing water to the city and to the Temple Mount from the spring of ʿEitam, located to the south of Bethlehem. Another aqueduct – the Upper one, brought water from springs farther south, in the Hebron Hills. Other large pools were dispersed on the west: The Serpents Pool outside the First Wall; Amygdalon pool near the western city gate, to the north of Herod’s Palace. The Sheep Pool and Israel Pool were located to the north of the Herodian Temple Mount. Within the confines of the Temple Mount were numerous water cisterns, which are still extant. Within the private sphere many water cistern, fed by rain water, underlay the dwellings. The houses did not have individual water supply by pipes from the pools or aqueducts. The first palace of the Hasmonaeans was erected to the north-west of the contemporary Temple Mount. This fortified palace – Baris – erected by John Hyrcanus I,79 was enlarged and elaborated by Herod ca. 80 years later, and renamed Antonia, after Marc Antony, Herod’s Roman patron at the time.80 The second Hasmonaean palace was built (perhaps by Jannaeus), in the Upper City, overlooking the Temple and its precinct. A Hasmonaean garrison occupied the former palace. Herod’s second palace was built on the north-western part of the Upper City, against the city wall (the First Wall). Three prominent towers (called

79 War

1.75, 118; Ant. 15.403–409.  War 5.238–246; Ant. 15.409.

80

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

22

Introduction

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

after Hippicus, Phasael and Mariamme), were erected to its north.81 This Palace later served the Roman Governor and the fortress Antonia (the dimensions of which being reduced by the enlargement of the Temple Mount), served the Roman garrison of Jerusalem. In the early 1st c. the proselyte Royal House of Adiabene (northern Iraq), built a palatial precinct in Jerusalem, to the south of the Herodian Temple Mount. According to Flavius Josephus the city had several public buildings other than the Temple: a Council Chamber (bouleterion) and an archive. A composite double triclinium with a decorative fountain served as the official dinning-hall for the presidents (prytaneis) of the Council (prytaneion).82 There were also several markets (agorai) – the Upper Market, Timber Market and Cloths Market. Below the First Wall, near its meeting with the Temple Mount (in the approximate present location of the Wailing Wall), was an open paved piazza with colonnades (Xistos). Herod installed two entertainment structures in the city – a theater (seemingly of wood), and an amphitheater / hippodrome.83 The Upper city was inhabited by the wealthy, many of them priests. The houses extended over 2–3 stories, including a basement with a miqveh. The houses, of the courtyard type, comprised of several rooms surrounding a courtyard with a water cistern underneath. Their walls were plastered and decorated with Hellenistic and Roman-style frescos and stuccos. The floors were of colorful mosaics. Figural motives were prohibited. The ceilings and roofs were flat, made of wooden beams and plastered. The rooms included a reception hall, sleeping rooms, a kitchen and a bath suite with a tub. In some cases, there was even an under-floor heating system. In the basements there were also storage rooms. The Necropoleis surrounded the city from all sides. The most elaborate mausolea were built or rock-cut on the eastern cliffs of the Kidron brook, opposite the Temple Mount (“Tomb of Bene Ḥezir“, “Tomb of Zechariah”, “Tomb of Absalom” and the “Cave of Jehoshaphat”). To the north of the Third Wall, next to the road leading north to Shechem and Damascus, stood the Tomb of Queen Helene of Adiabene.

 War 5.163–183.  See infra, Chapter XIV. 83  Joseph Patrich, “Herod’s Theater in Jerusalem – a new proposal,” IEJ 52 (2002): 231–39; idem, “On the Lost Circus of Aelia Capitolina”, SCI 21 (2002): 173–88. 81 82

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:17:48.

II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount* 1. Introduction

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

At the focus of this study are the outer courts of the Temple proper and its Inner Court (‫)עזרה‬, an area that was called Temple Mount (‫ )הר הבית‬in the Second Temple period.1 Before examining the stages in its evolution, we should determine where the Temple stood and clarify what was the ancient topography – namely, the outline of the bed rock contours – upon which the entire complex was founded. These were the two major factors that determined its evolution. Other than the topographical conditions, few literary sources are relevant to our inquiry. These are more detailed about the Herodian stage, and less so about the earlier phases. In addition, there are also a number of archaeological remains – first and foremost the outer walls of the compound – mostly of the Herodian stage, and the underground water cisterns, most of them dating from the Second Temple period.2 * Co-authored with architect M. Edelcopp. 1  The compound term Temple Mount (‫)הר הבית‬, prevalent at present, was already in use in the Second Temple period literature, although Mount Zion (‫ )הר ציון‬was more prevalent. See: Yaron Z. Eliav, “A Mount without a Temple. The Temple Mount from 70 c.e. to the mid-fifth century.” PhD diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999 (Hebrew); idem, God’s Mountain – The Temple Mount in Time, Place and Memory (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005); Rachel Elior, “From priestly (and Early Christian) Mount Zion to rabbinic Temple Mount.” Pages 309–19 in Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade, eds. Oleg Grabar and Benjamin Z. Kedar (Jerusalem and Austin, TX: Yad Yizhak ben Zvi and University of Texas Press, 2009); Eliav maintains that almost up to the end of the Second Temple period, the term ‫ הר הבית‬was not conceived by the people as a topographical feature, different from the Temple proper, or from the city itself. Yuval Shaḥar (“The concept of the Temple Mount in the Second Temple period,” New Studies on Jerusalem 14 [2008]: 203–10 [Hebrew with an English abstract on page 41*]), had reached the opposite conclusion, and likewise Israel Shatzman (“Appendix H” in Yosef Ben Matityahu [(Titus) Flavius Josephus], History of the Jewish War Against the Romans [tr. L. Ulman] [Jerusalem: Carmel, 2009 [Hebrew], 646–59). The Mount, as a separate topographical element from the Temple and from the proper city of Jerusalem, features already in 2 Chron – edited at the end of the Persian period. In 2 Chron 3:2 Har HaMoriah (‫הר‬ ‫ )המוריה‬is mentioned as the site of Solomon’s Temple, and in 2 Chron 33:13–15 the Mount of YHWH’s Temple is mentioned in conjunction with the repentance of king Manasses for his sins. The Temple Mount (‫ )הר הבית‬and Mount Zion (‫ )הר ציון‬are frequently mentioned in 1 Macc. Dan Bahat (“The Architectural Origins of Herod’s Temple Mount,” in Herod and Augustus. Papers Presented at the IJS Conference, 21st–23rd June 2005, eds. David M. Jacobson and Nikos Kokkinos [Leiden – Boston: Brill 2009], 237) maintains that this term referred to the area which was out of bounds to gentiles. As will be indicated below, this is not the case. 2 Simon Gibson and David M. Jacobson, Below the Temple Mount. A sourcebook on the cis-

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

26

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

2. The Ancient Topography The hillock over which the Temple Mount evolved was bounded on the east and west by two deep valleys  – Naḥal Kidron and the Tyropoeon, respectively. On the north it was delineated by the Beth Zetha tributary of the Kidron. These topographical restraints dictated the evolution of the built-up area mainly southwards. But in ancient times another hill existed to the south of the Temple Mount, between it and the City of David which is located farther south. This was the Ophel of the First Temple period (Neh 3:26–27; 2 Chr 27:3, 33:14), known as Ophlas (Οφλας) in the Second Temple period (War 2.448),3 on which the Seleucid Acra fortress was erected (War 5.137–39, Ant. 12.252). This hill, more prominent in its elevation than the hill on which the Temple stood, was removed by the Hasmonaeans, and the valley that separated it from the Temple Mount was filled with earth. Any attempt to reconstruct the extension of the Temple Mount up to that time, should bear in mind this early topography. In the First Temple period, on this prominent hill stood the palatial complex of Solomon and of the kings of Judaea (see below). As for the present topography, the most accurate map of the bed-rock contours in the Old City of Jerusalem, including Ḥaram al Sharif, is still that of Kümmel.4

3. Methodological Remarks

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

According to the Biblical narrative, the altar was erected by King David on the site of the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sam 24:18–25; 2 Chr 3:1). In due course, Solomon built the Temple nearby. The altar was restored on the foundations of the first one, and seemingly likewise the Temple. Water cistern no. 5 terns, subterranean chambers and conduits of the Ḥaram al-Sharif. BAR International Series, 637 (Oxford: Tempus Reparatum 1996). See also infra, Chapters VI and X. 3  It is mentioned there in connection with events associated with the First Revolt. This placename, like the name Acra, was not forgotten. 4  August Kümmel, Materialien zur Topographie des alten Jerusalem, Begleitext zu der Karte der Materialien zur Topographie des alten Jerusalem (Halle: Verlag des Deutschen Palaestina-Vereins, 1904). The map was drawn on the basis of 473 measured points of rock elevation. Wilson’s map, published in 1884 on the basis of a survey carried out in 1864–1865, and Warren’s excavations in the years 1867–1870, is one of the maps used by Kümmel. This map, which also depicts the ancient water cisterns under the Haram, differs in several details from Wilson’s map. It is the basis for the illustrations that accompany our article. A copy of Kümmel’s map is to be found in the Laor Collection of Maps (catalogue no. Laor 1059), in the Cartography Room of the National Library of Israel, Jerusalem (drawer no. Jer. 93). A high resolution electronic version is available in the internet (http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/maps/jer/images/jer093/Jer093_a.jpg). The topographical data on which Kümmel based his map was published as a book (August Kümmel, Materialien zur Topographie des alten Jerusalem: Begleittext zu der “Karte der Materialien zur Topographie des alten Jerusalem” (Leipzig: Deutscher Verein zur Erforschung Palästinas, 1906).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount

27

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

under the upper esplanade of the Muslim compound indicates the exact location of the altar, the Temple, and the Inner Court, as is suggested infra, Chapter VI, and there is a fair correspondence between the east south-east orientation of the Temple facade and the adjacent bed-rock contours there. The First Temple was a royal sanctuary, the temple being just one component of a much vaster royal compound (comprising also a palace proper, the House of the Lebanon Forest, the House of Pharaoh’s Daughter, etc. [1 Kings 7:6–12]). The First Temple already had two courtyards (2 Kings 21:5; 23:12); an inner court is mentioned in 1 Kings 7:12 and likewise in Ezekiel 8:16, pertaining to the First Temple on the eve of its destruction, hence an outer court must have existed as well. We have no information about the size of the outer court of the First Temple or its exact location relative to the other adjacent structures. It is reasonable to assume that it was vast enough to permit the assembly of large crowds, especially during the three feasts of pilgrimage. The prevalent opinion is that the royal compound extended to the south of the Temple and its courts.5 After the destruction of the First Temple, Ezekiel speaks about an ideal priestly temple. He provides information about the components and dimensions of the First Temple, but also leaves a future architectural challenge, particularly about the square layout of the Temple courts. The dimensions of the Outer Court in Ezekiel 42:16–20 are a square of 500 × ​500 cubits. Such also are the dimensions of the Temple Mount in m. Mid. 2:1, and those of the middle court in the Temple Scroll (38:12–14).6 As will be argued below, we maintain that this ideal square of Ezekiel was materialized in the building project of the Hasmonaeans, seemingly by Hyrcanus I. There are scholars who maintain that the compounds of the Temple and of the Royal palace already extended to the east (and some, even to the west), as far as the Herodian precinct (see below). We maintain that these compounds did not extend that far; that they were of more moderate dimensions. Their remains 5  See, for example, Map 9 in Sefer Yerushalaim: The Nature, History and Development of Jerusalem from Its Beginning to the Present, ed. Michael Avi-Yonah (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1956 [Hebrew]), opposite page 160; Yigael Yadin, “The First Temple,” in Avi-Yonah, Sefer Yerushalaim, 189, fig. 11 (following Galling), as well as the map of Jerusalem in the 8th–9th centuries bce appended to the new edition of Sefer Yerushalaim (The History of Jerusalem (Sefer Yerushalaim). The Biblical Period, eds. Shmuel Aḥituv and Amiḥai Mazar (Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak ben Zvi, 2000 [Hebrew]). 6  The inner dimensions are 480 × ​480 cubits (Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 3 Vols. [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977 (Hebrew edition); 1983 (English edition)], 186–91, fig. 12, in the Hebrew edition), and see also Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Architecture and the Law: The Temple and its Courtyards in the Temple Scroll,” in From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism I, ed. Jacob Neusner et al. (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989), 267–84. Leen P. Ritmeyer, The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006), 193, maintains that the square 500 × ​500 cubits Temple Mount was constructed by king Hezekiah (end of 8th to early 7th c. bce), and then reconstructed by Nehemiah. See also Michael Chyutin, Architecture and Utopia in the Temple Era (New York: T&T Clark, 2006). For the assessment of Ritmeyer’s theory see Appendix I, infra.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

28

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

may still be hidden below the floor of Ḥaram al Sharif, but at the absence of clear archaeological evidence to sustain any of these claims, they are doomed to remain hypothetical.7 However, Flavius Josephus describes a gradual evolution of the outer court, from the upper area, nearer to the temple and farther away (War 5.184–185).8 We also assume that like all other contemporary temples throughout the Levant, the outer court of the First Temple was un-leveled and non-elevated.9 The elevation and leveling of temenoi became standard only in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. It is reasonable to assume that during the relatively short period of exile, lasting about 50 years, the outline of the Outer Court was not obliterated, and it is unreasonable to assume that later, when settlement in the city was resumed and expanded, any private construction was permitted within these confines. Seemingly this area was considered as temple grounds, placed under the supervision of the High Priest, who was in charge of the rites. Even if we assume that in the beginning only a limited part of the entire court was actually in use, it is reasonable to assume that during the course of the Second Temple period the size of the area in which the people assembled was gradually expanded from the Temple outwards, primarily towards the south, having a moderate slope. Later on the Outer Court was expanded even beyond its confines during the First Temple period, apparently over ruined components of the royal compound. Thus, the area known as the Temple Mount had gradually expanded away from the Temple. Greco-Roman architectural standards, different than those that had prevailed during Iron Age II, dictated the leveling of any added area. It is also reasonable to assume that a courtyard on a higher elevation, located nearer to

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

7 Recently

all the walls of the Herodian precinct and the Muslim Ḥaram al Sharif were re-examined (Eilath Mazar, The Walls of the Temple Mount, [Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 2011]). The western wall is entirely Herodian in its lower courses; in the eastern – three distinct masonry styles are discernible in the lower courses. Such is the prevalent scholarly opinion. 8  The single portico to the east of the temple mentioned there had defined the extension of the inner court; it is not to be confused with the “Eastern Stoa”, or “Solomon’s Hall” mentioned in Ant. 20.220–221 and John 10:22–24, which was located deep below the level of the Outer Herodian precinct. Cf. also the double portico in front of the Temple facade mentioned by Josephus in Ant. 15.401, with reference to the Herodian precinct. Otherwise the temple had no wall around in its early stage. 9  For Late Bronze and Iron Age temple architecture see: Theodore A. Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomon bis Herodes: eine archäologisch-historische Studie unter Berücksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempelbaus, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1970); George R. H. Wright, Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine (Leiden  – Köln: Brill, 1985), 215–69, Ills. 123–82; Amiḥai Mazar, “Temples of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages and the Iron Age,” in The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, eds. Aharon Kempinsky and Ronny Reich (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1992 [Hebrew]), 184– 86 – Tel Dan temple; Beth Alpert Nakhai, “Syro-Palestinian Temples.” Pages 169–74 of vol. 5 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. Eric M. Meyers (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount

29

the Temple and of smaller dimensions, was architecturally elaborated in an earlier period than a courtyard more remote from it, down the slope. Given the actual topography, retaining walls required for the leveling of a smaller court on a higher elevation were less high and less thick than those required for leveling a more peripheral courtyard of vaster dimensions, located farther down. While the construction and leveling of the Herodian precinct was the most challenging engineering project, the building projects of Simeon the Just and the Hasmonaeans also left their impact on the people of that time.

4. The State of Research

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Our knowledge about the pre-Herodian precincts is limited and lacking in detail; the archaeological remains are also few and conjectural, and the ancient topography is vague as well. Despite these deficiencies, several scholars have put forward various proposals about the evolution of the Temple Mount during the Second Temple period. Thus, for example, Ritmeyer speaks of three stages in this evolution: the 500 × ​500 cubits square compound, first laid by Hezekiah and restored by Nehemiah; extension to the south by the Hasmonaeans (in general), and the ultimate extension by Herod. Ritmeyer had also presented the proposals of fourteen other scholars pertaining to the location of the square, or pre-Herodian Temple Mount, from Melchior de Vogüé (1864) to the present.10 Busink (whose proposal was not presented by Ritmeyer), delineates the preHerodian Temple Mount between the eastern and western walls of the Herodian compound, and maintains that these walls, before being extended to the south and north, had already served the Temple Mount in the Persian period.11 Vincent does not designate any changes in the layout of the Temple Mount from the Restoration period to the time of Herod.12 Murphy-O’Connor embraced Ritmeyer’s 10  See especially Leen P. Ritmeyer, “Locating the Original Temple Mount,” BAR 18.2 (1992): 24–45, 64–65, accompanied by colorful illustrations, which were reproduced in his book (The Quest, 139–64, 232–39). See also Benjamin Mazar, “The Temple Mount,” in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, ed. Jannet Amitai (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985), 463–68. For a different proposal, according to which the 500 × ​500 cubits refer to a total area that was not square and encompassed the un-roofed area of the outer Herodian court, see Joshua Schwartz and Yehoshua Peleg, “Are The ‘Halachic Temple Mount’ and the ‘Outer Court’ of Josephus one and the Same?” in Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism. Louis H. Feldman Jubilee Volume, eds. Shaye J. D. Cohen and Joshua Schwartz (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007), 207–22; Yehoshua Peleg, “The Pre-Herodian Sanctified Temple Area and Outer Court,” New Studies on Jerusalem 14 (2008): 169–94 (Hebrew). 11  Theodore A. Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomon bis Herodes: eine archäologisch-historische Studie unter Berücksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempelbaus, vol. 2: Von Ezekiel bis Middot (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 832, fig. 200. 12  Louis-Hugues Vincent and Ambroise-Marie Steve, Jérusalem de l’ancien testament, 2e partie (Paris: Gabalda, 1956), 608–10 and pl. CXXIX.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

30

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

stages of evolution, though he would prefer to attribute the square Temple Mount to the Maccabees.13 But these and other researchers did not take into account the available literary data in its entirety, or did not analyzed their testimony attentively. Particularly, the significance of the building project of Simeon the Just was ignored (see below). Therefore it is appropriate and even important to place the new proposals presented below, at the core of which is a wider system of considerations, before the scholarly community for scrutiny and examination. The discussion requires a cautious and critical synthesis of all the available sources of information. However, given the fact that archaeological excavations at the site are not to be envisioned, and that the available information, especially pertaining to the pre-Herodian phases, is so restricted, all that can be done is to present the considerations underlying each of the proposed stages. We maintain that according to the literary sources and historical considerations, four and not three distinct stages in the evolution of the Temple Mount can be discerned. We part away from Ritmeyer’s proposals not only in dating differently the square Temple Mount and adding another stage – that of Simeon the Just, but also in defining in a different manner the extension of the Hasmonaean Temple Mount. As was stated above, we maintain that his “square Temple Mount” was laid out by Hyrcanus I, not by Hezekiah or Nehemiah. As for the graphical renditions of each stage, at the absence of hard archaeological evidence and precise modern maps, it is impossible to be absolutely definitive about the first three.

5. Stages in the Architectural Evolution

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

According to the literary sources, four stages can be differentiated in the evolution of the Temple Mount in the ca. 600-year-long period that is at our concern: the Persian period – the time of the Restoration period and the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, in the sixth and fifth centuries bce.; the building project of Simeon the Just – around 200 bce; the era of the Hasmonaeans – in the second half of the second century and the first half of the first century bce; and the Herodian period – from the foundation of the compound by Herod up to the first revolt. 5.1 The Persian Period – The Time of Nehemiah (Fig. II.1) While Cyrus permitted only the rebuilding of the temple and the altar (Ezra 1:2, 6:3), in the time of Nehemiah we already read that the Temple was located inside a birah with gates: Nehemiah was permitted to roof the gates of the Birah 13  Private communication cited by Ritmeyer, The Quest, 196–97, see also Jerome MurphyO’Connor, “Der Tempel in Jerusalem von Solomon bis Herodes,” Welt und Umwelt der Bibel 13/3 (1999): 3–9, and infra, note 38. As will be indicated below, we maintain that he was right, but we ascribe this square Temple Mount to John Hyrcanus I.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount

31

Fig. II.1. Map of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount in the Restoration Period (the course of the city wall is conjectural). All the map drawings by M. Edelcopp.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

32

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

of the House (Neh 2:8) and appointed an officer to supervise it (ibid. 7:2). Birah in the book of Nehemiah (2:8; 7:2) as well as in 1 Chronicles (29:1, 19), like the Aramaic birta and the Akkadean birtu, is a fortress, citadel, or acropolis.14 In such a sense the word birah is prevalent in texts and inscriptions of the Persian period,15 and in the book of Nehemiah it designates the fortress that surrounded the Temple, that was built in a prominent location above the city, resembling an acropolis. In addition, already early during the Restoration period we hear about the courts of the Temple in the plural (Zach 3:7; Neh 8:16; 13:7). Hence, the Second Temple also had a vaster outer court beyond the inner one – the ‫עזרה‬,16 where all the people of Judah and Benjamin gathered for the assembly in which it was decided to send away the alien women. This was in “the street of the House of God” (Ezra 10:9), which was an open space that permitted a large crowd to assemble. This might have been the Outer Court of the Temple. Seemingly, the birah comprised only the Inner Court,17 whose dimensions at this period we do not know.18 Farther away had extended an unfortified outer court that gradu14 Thus Mazar, “The Temple Mount,” and later Pinḥas (Paul) Mendel, “Birah as an Architectural Term in Rabbinic Literature,” Tarbiz 61 (1992): 195–217 (Hebrew). Daniel Bodi, Jerusalem à l’époque perse. “levons-nous et batissons” (Nehemie 2, 18) (Paris: Geuthner, ca. 2002), maintains that Birah in Nehemiah is a citadel that was built to serve the Persian garrison in Jerusalem, and that it differs from the Temple. Likewise Lisbeth S. Fried, The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 194–99. 15  Andre Lemaire and Hélène Lozachmeur, “Birah  / Birta‘ en Arameen,” Syria 64 (1987): 261–66. 16 Concerning the penetration of this term into the Hebrew language to designate the Temple court, see Avi Hurvitz, “The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code: VIII,” RB 81 (1974): 41–43; idem, “The Archaeological-Historical Dispute concerning the Antiquity of the Biblical Literature in the Light of the Philological Study of the Hebrew,” in The Dispute Concerning the Historicity of the Bible, eds. Lee I. Levine and Amiḥai Mazar (Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak ben Zvi, 2001 [Hebrew]), 34–46, as well as on-line in the Hebrew Thesaurus of the Academy of the Hebrew Language (http://hebrew-treasures.huji.ac.il/). In the Bible, the term ‫ עזרה‬occurs only in the books from the period of the Babylonian exile and later (Ezekiel, Chronicles). It is also mentioned in the Wisdom of Ben Sira 50:11, in several places in the Temple Scroll, and in Aramaic translations of the Bible, denoting the Temple court, and later on, more frequently, in the descriptions of the Second Temple in the Mishnah. According to PseudoHecataeus, the dimensions of the azarah in Hasmonaean times were 100 cubits × 500 feet (infra); its dimensions according to m. Mid. were 135 × ​187 cubits, and including the Women’s Court – 135 × ​322 cubits. 17  In later Rabbinic sources the original meaning and location of the Birah was forgotten, and several locations are suggested, some of them due to text corruption, so it seems. See the discussion in Joshua Schwartz, “The Temple in Jerusalem. Bira and Baris in archaeology and literature,” in The Centrality of Jerusalem: Historical Perspectives, eds. Marcel Poorthius and Chanah Safrai (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996), 29–49, 32, pl. 1 and infra Chapter V, with references to the Rabbinic sources and to scholarly literature. 18  Mazar, “The Temple Mount,” maintained that the dimensions of Nehemiah’s Birah were 500 × ​500 cubits. This proposal was adopted by Ritmeyer, and lies at the core of his colorful reconstructions (see Appendix I), and likewise Ben Zion Luria, “The Temple Mount in the Res-

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount

33

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

ally descended the slope, delineated by a fencing wall, extending over the entire area it comprised during the first Temple Period (a somewhat trapezoidal shape is suggested here, in accord with the topographical layout). It is quite possible that some of the gates mentioned in the description of the wall’s construction and of the thanksgiving processions in Nehemiah, were located on its eastern side.19 For sure, in the time of the Restoration period this was not a virgin hillock; apparently it was terraced following the layout of the ruins of the First Temple structures. In any case, during this phase its area was not leveled.20 The leveling of the court would have required the construction of huge retaining walls, and great resources, which were not available to the returnees.21 This was done only in later stages, as will be suggested below.

toration Period,” Beit Miqra 26.3 (1981): 206–16 (Hebrew). But there is no literary source to support it. Cyrus’ permission does not speak about such a vast esplanade, the leveling of which on top of a hill must have required huge sums of money that were not available to the returnees, and there is no evidence to confirm the hypothesis that the eastern wall of the Herodian precinct was originally built already in the First Temple period, as was suggested, for example, by Ernest Marie Laperrousaz, “Angle Sud-Est du “Temple de Salomon” ou vestiges de l’“Acra des Seleucides?”: Un faux problem,” Syria 52 (1975): 241–59; idem, “King Solomon’s Wall still supports the Temple Mount,” BAR 13/3 (1987): 34–44; idem, “Quelques remarques sur la trace de l’enceinte de la ville et du temple de Jerusalem à l’époque perse,” Syria 67 (1990): 609–31. According to Avi-Yonah, Sefer Yerushalaim, 394, the 500 × ​500 square was the project of the High Priest Simeon son of Honio (who is Simeon the Just), not of Nehemiah. My conclusions are different. 19 The Water Gate toward the east (Neh 3:26), the Horses Gate (ibid. 3:28), the East Gate (ibid. 3:29), the Miphqad Gate (ibid 3:31). See the maps in ʿOlam HaTanakh. Sifrei Ezra VeNehemiah, eds. Michael Heltzer and Michael Kokhman (Tel Aviv: Davidson – Itai, 1996 [Hebrew]), 228–29; Yoram Tsafrir, “The Walls of Jerusalem in the Period of Nehemiah,” Cathedra 4 (1977): 41 (Hebrew), but these proposals are not beyond doubt. Some of them might have been gates in the city wall, and the location of the Water Gate is debated. The fact that only one gate – Shoshan Gate – is mentioned in m. Mid. 1:3 on the east of the square 500 × ​500 Temple Mount, attributed here to the Hasmonaean, may indicate that the earlier, smaller Temple Mount was extended to the east at the expanses of eastern dwelling quarters that had required more than a single gate to connect that part of the city with the Outer Court of the temple. 20  The Samaritan sacred precinct on Mt. Gerizim, built to imitate the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, was likewise neither leveled nor paved, and it was surrounded by a wall without projecting fortification towers. The dimensions of its outer court in the Persian period were 98 × ​ 96 m (ca. 200 × ​200 cubits; the Hellenistic-period precinct was somewhat larger, and terraced). See Yizhak Magen, “Mount Gerizim – a temple city,” Qadmoniot 120 (2001): 96–100 (Hebrew); idem, “The Temple of Yahveh on Mount Gerizim and in Jerusalem,” Eretz Israel 29 (Ephraim Stern Volume) (2009): 277–97 (Hebrew). The possible existence of an inner court (ʿazarah), of smaller dimensions, like that of Jerusalem, is suggested there. 21  Sarah Japhet, “The Temple of the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology,” in Sefer Yerushalaim: The Biblical Period, eds. Shmuel Aḥitov and Amiḥai Mazar (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2000 [Hebrew]), 345–82.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

34

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

5.2 The Elevation and Leveling of the Outer Court by Simeon the Just (Figs. II.2–3a–b, III.3, p. 75) This stage is dated to the end of Ptolemaic rule and the beginning of that of the Seleucids – the days of the high priest Simeon II, son of Honio II (Wisdom of Ben Sira, Greek version; Ant. 12.224), who served as high priest during the years 219–196 bce. This Simeon is identified with Simeon the Just, who was from “the remnants of the High Assembly” (‫( )משיירי כנסת גדולה‬m. Avot 1:2). His project comprised elevating and leveling the Outer Court, and the construction of porticoes and a grille on its circumference (infra, Chapter III). This building project was commemorated in a condensed, poetic manner in several phrases in the Wisdom of Ben Sira (50:1–5), written in the first quarter of the second century bce, shortly after its completion.22 The Greek translation, prepared by the grandson of Ben Sira, who most probably knew the building project, is both less poetic and more specific and speaks about restoring the House (oikos), strengthening the Temple (naos), and laying the foundations (‫ קיר פנות‬in the Hebrew text) for an elevated courtyard (aule) and for the peribolos that enclosed the sacred precinct (peribolou hierou).23 The project also included the construction of a water reservoir (lakkos), with the circumference of a sea (thalassa).24 Another source referring to this building  The Wisdom of Ben Sira 50:1–5: / ‫ אשר בדורו נפקד הבית ובימיו חוזק היכל‬/ ‫גדול אחיו ותפארת עמו שמעון בן יוחנן הכהן‬ / ‫ אשר בימיו נכרה מקווה אשיח בם בהמונו‬/ ‫אשר בימיו נבנה קיר פינות מעון בהיכל מלך‬ ‫( הדואג לעמו מחטף ומחזק עירו מצר‬Segal 1959, 340–41). “Greatest among his kindred, the glory of his people, / was Simeon the priest, son of Jochanan, / In whose time the house of God was renovated,  / in whose days the Temple was reinforced.  / In his time also the retaining wall was built / for the residence precinct with its Temple of the King. / In his day the reservoir was dug, / the pool with a vastness like the sea’s. / He took care for his people against brigands and strengthened his city against the enemy (tr. Skehan 1987, 547). See also Otto Mulder, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50  an exegetical study of the significance of Simon the High Priest as climax to the Praise of the fathers in Ben Sira’s concept of the history of Israel. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 78 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003), 344–54. 23 Sapientia Iesu filii Sirach, ed. Joseph Ziegler (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1980), 357. The Greek term peribolos is an architectural enclosure, a sacred precinct, as well as its court. Segal’s Hebrew translation of the Greek is somewhat ambiguous in modern Hebrew, as is the Hebrew original: “‫ מילוא רם עזרת היכל‬,‫”וממנו נוסד מרום כפול‬. Similarly, AviYonah’s translation of the Greek (Sefer Yerushalaim, 394), does not provide a clear idea about the building project: “‫”אשר בימיו הונחו היסודות להגבהה כפולה ונבנה המעוז הגבוה מסביב להיכל‬. Charles T. R. Hayward’s English translation of the Greek text (The Jewish Temple: a non-biblical sourcebook [London: Routledge, 1996], 73), is more to the point: Simon, son of Onias, was the high priest / Who in life patched up the house / And in his days made firm the Temple; / And by him was laid the foundation of height of the court, / The high underwork of the enclosed precinct of the Temple. / In his days was hewn out the reservoir for the waters, / A cistern like the circumference of the sea. 24 Echoing, perhaps, the “Great Sea” of the Solomonic Temple (1 Kgs 7:23–26). See also infra, text to which note 64 is appended.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

22

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount

35

Fig. II.2. Map of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount in the time of Simeon the Just and the Seleucid Acra (the course of the city wall is conjectural).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

36

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

project is the writ of rights given by Antiochus III to the Jews (Ant. 12.138–44), indicating that the Temple was surrounded by porticos set at the circumference of a leveled courtyard that encompassed the ʿazarah (that, according to Josephus, was located on yet a higher level).25 From Antiochus edict pertaining to the sanctity of Jerusalem and the Temple (Ant. 12.145–46), we can deduce that the grille, up to which aliens were allowed to proceed, was first erected as part of this building project. It was a square of 1 × ​1 stadia, as will be suggested below. It is reasonable to assume that the elevation of this leveled outer court, which was more adjacent to the Inner Court than the later expansions by the Hasmonaeans and Herod, remained unaltered also during the later phases. Hence, this level – the level of “the Second Sacred Court” of the Herodian precinct (infra) – was already determined in the time of Simeon the Just. As for the Inner Court, it seems that information about its dimensions can be gleaned from the Temple Scroll. The “Temple Source” (TS) that served as the basis for the section dealing with the description of the Temple in the Scroll, evolved about the time of Simeon the Just, perhaps in relation to his building project.26 It is quite possible that it reflects the structure of the ʿazarah at that time.27 From the Temple Scroll it emerges that chambers 21 × ​21 cubits in dimension which flanked the Temple, were set at a distance of 7 cubits from its northern and southern walls. Assuming that the Temple, including the cells, was already then 54 cubits in breadth (according to m. Mid. 4:7), the breadth of the Inner Court must have been more than 110 cubits.28 25  Scholars maintain that this writ of rights speaks about repairing damage that was caused to the Temple during the war, but the rule over Jerusalem had passed to the Seleucids peacefully; it was not associated with acts of war or siege that might have caused damage to the Temple and its courts. This document speaks about “works on the temple that have to be completed, including the porticoes and any other part of that it may be necessary to build;” to build, not to restore. This phrasing also indicates that the building project had started already earlier, under the Ptolemies. It was completed under the Seleucids, since Ben Sira speaks about an accomplished project. 26 On the “Temple Source” see Andrew M. Wilson and Lawrence Wills, “Literary Sources of the ‘Temple Scroll’.” HTR 75.3 (1982): 275–88; Michael O. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 19) (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990), 61–99 (the date is given on the final page); Florentino Garcia Martinez, “Sources et composition du Rouleau du Temple,” Henoch 13 (1991): 219–32. Yadin (Temple Scroll), had already defined five thematic sections in the Scroll. The largest among them deals with the structure of the Temple proper, its adjacent buildings, and its courts. 27 See infra, Chapter IX. 28 Yadin suggested the existence of an additional inner wall around the Temple, the altar, the western side court of columns, and the southern and northern chambers, within the confines of the Scroll’s Inner Court, at a distance of 40 cubits from the northern and southern walls of the Temple. The breadth of the courtyard encompassed by this wall was thus 134 cubits, slightly smaller than that of the ʿazarah given in m. Mid. 2:6; 5:1, which was 135 cubits. See Yadin, Temple Scroll (Hebrew), 158–61 and Fig. 5. See also Chyutin, Architecture and Utopia, 114–42.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount

37

a.

b.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. II.3. Stages in the evolution of the Temple Mount (to be read from right to left). Fig. a. E–W cross-section, looking north. 1. City wall; 2. Eastern wall of the Hasmonaean extension and of the Herodian temenos; 3. Retaining walls of Simeon the Just’s courtyard; 4.  Fence of the outer courtyard in the days of the returnees and of Ezra and Nehemiah; 5. Western wall of the Herodian precinct. Fig. b. S–N cross-section, looking east. 1. Southern wall of the Herodian precinct; 2. Southern wall of the Hasmonaean extension; 3. Retaining walls of Simeon the Just’s courtyard; 4. Fence of the outer courtyard in the days of the returnees and of Ezra and Nehemiah; 5. City wall; 6. Northern wall of the Herodian precinct.

It is noteworthy that these literary sources  – The Wisdom of Ben Sira and the two documents of Antiochus III – do not refer to adding a fortification to the sacred precinct, an issue bearing political connotations that transcend the religious aspect; no such permission was granted by the Hellenistic authorities. Although the retaining walls of the elevated courtyard served as a kind of buttress, a separate fortification wall to the Temple Mount in its new shape was first constructed under the Hasmonaeans (see below). And indeed, when Judas Maccabeus conquered Jerusalem and its temple after it was desecrated by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, he found a deserted temple, a desecrated altar, burnt gates, courts covered by wild vegetation, destroyed chambers (1 Macc. 4:38), and courts where harlots carried on their licentious behavior (1 Macc. 6:4). These were all the components of the pre-Hasmonaean sacred precinct, listed from the Temple proper outwards. The burnt gates are apparently the gates of the ʿazarah wall. No other wall is mentioned farther outwards, at the circumferences of the courts in which chambers were located. Hence, the building project of Simeon the Just did not include a second line of fortifications around the Temple, besides the wall of the ʿazarah and the porticoes. The elevation and leveling of a vast courtyard of a quadrangular shape atop a hill that descends steeply to the west and to the east was a complex architectural enterprise that must have required great resources. Unfortunately, we lack detailed information about the political and economic circumstances of this

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

38

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

project, which was constructed in a period when Judea as yet was not politically independent. This is also the period in which sects began to emerge in Jewish society, a process which might have been related to the comprehensive restoration of the Temple and its courts at that time. But there are only hints about these social and religious processes. 5.3 The Seleucid Acra (Fig. II.2) In 168 bce a Seleucid citadel (Acra) was built by Antiochus IV in the City of David, to the south of the Temple. It had high walls and towers, rising above the Temple (1 Macc. 1:33–35; 3:45; 4:2; Ant. 12.252). As was indicated above, a ravine separated the temple from the Acra Hill. In 141 bce the Acra was captured by Simeon the Hasmonaean, and later destroyed by him (139 bce) (1 Macc. 13:49–52; 14:7, 36–37; War 5.139; Ant. 13.215–217). Opinions vary about its exact location. We adhere to Tsafrir’s proposal, according to which the massive wall to the north of the “seam” in the eastern wall of the Herodian precinct, with stone dressing typical to Hellenistic fortification walls (Fig. II.6), is the foundation of the Acra.29 The dimensions suggested here for its extension, are 41 × ​62 m (see Appendix I). 5.4 Surrounding the precinct (Mount Zion / Temple Mount) by a Wall, and Extending the Fortified Precinct – the Hasmonaean Period It seems that two sub-stages should be defined during the Hasmonaean period: the days of Judas, Jonathan, and Simeon, and the later period in which their kingdom grew and prospered under John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

5.4.1 Fortification of the Precinct of Simeon the Just by Judas Maccabaeus and Jonathan Judas (164–161 bce) fortified the precinct by raising-up walls and consolidating it with towers as a measure of defense against the Seleucids who still held the Acra (1 Macc. 4:41, 60–61), located to the south of the Temple Mount. It is doubtful whether the present eastern wall of the Temple Mount, bordered on the north and on the south by the Herodian extensions, is a relic of the fortification project of Judas Maccabeus. Better political and economic conditions 29 See: Yoram Tsafrir, “The Location of the Seleucid Acra in Jerusalem,” RB 82 (1975 ): 501– 21, with farther references. For other proposals see Meir Ben Dov, “The Seleucid Acra – South of the Temple Mount,” Cathedra 18 (1981): 22–36 (Hebrew); Joshua Schwartz, “Be՚er HaQar, Bor Îeqer and the Seleucid Acra,” Cathedra 37 (1985): 3–16 (Hebrew); Gregory J. Wightman, “Temple fortresses in Jerusalem, part I: The Ptolemaic and Seleucid Acras,” BAIAS 9 (1989– 1990): 29–40. For Ritmeyer’s proposal (The Quest, 207–12), see Appendix I.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount

39

were required for the construction of such a monumental wall. It is rather more reasonable that Judas Maccabeus’ fortification project should be conceived as thickening and rising farther up the walls of the porticoes that had surrounded the earlier precinct or replacing the porticoes by a fortification wall. Lysias and Antiochus V laid a heavy siege against these walls of the sacred precinct (hieron) in 163/62 bce and after the surrender of the besieged Jews therein, the walls were razed to their foundations (1 Macc. 6:48, 51–54, 62; Ant. 12.377–383).30 In 152 bce, when Jonathan (161–143/2 bce) took up residence in Jerusalem and was appointed high priest, after the Jewish hostages in the Acra were released, he ordered to rebuild and renovate the city and fortify Mount Zion with ashlars (1 Macc. 10:11; Ant. 13.181).31 According to Josephus, the fortification of Jonathan was a restoration of the wall of Judas Maccabeus, which was demolished by Antiochus V, and strengthening the courtyard (peribolos) of the Temple with lofty towers. Ptolemy son of Habubu strove to gain control of the fortified Temple Mount after deviously killing his father-in-law Simeon (143/2–135/4 bce) in the fortress of Douka in 135/4 bce (1 Macc. 16:20). 5.4.2 Possible Remains

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The remains of this wall may have been preserved on the south as a wall of four graded courses, each 0.45 m high and 0.78 m thick, that was preserved near the lower end of the two flights of stairs leading down from the upper esplanade of Ḥaram al-Sharif southwards, adjacent and to the north of the Muslim ablution fountain (Qas).32 The thickness of this wall was thus 3.12 m.33 It runs 30  The Temple had, of course, another wall  – that of the Inner Court (ʿazarah). This is presumably the wall of the Inner Court of the Temple, which Alcimos (high priest in the years 163–159 bce.) wished to dismantle in May 159, but his plan was thwarted and he died (1 Macc. 9:54–57). See discussion in Uriel Rapapport, 1 Maccabees, 242–43, and in Jonathan A. Goldstein’s English edition to this passage: 1 Maccabees – a new translation with introduction and commentary by Jonathan A. Goldstein (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 379, 391–94. 31  In 145 bce. Jonathan also decided “to erect a high wall between the Acra and the city, so as to shut it off from the city and isolate it, so that the occupants could neither buy nor sell” (1 Macc. 12:36, tr. Goldstein, 463–64). Apparently the reference here is to a siege wall, a dike. The parallel passage in Ant. 13.182 speaks about teichos, a term that denotes not only a city wall, but also the siege wall laid by the Romans around Jerusalem (War 5.508 etc.). Abel, in his French translation, speaks about a high barrier wall (“une haute barriere”) erected between the Acra and the city. 32  David M. Jacobson and Simon Gibson, “A Monumental Stairway on the Temple Mount,” IEJ 45 (1995): 162–70. 33 Following Jacobson (“The Plan of Herod’s Temple,” BAIAS 10 [1990–91]: 36–66), the authors suggest that this monumental graded wall (depicted also in Wilson’s 1876 map), was actually a crepidoma, and that the soreg ran nearby, above. At present it is hidden by an elevated terrace wall. Beyond this wall Jacobson drew a square measuring 205 × ​205 m, whose northern and western sides run more or less along the lines of these sides of the Muslim platform. For topographical considerations we share his opinion, but unlike Jacobson, we maintain that the southern line suggested here parallels the monumental graded wall. Ritmeyer does not address

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

40

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

almost parallel to the northern edge of the upper platform of the Muslim precinct, delineated there by a rocky scarp, but not exactly so; there is a slight convergence to the east.34 Flavius Josephus mentions a square, 1 × ​1 stadia in dimensions, located near the summit of the Temple Mount (Ant. 15.400). This might be a literary formula that refer to an area that was not a perfect square in reality, but somewhat trapezoidal. In any case, one stadion equals 186 m according to a 31 cm long foot that was in use in the Temple.35 The average distance between the westward extension of the monumental wall and the northern edge of the upper platform is about 197.5 m. A square of these dimensions is large enough to include a perfect square of 1 × ​1 stadia that was surrounded by narrow porticoes all around. We cannot be more definitive about the Temple Mount of Simeon the Just. The 1 × ​1 stadia square, if real, might have been the area delineated by the grille (soreg), first established on the Temple Mount by him. According to our proposal, the northern side of his Temple Mount is marked by the northern edge of the upper esplanade.36 On its inside was a second square of 1 × ​1 stadia, delineated by the soreg. The 11.5 m difference between this number and the length of the court sides equals 25 cubits of 0.46 m – one of the cubits that were used in the Temple.37 The area delineated by the soreg was surrounded this monumental graded wall in his publications. Both he, as well as Jacobson, made no mention of either the porticoes of Simeon the Just or the wall of Judas Maccabeus. 34  In the square Temple Mount of Simeon the Just adopted here, the graded wall on the south does not run exactly parallel to the northern edge of the platform. The northern and southern sides were extended farther east. They are 197.51 and 197.56 m long, respectively. The western side of the “square” is 202.32 m long, and the eastern side – 195.27 m long. Hence, it is not a precise geometrical square. The angles, starting from the north-eastern and proceeding clockwise are: 90.64°, 91.40°, 88.60° and 89.36°. 35 Rafael Grafman, “Herod’s foot and Robinson’s arch,” IEJ 20 (1970): 60–66. 36 For the exact dimensions of the “square” of Simeon the Just, see supra, note 34. According to Michael H. Burgoyne (“1187–1260: The Farthest Mosque (al-Masjid al-Aqsa) under Ayyubid Rule, in Grabar and Kedar, Where Heaven and Earth Meet, 164 and endnote on page 399 and idem, “Smaller Domes in the Ḥaram al-Sharif Reconsidered,” in Ayyubid Jerusalem. The Holy City in Context 1187–1250, eds. Robert. Hillenbrand and Sylvia Auld (London: Altajir Trust, 2009), 164–69, with a map on page 177; photos given in Maḥmud Hawari, Ayyubid Jerusalem (1187–1250): an architectural and archaeological study (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2007), 112–26, up to the Ayyubid al-Mu‘azzam ‘Isa the upper Muslim esplanade was a full 18 m narrower on the west. Eastward of this line, at the basement and to the east of Qubba al-Nahwiyya (built in 1207–8 at the SW corner of the upper esplanade), the flooring slabs of the esplanade are retained by a row of parallel arches. Hence we set the western side of the “square” of Simeon the Just to coincide with the later western side of the Hasmonaean square (see below), rather than with the present western side of the upper Muslim esplanade. If Burgoyne’s conclusion is right, and the entire western strip of the upper esplanade is likewise late, the area designated here as the square of Simeon the Just should be shifted perhaps by 18 m eastward, and its western side set in line with the western side of the reduced esplanade. I am indebted to Jerome Murphy-O’Connor for drawing my attention to this important observation of Burgoyne and for other useful comments on an earlier version of this paper. 37  Jacobson (“The Plan of Herod’s Temple,” 47–48; idem, “The Jerusalem Temple of Herod the Great,” in The World of the Herods. Volume 1 of the International Conference the World

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount

41

by a horizontal strip that could easily hold a circumferential portico 10 cubits deep (including a wall 2–3 cubits thick, that stood on top of the monumental 3 m-thick wall referred to above), leaving a free open space 2.5 cubits wide all around, between it and the soreg (see Fig. III.3, p. 75). 5.4.3 The 500 × ​500 Cubits Temple Mount – Extension to the East and to the South – by John Hyrcanus (Fig. II.4)

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

During the lengthy rule of John Hyrcanus (135/4–104 bce), the Hasmonaean kingdom had enjoyed a prospering economy and extended over a large territory. John Hyrcanus had erected the Baris as a fortified palace. Also in his days, or those of Jannaeus, an aqueduct was built from ʿEitam to the Temple (infra, Chapter XV). Seemingly, only then the Hasmonaeans found time to extend the Temple Mount to the south and to the east38 beyond the limits established by Simeon the Just, in a manner that would permit an assembly of a larger multitude of pilgrims.39 According to Josephus “The Hasmonaeans, during the period of their reign, both filled up the ravine [that separated the Acra hill from the Temple], with the objective of uniting the city to the temple, and also reduced the elevation of the Acra by levelling its summit, in order that it might not block the view of the temple” (War 5.139, tr. H.St.J. Thackeray, LCL). Hence, their purpose was not to extend the Temple Mount farther south; their extension to the south did not reach beyond the ravine that separated the Ophlas Hill from the Temple Hill. Ritmeyer’s 500 × ​500 cubits square Temple Mount (“Locating the Original Temple Mount;” The Quest, 165–186) falls within this area. In these publications of the Herods and the Nabataeans Held at the British Museum, 17–19 April 2001, ed. Nikos Kokkinos [Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 2007], 150, n. 25), deduced from the height of the stairs in front of the Double Gate that the cubit used in the Temple was ca. 0.46 m long. Three cubits of different lengths were in use in the Temple: long, medium, and short. Opinions vary about as to the length of each one. See infra, Chapter VI, note 17. In addition, in Herod’s Royal Stoa the foot was applied, as is evident from its description by Flavius Josephus. In the illustrations and the text given here we adhered to the medium cubit of 52.5 cm, a short cubit of 46 cm, and a foot of 31 cm. 38  There are scholars who maintain that the monumental wall on the east was already built by King Solomon, or that it dates to the Persian period, being built under Nehemiah (supra, notes 11, 12, 18). Like other scholars (Tsafrir, “the Seleucid Acra;” Murphy-O’Connor, personal communication dated Dec. 2, 1990, with L. Ritmeyer – The Quest, 196–97, suggesting that the square Temple Mount “is essentially a Maccabean construction”), we maintain that the eastern wall of Ḥaram al Sharif to the north of the Acra foundations and to the south of the northern Herodian extension (sections 13–27 of the eastern wall in Eilath Mazar, The Walls of the Temple Mount [Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 2011]), is Hellenistic  / Hasmonaean, neither Iron Age, nor Persian. 39  According to Eyal Regev (The Hasmoneans: Ideology, Archaeology, Identity. Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012], 67–76), there is historical evidence to dating the half-shekel tribute and the practice of mass pilgrimage to Jerusalem to the Hasmonean period.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

42

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Fig. II.4. The City of David and the Temple Mount in the Hasmonaean Period (the course of the city wall is conjectural).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount

43

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

he had pointed to still extant “markers” of this square (see Appendix I), but he attributed it to Hezekiah and its restoration to Nehemiah – a fallacious attribution in our opinion. We maintain that Ritmeyer’s square is Hasmonaean, not of the First Temple period.40 Hence, we suggest that John Hyrcanus I, for ideological reasons, extended the area of the Temple Mount to be 500 × ​500 cubits, as envisioned by Ezekiel and recommended by the contemporary Temple Scroll. This is the Temple Mount described in m. Mid. 2:1A, that refers to the pre-Herodian precinct (the Herodian one was much larger). And indeed, m. Mid. 1:3 refers to the pre-Herodian precinct, when there was just a single gate on the west; the Herodian precinct had four gates on that side.41 According to m. Mid. 2:1B-C (pertaining to the square 500 × ​500 cubits Temple Mount referred to in 2:1A), “Its largest [open space] was at the south, second largest, at the east, third largest, at the north, and least, at the west. The part which was the most extensive [of its open space] was [also] the part which was most used [by those entering the area]” (tr. J. Neusner). How these areas should be calculated? The answer is not obvious. We decided to divide the Hasmonaean Stage (Fig. II.4) into four trapezoids by extending the lines of the ʿazarah walls up to their intersections with the sides of the 500 × ​500 square. The resulting areas of the trapezoids, starting from the south and counting counter clockwise are: 27,287 sqm, 22,754 sqm, 22,897 sqm and 18,084 sqm.42 Hence, they are not in accord with the Mishnah, the northern area being 143 sqm larger than the eastern one. But this is a small deviation, less than 1 %, within the margins of uncertainty associated with all the measurements and dimensions, so it seems.43 The Hasmonaean Temple Mount was a fortified precinct. In 63 bce the supporters of Aristobolus II took refuge there from the army of Pompey, who came 40 Ritmeyer had attributed to the Hasmonaeans an area that extended farther south, but this is in contrast with what Josephus says and there are no archaeological remains to sustain his claim. See Appendix I. 41  Yizhak Magen, “The Gates of the Temple Mount According to Josephus and the Mishnah,” Cathedra 14 (1980): 41–54 (Hebrew); Dan Bahat, “The Herodian Temple,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, III. The Early Roman Period, eds. William Horbury, W. D. Davies and John Sturdy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 38–58; idem, “The Architectural Origins of Herod’s Temple Mount,” in Herod and Augustus. Papers Presented at the IJS Conference, 21st–23rd June 2005, eds. David M. Jacobson and Nikos Kokkinos (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2009), 238–39. 42 If measured following another system, whereby the four corners of the Azarah are connected with the four corresponding corners of the 500 × ​500 cubits square, the results (in sqm) are the following (listing counter clockwise, starting from the south): 19,190, 14.237, 15.769, 12,268. In this case the northern area is 1,532 sqm larger than the eastern area – ca. 10 %. The first system of calculation seems to us to be more correct. 43  If the ʿazarah is slightly shifted northward, the area to the north would be somewhat smaller than the area to the east.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

44

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

to the aid of Hyrcanus II (War 1.141–148; Ant. 14.57–69). Twenty-seven years later Herod besieged the supporters of Mattathias Antigonus, who were entrenched there (War 1.343–357; Ant. 14.465–481). The description of this battle in Ant. 14 enables reconstruction of the fortification scheme. The besieging forces attacked from the north, lying down three batteries on which the siege towers were pushed in order to destroy first the city wall. When this wall was seized, after 45 days of siege, there was much killing in the alleys and in the houses. The besieged retreated to a second wall, which was captured after 15 more days of siege. In this fight several porticoes that surrounded the Temple were set on fire. Hence, this second wall was the wall of the Outer Court of the Temple. The Jews escaped to the Inner Court (ʿazarah), where the altar and the Temple proper stood, asking Herod to permit bringing in sacrificial animals required for the daily sacrifice (‫)קרבן התמיד‬, a request which he first approved. When the inner precinct was captured as well, the surviving people sought refuge in the Temple itself. Mercenaries killed many here, as well, and viewed the Temple and its vessels. Antigonus was hiding in the Baris, to where he had escaped (seemingly through the underground tunnel mentioned in Ant. 13.307; War 1.75; cf. also Ant. 15.424), and finally surrendered to the Roman supreme commander Susius, who had assisted Herod in this battle. Susius donated to the Temple a wreath of gold before leaving the city. Hence, the Temple was surrounded at that time by an external wall which was distinct from the city wall, and by a second wall – that of the ʿazarah. In between was located the soreg grille. A Temple surrounded by “three enclosing walls (periboloi), over seventy cubits in size [the dimensions seem to be exaggerated], the width being proportional …” is mentioned in the Letter of Aristeas 84,44 that was composed under the Hasmonaeans. The description in the Letter (art. 84–91) is as seen from the Baris fortress, located at that time outside the city wall to the north, overlooking the Temple. The eastern wall of the Temple Mount at the time was distinct from the eastern wall of the city. This wall, perhaps “the wall of the eastern valley” of 1 Macc. 12:37 (tr. Goldstein, 464), had collapsed (seemingly, only partially), when the city walls were elevated under Jonathan. Later it was restored. This is also the First Wall, which according to Flavius Josephus (War 5.145), had connected to the eastern portico of the Herodian Temple Mount.45 A portico was built against 44  Trans. Rowland J. H. Shutt, in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 18. 45 This section of the city wall, to the east of the Temple Mount, has not been uncovered yet. About dwellings of the Second Temple period exposed on the Kidron slope, ca. 50 m to the east of the Gate of Mercy, see Eli Shukrun and Ronny Reich, “The Area to the East of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem during the Second Temple, Roman and Byzantine Periods in Light of the 1995–1998 Excavations,” New Studies on Jerusalem 5 (2000): 113–16 (Hebrew). For delineation of the line of the First Wall in this manner, see, for example, the maps in Meir Ben Dov, Jerusalem Fortifications: The City Walls, the Gates and the Temple Mount (Tel Aviv:

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount

45

the eastern wall of the Temple Mount, which was attributed by Flavius Josephus to King Solomon (Ant. 20.220–221; John 10:22–24). Clearly, if the eastern wall is Hasmonaean, so is the portico. Apparently, at that time the porticoes of the days of Simeon the Just, Judas, and Jonathan on the west and north, were also renovated.46 The “Eastern Stoa,” 400 cubits long, was located on a lower level relative to the rest of the Outer Court, and hence it can be concluded that the extension of the walled area to the east was not accompanied by its elevation and leveling up to the level of the courtyard of Simeon the Just. A possible reason might have been a wish not to cut the line of view between the Temple and the Mount of Olives. In Herod’s days as well, when another expansion of the Temple Mount took place, the eastern wall was not elevated to the level of the other walls, and the “Eastern Stoa” built against it remained lower than the level of the First Precinct (infra). The two gates on the south were the Hulda Gates (m. Mid. 1:3). It is reasonable to assume that they are to be located at the northern ends of the later Herodian tunnels of the Double Gate and of the Triple Gate. Hence, they were at floor level of the Hasmonaean precinct, not under floor, like the later Herodian gates. Water cistern no. 8 (into which the aqueduct from ʿEitam – also built under the Hasmonaeans – empties), and the adjacent water cistern no. 7, are included within the 500 × ​500 square. The Hasmonaean walls on the north, west and south were dismantled during the Herodian extension, which was elevated to be even with the level of the Hasmonaean precinct. Given the fact that the Hasmonaean extension to the east was not elevated to the level of the court of Simeon the Just, one wonders, what was the case with the southern extension? We maintain that in line with the architectural standards of the period, and the patronage of a wealthy ruler, this extension was elevated and leveled, but up to a level somewhat below that of Simeon the Just’s court (which in our opinion was the level of “the Second Sacred Precinct” of the Herodian compound, the difference in height between them being bridged by few stairs [infra]). Two such staircases are assumed opposite Hulda Gates, to their north. They led to two opening on the southern side of the grille.47 On the inside of the southern wall, between Hulda Gates and to the west of the western gate, there apparently were porticos, like the one on the east, but on the level of the court, not on a lower one. Zmora-Bitan, 1983 [Hebrew]), 47; Hillel Geva, “Jerusalem. The Second Temple Period,” in The New Encyclopedia of Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. Ephraim Stern (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993 [Hebrew]), Vol. 2, 634 (map). It is not impossible that the line of the wall ran along a still lower level relative to that depicted on these maps. 46  Porticoes that were replaced by the Herodian ones, for being less elaborate, are referred to in Ant. 15.396. The eastern portico was not replaced. 47 Altogether there were 13 gates in the soreg, 4 of them on the south (m. Mid. 2:3, 6). See infra, Chapter IV.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

46

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Near the western of the two opening in the soreg mentioned above, there are two deep water cisterns (nos. 6 and 36) that seemingly served originally as ritual baths (miqvaoth) before entering the soreg.48 In the ʿazarah – a rectangular compound (peribolos), the dimensions of which according to pseudo-Hecataius were 500 feet × 100 cubits – were located the altar and the Temple. It was entered through two gates (Against Apion 1.198).49 These dimensions of the azarah are smaller than those given in m. Mid. 5:1.

6. The Extension and Leveling of the Precinct under Herod (Fig. II.5)

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

As the Herodian precinct is well known, it can be described briefly. Herod extended the Hasmonaean precinct to the north (War 5.186), west, and south, dismantling the walls and porticoes that stood on the Temple Mount on these sides since the days of Hyrcanus and Jannaeus, and doing away with the city walls on the north and on the west. The steep slope down to the Kidron valley prevented any extension eastwards. The foundations were laid on the bedrock. Thereafter earth was heaped against the walls on the outside, in order to raise the ground level to that of the city streets. On the inside of the compound the esplanade was leveled by means of fills and vaults. The eastern and northern walls of the Herodian precinct were set to meet at a right angle,50 and likewise the southern and the western walls. The eastern wall was extended to be altogether 460 m long, which equals 1000 cubits of 0.46 m, one of the cubits applied in the Herodian building project, as was mentioned above. The extension of the this wall to the north, beyond the Hasmonaean square precinct, was 117.40 m, which equals about 255 cubits of 0.46 m (external dimensions) or ca. 250 cubits (internal dimensions). The extension of this wall is best discernible to the south, in the “seam” adjacent to the south-eastern corner (Fig. II.6). Here the wall was elongated by ca. 32 meters. The Royal Stoa, 105 feet wide, was built above this extension.

48  Ronny Reich, “Two Possible Miqwa’ot on the Temple Mount,” IEJ 39 (1989): 63–65. The present depth of cistern 6 is 9 m; that of cistern 36 is more than 4.8 m (Gibson and Jacobson, Below the Temple Mount, 25, 31 respectively); such depths would exclude using them as ritual baths (miqvaot) after being deepened. 49 These passages of Against Apion should be dated to the last years of John Hyrcanus, or early in the reign of Alexander Jannaeus. See Bzalel Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, On the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora (Hellenistic Culture and Society 21) (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1996), 271–92. 50  Erwin F. Reidinger, “The Temple Mount Platform in Jerusalem from Solomon to Herod: An Archaeological Re-Examination,” Assaf. Studies in Art History 9 (2004): fig. 12.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount

Fig. II.5. Map of the Temple Mount in the Herodian Period.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

47

48

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Fig. II.6. The eastern wall of the Herodian precinct, near its southern end: the seam between the Hellenistic / Hasmonean construction and the Herodian extension (Photo B. Z. Kedar).

The Herodian temenos of 144,000 sq m is one of the largest ancient precincts in the entire Roman world.51 The lengths of its walls are: western – 488 m, southern – 280 m, eastern – 460 m (=1000 cubits), northern – 315 m (=ca. 1000 feet). The entire circumference on the outside is thus 1543 m. The walls were ca. 4.5 m thick. The Temple resembled a fortress (arx), to the soldiers of Titus, with walls of its own (Tacitus, Histories 5.12.1). 6.1 The Outer Court and its Porticoes (Fig. II.7)

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The Outer Court – the First Sacred Precinct (hieron) of Flavius Josephus, was paved with stones of different sorts and colors (War 5.192),52 and surrounded on the north and west by double porticoes with columns 25 cubits high that had replaced 51  See the comparison with the sacred precincts of Samaria, Petra, and Baalbek, and that of Bel in Palmyra, in Henner von Hesberg, “The Significance of the Cities in the Kingdom of Herod,” in Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence, eds. Klaus Fittschen and Gideon Foerster (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 21, fig. 1. The Herodian precinct is more than twice larger than that of Bel – the largest among the Roman precincts depicted there. The Herodian precinct is also much larger than the Acropolis of Athens (240 × ​120 m) and the Zeus precinct at Olympia (170 × ​210 m). See Jacobson, “The Jerusalem Temple,” 158. The dimensions of the Zeus precinct in Damascus were 305 × ​385 m, which equals 117.425 sqm. 52 Asaf Avraham, “Addressing the Issue of the Temple Mount Pavement During the Herodian Period,” New Studies on Jerusalem 13 (2007): 87–96. A Greek inscription found ca. 90 m to the south of the Triple Gate, dated to year 20 of Herod’s reign, seemingly speaks about a donation for the pavement of the southern part of the courtyard by a citizen of Rhodes, apparently a Jew, named Paris (or Sparis), son of Akeson in year 18–17 bce (too early to be attributed to the

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount

49

Fig. II.7. A N–S cross-section across the Herodian Temple Mount and an elevation of the Temple, looking west (drawn by M. Edelcopp).

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. II.8. The Royal Stoa – a N–S cross-section, looking west (Netzer, The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder, p. 167, Fig. 38).

earlier, less magnificent ones, on these sides (Ant. 15.396). As was mentioned above, the level of this court was already determined by the Hasmonaeans. On the east, on a lower elevation, the Eastern Portico of the Hasmonaeans, that Josephus attributes to King Solomon, was left on its site, remaining lower relative to the level of the esplanade (ibid., 20.220–221). This is “Solomon’s Porch” mentioned in the Gospel according to John. The encounter on the feast of Hanukkah between Jesus and the Jews, who wanted to know whether he was indeed the Messiah, took place in that hall (John 10:22–24). On the southern side was the Royal Stoa (Fig. II.8), one stadion long, standing only on the area added to the precinct by Herod. The total length of the porticoes was 6 stadia, which are less than 1200 m (War 5.190–192).53 On the north, below the Antonia fortress, at an elevation of pavement of the Royal Stoa. For the inscription, see Benjamin Isaac, “A donation for Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem,” IEJ 33 (1983): 86–92; CIIP I.1, inscr. 3, pages 45–7 (J. J. Price). 53 According to the prevailing opinion, only the Royal Stoa stood on the southern side of the Herodian precinct; no other portico was standing there. If the specified total length of the porticoes included the eastern portico – the most ancient one – as well, the length of which was 400 cubits (ca. 184–210 m, in accord with a cubit of 52.5 or 46 cm, respectively), a total of about 1000 m were left for the northern and western porticoes, the accumulative (external) length of which was just 803 m. Enough extra length was thus left for the existence of yet another portico

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

50

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Fig. II.9. Northwestern corner of the Esplanade, rock cut by Herod’s workmen. Roofing beams of the northern stoa were set in the square sockets (author).

ca. 9 m above ground level, square depressions (0.5 × ​0.5 m) can still be discerned (Fig. II.9), into which the ends of the roofing beams of the porticoes were set. These depressions are compatible with columns that do not exceed a height of 9 m, including the base and the capital, which equals ca. 18 cubits or 27 feet – the same height as the ones of the Royal Stoa.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

6.2 The Second Sacred Precinct (War 5.193–94).54 As mentioned above, the level and dimensions of this precinct were already determined under Simeon the Just. It was several stairs higher than the First Sacred Precinct (Ant. 15.417). Beyond the graded edges this area was delineated by a grille (soreg), first set in that place by Simeon the Just, as noted above. It encompassed a square area of 1 × ​1 stadia (Ant. 15.400), which equals 600 × ​600 ft (equivalent to 186 × ​186 m according to a 0.31 m long foot, which was applied in the Temple). The soreg at this time was composed of a screen of stone columnets and plates, 3 cubits high (War 5.194).55 Adjacent to its gates were placed on the south. It is reasonable to assume that the Royal Stoa was included in the total sum of the length of the porticoes – 1200 m. However, one should note that Philo speaks of four double porticoes (diplh stoas), built against the external wall of the Temple (Leges 1.71; F. H. Colson, Philo, Vol. 7 [London and Cambridge, MS: W. Heinemann 1950], 140–41). 54  See Israel Shatzman’s comment on War 5.193, in Ulman’s Hebrew translation, 463 as well as Shatzman, “Appendix H.” 55  According to m. Mid. 2:3, the height was 10 handbreadths, which equals about one cubit

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount

51

a.

b.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. II.10a. Elevation of the southern wall of the Inner Court and its Gates, looking north (M. Edelcopp). Fig. II.10b. A N–S cross-section through the Altar, facing west (M. Edelcopp). Please note the Ḥel strip and the staircases inside the Gates of the Inner Court.

above the soreg, at equal distance one from the other, inscriptions in Greek and Latin, specifying regulations of purity and forbidding access of Gentiles into the sacred precinct, under penalty of death (War 5.193–194; 6.124–126; Ant. 15.417). Two such inscriptions, in Greek, were actually found.56 The height of the ʿazarah wall on the outside was 40 cubits above the floor of the Outer Court (War 5.196). Flights of 14 steps led up from the Outer Court level. They were already required in the two earlier stages in the evolution of the precinct. These flights of stairs were located near the ʿazarah wall, opposite its gates; they led to a horizontal strip, 10 cubits wide, that surrounded the ʿazarah on the outside (War 5.195–197) – the Ḥel strip mentioned in m. Mid. 2:3 (Fig. II.10).57 Gentiles, as well as Jews defiled by contact with a dead person, and a half; this may refer to the time of the Hasmonaeans, and then the soreg was lower. See also infra, Chapter IV. 56 CIIP I.1, inscr. 2, pages 42–45. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Warning_ inscription. 57 Michael Ben Ari, “The Ḥel – The Temple’s Security Zone,” New Studies on Jerusalem 9 (2004): 61–82 (Hebrew). Ehud Netzer made a suggestive proposal that originally this was a deep ditch that was walled and roofed in the Herodian building project, being converted into

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

52

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

were not allowed to enter this strip (m. Kelim 1:8). The height of the ʿazarah wall on the inside was just 25 cubits. Thirty stairs of half a cubit each were required to bridge the 15-cubit difference between the outside and the inside.58 Only 19 grades are actually mentioned in the sources (14 from the level of the soreg to the level of the Ḥel, and five more ascending to the gates). Hence, it can be concluded that 11 more stairs were set within the gate houses and the entire length of the gate houses was not on the same level.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

6.3 Ascending from the Outer Court to the Priestly Court: Details of Levels (Fig. II.3) “The First Sacred Precinct” comprises the entire Herodian extension and the Hasmonaean extension. These areas were at the same level, except on the east. “The Second Sacred Precinct,” comprising the extension of Simeon the Just, was several stairs higher and on its circumference, beyond the strip of stairs, stood the soreg. It is reasonable to assume that high grades extended along the entire circumference, like a crepidoma, and that regular stairs were set only opposite the soreg gates. According to our proposal (and similarly earlier by Jacobson, “The Plan of Herod’s Temple”), the monumental wall referred to earlier on the south is a relic of that crepidoma and its courses were ca. 1 cubit high. At the end of the level area surrounded by the soreg were flights of 14 stairs that led up to the level strip of the Ḥel. From here five stairs led up to the gates of the ʿazarah and inside each of the gates there were flights of 11 stairs (Fig. II.10b). These 30 grades, each half a cubit high, bridged the difference in height of 15 cubits (which equals 7.875 m according to a cubit 52.5 cm long; 6.9 m according to a cubit 46 cm long) between the inside and outside of the ʿazarah. The differences between the level of the “Second Sacred Precinct” and the Women’s Court (12 cubits lower than the Great Court – the Courts of Israel and of the Priests – Fig. II.11), was only 18 stairs. These flights of stairs were located opposite the southern and northern gates. If the strip of the Ḥel extended also to the north and south of the Women’s Court, four stairs would have been enough to reach its level from there. No stairs were required inside its southern and northern gates. The difference of levels to the east, facing the eastern portico, was steeper. A large number of stairs were required to bridge the height difference there.59 a sort of crypto-portico that surrounded the ʿazarah wall all around, on the outside. See Ehud Netzer, The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 157; idem, “The Form and Function of Courts and Gates that Surrounded the Second Temple,” Qadmoniot 38/130 (2006): 97–106 (Hebrew). 58  “All the steps which were there [within the Temple mount] were a half a cubit in height and a half-cubit tread, except for those of the porch [which had a tread of a cubit]” (m. Mid. 2:3, tr. Neusner, 876). 59  Cf. the steep flight of stairs ascending to the temple on Mt. Gerizim from the east.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount

53

a.

b. Fig. II.11a. A N–S cross-section across the Women’s Court, looking west (M. Edelcopp). Fig. II.11b. A W–E cross-section across the Inner Court and the Women’s Court, looking south (M. Edelcopp).

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

7. Two Axial Systems (Fig. II.12) As noted above, water cistern no. 5 on the upper platform indicates the location of the altar, the Temple, and the Inner Court. The location and orientation of the Temple were laid out by David and Solomon. The Outer Court of the Restoration period apparently extended over the entire area it covered in the First Temple period. A somewhat trapezoidal shape is attributed to it here, in accordance with the topographical layout and the orientation of the Temple. The other water cisterns on the upper esplanade (nos. 2, 34, and 37), follow the same axiality as that of cistern 5. Seemingly, they preserve the location of structures that had once stood there, above ground level: The House of Immersion, the Chamber of Stone, and the Parairtin Chamber. These structures, built in the Second Temple period60 within the confines of “The Second Sacred Precinct,” were thus following the orientation of the Temple, not that of the later, surrounding temenos. The Herodian axial system is reflected in the western and southern walls, which are perpendicular to each other, and in the subterranean passages that run at right angles to these walls: the Double Gate and Triple Gate tunnels,61 60 The first two apparently date from the time of the Hasmonaeans, the third was added in the Herodian period, in conjunction with the Chamber of Stone. See infra, Chapter V. 61 Ritmeyer (The Quest) notes, following Conder, that the northern sections of the Herodian tunnels display a different architectural technique than the southern sections, a fact that may

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

54

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Fig. II.12. Two axial systems in the upper platform (the dashed-lines mark the original, old axial system, the full-lines mark the Herodian axial system).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount

55

and the passages leading up from Barclay’s Gate (cistern no. 19) and from Warren’s Gate (cistern no. 30). Cistern no. 1 below the upper platform follows the same axial system, but it seems that no upper structure was standing above, which would have a different axiality than that of the Temple. All the structures adjacent to the Temple on the upper level followed its axial system.

8. Summary

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The Temple Mount of the Restoration period had extended over the entire area of the Outer Court of the First Temple period, the shape of which we do not know. Here we suggested a trapezoidal shape with rounded corners, following the natural topography. Inside, an ʿazarah, fortified by walls and towers, had surrounded the Temple; this is the birah of Nehemiah. The courtyard was sloping downhill; it was neither elevated, nor leveled. The elevation and leveling of the Outer Court was the project of Simeon the Just, who extended it and gave it a square shape of ca. 197.5 × ​197.5 m in its external dimensions.62 Thus did Simeon determine the area and level of “The Second Sacred Precinct.” This elevated courtyard, retained by a “wall of angles” (‫)קיר פינות‬, and fortified by Judas and by Jonathan, fits the birah of m. Parah 3:1.63 Simon the Just was also the first to delineate the area into which the entrance of Gentiles was prohibited. The dimensions of this area were 1 × ​1 stadia (186 × ​186 m). According to our proposal this is the square referred to by Flavius Josephus in Ant. 15.400. It is noteworthy that all the large water cisterns around the Temple, that were dug during the Second Temple period, so it seems, are located within the “Second Sacred Precinct” – the project of Simeon the Just. Only cistern no. 5 is located within the azarah, and it is the “Gullah Cistern”. Seemingly, it was first hewn under the Hasmonaeans.64 Cistern no. 37, which marks the location of the indicate that the northern sections were built earlier. The upper exits from these tunnels were originally located to the south of the present ones. They were made longer in the Umayyad period, cutting through an underground water channel that led water to cistern no. 9. About the tunnels of the Double and Triple Gates, see Gibson and Jacobson, Below the Temple Mount, 235–67. 62 For the exact dimensions, see supra, note 34. Concerning the western edge of the upper platform, see supra, note 36. 63  It was referred to as birah since it resembled a fort, rising above the city. Even when the Temple Mount was extended, the area delineated by the soreg remained higher than the Hasmonaean and Herodian extensions, which, together, were known as the “First Sacred Precinct.” The birah in m. Parah 3:1, seems to designate this area. The Mishnaic passage speaks about the Stone Chamber that was located over the birah, to the north-east. This chamber may date to the time of Simeon the Just, or John Hyrcanus, and likewise this passage of the Mishnah. See Chapter V. It is suggested there that cistern no. 37 points to the location of the Stone Chamber, and it is located indeed in the north-eastern corner of the birah. 64  For a detailed discussion, see Chapters VI and X.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

56

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Stone Chamber, as noted above, was apparently hewn under Simeon the Just, or during the early Hasmonaean period, before the Temple Mount was extended to the south and to the east. (Given its modest dimensions, certainly this is not the water cistern with a circumference like a sea, praised by Ben Sira). The exact time during the Second Temple period in which the other water cisterns below the upper platform were hewn is not known. The vast cisterns on the south are more remote from the Temple, within the confines of the Hasmonaean extension, in the area of “The First Sacred Precinct.” Obviously they were intended for the needs of pilgrims. If cistern no. 8, known in Arabic as “The Large Sea,” is the vast cistern of Simeon the Just, then it was hewn beyond the limits of the Temple Mount of the time.65 The court of Simeon the Just was fortified by walls under Judas, the walls were demolished by Antiochus V and Lysias and rebuilt by Jonathan. In the days of John Hyrcanus (or perhaps only under Alexander Jannaeus), the walls and the porticoes on the south and on the east were taken down and the area of the Temple Mount was extended in these directions to be 500 × ​500 cubits in size. The reason was ideological and theological, no doubt, in fulfillment of the vision of Ezekiel. In this connection it is noteworthy that according to the Rabbinic tradition (m. Parah 3:5), a Red Heifer was burnt at the time of Simeon the Just as well as of the high priest John, who is John Hyrcanus. The burning of the Red Heifer in those days seems to be associated with the reorganization and extension of the Outer Courtyard, namely – the Temple Mount. The Mishnah mentions the gates of the Hasmonaean precinct: two on the south and one on each the other three sides (m. Mid. 1:3). The area added by the Hasmonaeans was elevated to a level somewhat lower than the precinct surrounded by the soreg. This slightly lower level remained as the level of the “First Sacred Precinct” even after the Herodian extension. On the east, the Hasmonaean wall was not elevated to the level of the Hasmonaean southern wall, seemingly in order to permit a direct line of sight between the Temple and the site of the burning of the Red Heifer on Mount of Olives. A portico on a lower level extended along this wall. This wall and the portico built against it were not elevated in the Herodian extension. Herod added to the Temple Mount new areas to the north, west, and south, dismantling the earlier walls and porticoes on these sides. Now the average dimensions of the Temple Mount were ca. 471 × ​294 m. These new areas, founded on lofty retaining walls, were elevated to the level of the Hasmonaean Outer Court. Double porticoes were built against the new walls on the north and west, instead of the older ones. A Royal Stoa, 105 feet in breadth, was erected 65  The open area between cisterns no. 8 and 7 may suggest the existence of a somewhat diagonal path that ran along this interval that might have led from the City of David to a presumed gate in the southern side of the Temple Mount prior to the Hasmonaean extension.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount

57

on the south, its northern facade laid partially on top of the foundations of the southern wall of the Acra. The rationale of the Herodian extension to the south was to build a Stoa 100 feet deep beyond the line of the previous southern wall of the Acra. The eastern wall was planned to be 1000 cubits (460 m) long. Its line northward was dictated by the line of the earlier Hasmonaean wall. At its end the northern wall was laid perpendicularly and set to be 1000 feet of 0.31 m long (315 m). The western wall ran south to meet the southern wall perpendicularly. The results were a 488 m long western wall and a 280 m long southern wall. The walls of the Herodian precinct are preserved to an impressive height to the present. The three earlier stages in the evolution of the Temple Mount left almost no traces, it is nevertheless possible, on the basis of the literary sources, to postulate their existence, and even to propose a reasonable process of evolution, albeit not certain in its graphical rendition, nor detailed enough.

9. Appendix I: Assessing Ritmeyer’s 500 × ​500 Cubits Square and His Hasmonaean Extension Ritmeyer (“Locating the Original Temple Mount;” The Quest, 165–186) argued that there were just three stages in the evolution of the Temple Mount, ignoring the building project of Simeon the Just. He also attributed to the Hasmonaeans an extension beyond the 500 × ​500 cubits square.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

9.1 The “Markers” of the 500 × ​500 Cubits Square Ritmeyer’s 500 × ​500 square is based on the following observations and considerations: – The northern side is marked by the rock scarp on that side of the upper platform of Ḥaram al-Sharif, preserved on either side of cistern # 29 and in the cistern itself (the azimuth of this line is 82.90° relative to the north). The distance along this line between the eastern wall of Ḥaram al Sharif and the lowest stair of the north-western staircase leading to the upper platform is almost exactly 262.5 m,66 which equals 500 cubits of 52.5 cm  – the Egyptian or Pergamene cubit, the size of the medium cubit that was applied in the temple of Jerusalem.67 This is a remarkable observation. – The western side follows the line marked by the lowest step of the above mentioned north-western staircase. This line is almost perpendicular (see  For the actual dimensions and corner angles of Ritmeyer square, see infra, Appendix II. The Quest, 170–173; On various proposals about the length of the cubit applied in the construction of the Temple see infra, Chapter VI, note 17 and supra, note 37. 66

67 Ritmeyer,

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

58

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Appendix II) to the northern line; a remarkable observation as well. One stone of this step, near its southern end, have a projection on its western face  – presumably a protruding boss surrounded by flat margins (The Quest, 167), typical of Hellenistic stone dressing. – One may question the significance of the lowest step on the NW. Is this 17 m long stair a remnant of a wall course some 50 cm thick or more, or are its stones just pavers 20 or 30 cm thick? Their thickness is not known, and only one of them, near the southern end, have a projection. If a wall remnant, certainly it was wider than a single row of stones. Some of the stones of the second step have similar length and breadth, and their rise is less than 20 cm – the normal rise of this staircase. These stones certainly are not a second course of the presumed wall (unlike the graded monumental wall to the south of the upper platform, published by Jacobson and Gibson [“A Monumental Stairway”]; this graded monumental wall was left uncommented by Ritmeyer). Does this 17 m long segment faithfully represent the exact run of a presumed 262.5 m long wall? The proposal is suggestive since the northern end of this step is 500 cubits distant from the eastern wall, and since the proposed northern and western lines are perpendicular to each other. If Muslim, one would expect the entire NW staircase to be perpendicular to the upper Muslim esplanade, but it is not. – The eastern wall of the Ḥaram marks the eastern side of Ritmeyer’s square. Its azimuth is 173.84°,68 forming an angle of 90.94° with the northern side. Ritmeyer also found that the length of this wall between the “bend”, noticed in 1884 by Warren and its junction with the northern side of the square, is also almost exactly 500 cubits (see Appendix II). The masonry of the two lowest courses of this wall above the present ground level on both sides of the Golden Gate seems to be pre-Herodian.69 One should note that according to Josephus the pre-Herodian eastern portico built against the eastern wall was much lower in its floor level than the rest of the temple mount; Ritmeyer depicts a level square throughout. – The run of the southern side of the square comes as a result, thus attaining an almost perfect square of 500 × ​500 cubits. One should note that the SW corner of this presumed square would have attained an outstanding elevation above bedrock. These are remarkable observations, yet one wonders why Flavius Josephus (Ant. 15.400), speaks about a leveled elevated square of 1 × ​1 stadia that surrounded the Temple, rather than about a square of 500 × ​500 cubits. Is this

68 According to Reidinger, “The Temple Mount Platform,” the azimuth of this wall is 173.8093°, pretty identical to the one attained by us. 69  See E. Mazar, Walls, segments 13–40; Ritmeyer, The Quest, 174–77. Other than this short segments on either side of the Golden Gate, more lower courses of this wall are buried deep under present ground level and it is impossible to tell if the wall had followed in its buried sections a similar orientation throughout, as is suggested by its visible Mediaeval courses.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount

59

what he meant here? Was a one stadium equivalent to 500 cubits?70 There is no reason to maintain that such is the case here. As was stated above, the 1 × ​1 stadia square is rather the smaller square of Simeon the Just, that was surrounded by the soreg. This is the “Second Sacred Precinct” of Josephus that was elevated relative to the First Sacred Precinct, as was noted above. It seems that Josephus did not mentioned the larger 500 × ​500 cubits square since in his time this area was already level with the Herodian extension, forming together the First Sacred Precinct. As was mentioned above, m., Mid. 2:1 refers to the Hasmonaean Temple Mount, not to the Herodian precinct. Yet, Ritmeyer’s 500 × ​500 cubits square (which we adopt, but attribute it to the Hasmonaeans), suggestive as it is, is far from being certain at the absence of a harder archaeological evidence. In assessing this theory, one should differentiate between these “actual markers”, and the date he assigned to it  – first erected in the reign of king Hezekiah (end of 8th and early 7th c. bce) and then restored by Nehemiah in the mid 5th c. Spacious, elevated, level temenoi are not to be found in any Late Bronze or Iron Age site in the Southern Levant. The royal Israelite temple at Tel Dan (The Quest, 187), featured a 19 × ​19 m platform about 3 m high, built of large ashlars, with an altar precinct nearby to the south and several chambers to the west. It was first built by king Jerobam and then elaborated by Aḥab. The dimensions are far from those ascribed by Ritmeyer to the about contemporary Temple Mount in Jerusalem. There was nothing similarly monumental on the acropolis of Samaria, the capital of the kingdom of Israel in the days of Aḥab, neither in Tel Beth Shean, in the Late Bronze temples precinct, nor in any other site.71 Also, as was noted above, the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim, built in the Persian period after the model of the Jewish Temple of Jerusalem, was a terraced compound, not an elevated, leveled temenos. In the Iron Age, royal palaces were much more elaborate structures than temples. It was only in the Hellenistic period that large, level, elevated temenoi came into vogue. Chronologically, the date Ritmeyer assigns to the 500 × ​500 cubits square is impossible, and it is not sustained by any archaeological evidence. In terms of architectural evolution and the economical and political conditions of the Jewish people as reflected by the enormous square, it would be much more appropriate to attribute it to the Hasmonaeans. Our conclusion was that the eastern wall of the Ḥaram

70 Interesting, Flinders W. M. Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities (London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1906), 19, writing about the distance of Tell el Yehudiyeh (which he identified as Honias’ Temple in Egypt), from Memphis, says that the nearest to the Greek unit length of stadium is the itinerary length of 500 cubits as is marked off by a row of way marks along the road from Saqqara south to the Faiyum. 71  See supra, note 9.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

60

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

was first laid along its present line in the heyday of the Hasmonaean kingdom under John Hyrcanus I.72

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

9.2 Ritmeyer’s Hasmonaean Extension According to Ritmeyer, the Hasmonaean precinct extended farther south of the 500 × ​500 cubits square, between the “bend” and the “seam”. He argued that the “seam” in the eastern wall of the Herodian compound marks the location of the south-eastern corner of the Hasmonaean extension. He maintained that the northern facade of the Herodian Royal Stoa was founded on top of the southern wall of the Hasmonaean precinct. As for the western wall of this extension, he argued that the north-south staircase beyond the west-east tunnel of Barclay’s Gate, still extant as water cistern no. 19, leans against this wall; namely, that the western Hasmonaean wall had determined the L shaped layout of this ascent (The Quest, 234, 236–38). As was mentioned above, we adhere to Tsafrir’s proposal (“The Location of the Seleucid Acra”), according to which the Hellenistic masonry to the north of the “seam,” is the foundations of the Seleucid Acra. Ritmeyer located the Acra above the E-shaped cistern no. 11, which he identifies as the Acra cistern (bor hqr of the Rabbinic sources). This cistern lies under the Triple Gate tunnel, and have a similar axis of symmetry. We maintain that this is a Herodian cistern related to this gate. If this was the Acra cistern, it would have been cut through when the Hasmonaeans had leveled down the Acra Hill, as is narrated by Flavius Josephus (War 5.139). Another objection that can be raised against the location proposed by Ritmeyer for the Acra is that he ignores the fact that the Acra Hill was separated by a ravine from the Temple Hill. In Ritmeyer’s theory there is no place for such a ravine. The tetra-pyrgos Hellenistic fortress at Mount Grizim is likewise located at some distance from the Samaritan temple proper, a valley separating between them. One should note that the tunnels of the Double and the Triple Gates do not cut through any monumental wall that could be attributed to a presumed southern wall of the Hasmonaean precinct. Hence, the northern facade of the Royal Stoa was not founded on an earlier Hasmonaean wall. As for the alleged western wall of the Hasmonaean extension à la Ritmeyer, if such wall is still hidden beyond the extant N–S staircase of cistern no. 19, to the east, one wonders why the Muslim cistern no. 20, 12.3 m deep, was cut over this alleged wall, rather than to its 72 As for the urban plan of Iron Age II Jerusalem, see the recent archaeological assessment according to which the Temple Mount did not extend as far as the eastern wall of the Herodian precinct: Israel Finkelstein, Ido Koch and Oded Lipschits, “The Mound on the Mount: A Possible Solution to the “Problem with Jerusalem,” The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11 (2011). E-article # 12.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

II. Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount

61

west, in order not to entangle this obstacle. If the staircase is still preserved, the alleged wall would have been likewise preserved, if ever existed,73 but the very existence of a Hasmonaean wall in this place is cast in doubt. Hence, the walls attributed by Ritmeyer to the Hasmonaean extension are purely hypothetical. According to Josephus, the Hasmonaeans did not extend the Temple Mount beyond the ravine separating the Temple Hill from the Acra Hill; according to m. Mid. 2:1, the pre-Herodian Temple Mount was 500 × ​500 cubits, not more.

10. Appendix II: Geometrical Assessment of the 500 × ​500 Cubits Square – Dimensions and Corner Angles

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Since Ritmeyer’s 1992 publication much progress was achieved in computerized graphical technology, enabling to assess more precisely the accuracy of maps, taking into consideration walls thickness and other constrains. Unfortunately, there is no map of Ḥaram al Sharif based on new ground survey, applying GPS technology. In order to assess the geometrical accuracy of the square, four different on-screen measurements were carried out on four different maps, by two different persons. A. actual dimensions measured on an electronic version of the Ḥaram al Sharif map, prepared during the British Mandate (Survey of Palestine, June 1944), available at the Survey of Israel. (Measured on screen by architect Marcos Edelcopp; 50 m on scale = 50.08 m on computer screen [In A the southern Herodian wall is 279.30 m long; in B it is 275.18 m long]). B. On Kümmel’s 1904 map as processed electronically by M. Edelcopp. (These measurements underlie the map of the Hasmonaean stage present in the article). C. On an AutoCad map of the Ḥaram derived from a pair of aerial photos taken in 2000–2001; measured on screen by architect Idan Rabinowitz. D. On Kümmel’s 1904 map, measured on screen by architect M. Edelcopp.

73  The very location of this Muslim cistern indicates that such an obstacle did not exist. As a response to this argument of mine, presented in a conference held in Dublin on May 25–27, 2012, Ritmeyer had argued that the upper courses of the southern and western walls of the Herodian precinct near the SW corner, and to the south of Barclay’s Gate were demolished to below the floor level of the Herodian precinct. But the presumed Hasmonaean western wall was a buried wall, unlike the Herodian walls. Moreover, it was located higher on the eastern slope of the Tyropoeon, and the walls delineating the N–S passage up from Barclay’s Gate are intact. Hence, the demolished state of the Herodian walls cannot indicate that the presumed Hasmonaean wall was also already demolished by the time water cistern no. 20 was built.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

62

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Table 1: Sides Length (in m.)

A B C D^ D^^

E side

S side

W side

N side

262.50* 262.50* 261.08 262.50* 252.69

259.22 254.85 257.38 261.42 261.50

262.52 265.37 262.50* 262.50* 262.50*

262.82** 259.87 262.96 259.30 259.30

* Imposed length ** Internal dimensions relative to the eastern wall: 261.73 m; external dimensions relative to eastern wall: 263.51 m. Both measured from NW corner of NW staircase to the upper esplanade of the Ḥaram. ^ S Wall is cutting the N end of the E-shaped water cistern (Cistern # 11). ^^ S wall leaves E-shaped water cistern entirely outside (Cistern # 11). Table 2: Corner angles

A B C D^ D^^

NW corner

NE corner

SE corner

SW corner

90.67° 89.36° 89.68° 90° 90°

88.55° 90.64° 90.32° 90.37° 90.37°

91.47° 91.09° 91.23° 89.63° 91.78°

89.32° 90.00° 90.00° 90.09° 90.00°

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Acra’s dimensions: The distance from the SE corner of squares A and B to the SE corner of the Herodian precinct is ca. 73 m (external dimensions). The distance from the SE Herodian corner to the seam is considered to be 32 m. Hence, the eastern side of the Acra might have been 41 m long. We decided arbitrarily to draw the Acra as a rectangle 62 m long East to West = ca. 200 feet of 31 cm. See also Tsafrir, “The Location of the Seleucid Acra”.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:18.

III. The Pre-Herodian Temple: The Building Project of Simeon the Just on the Temple Mount 1. Simeon the Just

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Who was Simeon the Just? According to the rabbinic sources he was the High Priest who met the conquering Alexander the Great in order to forestall his plan to destroy the Temple, a plan instigated by the “Kutim” (Samaritans).1 According to Flavius Josephus (Ant. 11.302, 326–339, 347), however, the name of the high priest who encountered Alexander was Jaddua, not Simeon.2 Josephus knew of two high priests named Simeon prior to the time of the Hasmonaeans. The first was the grandson of the aforementioned Jaddua. According to Josephus he was called “the Just” (dikaios in the Gr. text), on account of his piety (Gr. eusebia) toward God and his love and benevolence (Gr. eunoia) towards his people (Ant. 12.43, 157). Nothing else is known about his service or deeds. His brother was Elʿazar, in whose time the Greek translation of the Bible (Septuaginta) was accomplished, at the request of Ptolemy II. Simeon II, who was the grandson of the first, is mentioned briefly (Ant. 12.224), with no specific detail. According to the chronological sequence, he held office from the end of the 3rd c. bce – the end of Ptolemaic rule – to the beginning of Seleucid rule over the country. During his tenure, Ptolemy IV Philopator (222–205 bce) visited Jerusalem, following his victory over Antiochus III in the Battle of Raphiah in 217 bce; while there, he attempted to enter the Holy of Holies, in violation of the Jewish law. The attempt caused a great tumult of protest in the city, but in the end it failed (3 Macc. 1:8–2:24). This is the High Priest Simeon son of Yohanan praised by Jesus son of Sirach in Ecclesiasticus (the Wisdom of Ben Sira)3 50:1–2. Ben Sira attributes to him the 1  B. Yoma, 69a; Leviticus Rabbah 13:5, Margaliot’s edition (Jerusalem and New York, 1933), 293 and parallels; Scholion to Megillat Ta‘anith 24 (Kislev 21), Noam’s edition (Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2003), 262–65. 2  The historicity of this passage in Flavius Josephus is doubtful. See the discussion in Menaḥem Stern, “Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic Period (332–160 bce)”, in The History of Eretz Israel, Vol. 3: The Hellenistic Period and the Hasmonaean Kingdom (332–37 bce), ed. Menaḥem Stern (Jerusalem: Keter and Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 1981), 36–37 (Hebrew). 3 Moshe Zvi Segal, Sefer Ben Sira ha-Shalem, 2nd rev. and expanded ed. (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1959 [Hebrew]); The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance, and an Analysis of the Vocabulary (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1973 [Hebrew]). English translation: The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes, Patrick W. Skehan, Introduction and Commentary by Alexander A. Di Lella (Anchor Bible, 39) (New York: Doubleday, 1987).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:40.

64

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

virtues of reverence towards God and benevolence towards his people – the same virtues attributed by Josephus to Simeon I. And indeed, most scholars maintain that Flavius Josephus attributed the adjective “Just” to the wrong priest.4 Identifying Simeon II as Simeon the Just is also in chronological accord with the chain of deliverance of the Oral Law as given in the mishnaic tractate Avot, according to which Simeon the Just was one “of the survivors of the Great Assembly.” His disciple was Antigonos of Socho, who lived in the 2nd c. bce (m. Avot 1:2–3) and was succeeded by “the Pairs” (zugoth). According to the common opinion, Simeon the Just served as high priest during the years 219–196 bce.5 The rabbinic tradition relates that his term of service lasted forty years, and that these were years of grace and mercy from God to his people (b. Yoma 39a and parallels). His saying “On three things does the world stand: On the Torah, and on the Temple service, and on deeds of loving-kindness” (m. Avot 1:2, tr. J. Neusner), attests to his religious piety and his benevolence towards his people. Rabbinic tradition and external evidence attest to Simeon’s concern with the ritual purity of the Temple. The building project under consideration sets this concern in context. Of the seven red heifers that had been burnt after the time of Ezra, two were prepared by Simeon (m. Parah 3:5)6 – a fact that attests to the importance he attached to the ritual purity of the Temple.7 A source closer to 4  See the discussion in: Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 b.c.–a.d. 135), eds. Géza Vermes and Fergus Millar, Vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), 359–60; Uriel Rappaport, “Simeon the Just”, Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd ed., Vol. 18, 2007, 602; Otto Mulder, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50: An Exegetical Study of the Significance of Simon the High Priest as Climax to the Praise of the Fathers in Ben Sira’s Concept of the History of Israel (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 78) (Leiden: Brill 2003 [Rev. translation of the author’s Ph.D. diss., Rijks Universiteit Groningen, 2000]), 344–54. 5  Lee Israel Levine, Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 b.c.e.–70 c.e.) (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2002), 52, n. 22. 6  M. Parah 3:5: … And who prepared them? “The first did Moses prepare. And the second did Ezra prepare. And five from Ezra onward”; the words of R. Meir. And the sages say, “Seven from Ezra onward.” And who prepared them? “Simeon the Righteous and Yoּḥnan the High Priest did two each. Elyehoenai b. Haqqof and Ḥananel the Egyptian, and Ishmael b. Phiabi did one each” (tr. J. Neusner). 7  The ashes of the Red Heifer were used to prepare the water of purification (‫)מי חטאת‬, following the biblical injunction of Numbers 19. It seems that a single heifer yielded a large amount of ashes, enough to be used for many years. There appear to have been periods when the practice was not strictly observed. It seems that all seven heifers should be associated with building projects in the Temple compound or with reforms in its cult. Yoḥanan the High Priest is John Hyrcanus I. The other three named by the sages were high priests as well. Ḥanamel the Egyptian should be seemingly identified with Ḥananel, a priest of low descent, of Babylonian origin, nominated to the high priesthood by Herod, who held office in the years 36–37 bce. Elyehoenai son of Haqqof is seemingly Elionaeus son of Cantheras (Ant. 19.342). He served as High Priest for about one year, at the end of the reign of king Agrippa I in ca. 44 ce. There were two high priests named Ishmael son of Phiabi. The first held office in ca. 15–16 ce, and the second in ca. 59–61 ce, under Agrippa II. Concerning them see Schürer, History, 229–31.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:40.

III. The Pre-Herodian Temple

65

the time of Simeon himself, the Temple Scroll, and more importantly its core source document, the “Temple Source,” shows an intense preoccupation with the physical Temple building, its structures, and the maintenance of purity within its boundaries, at just the time when Simeon’s own building project was in view.8

2. The Building Project of Simeon the Just Four literary sources give us some information about the building project under discussion. The Wisdom of Ben Sira was written in ca. 195 bce, shortly after the completion of the building project that is our concern; 50:1–5 tells us about Simeon and the renovation of the Temple. The second source is the Greek translation of that composition (known as Ecclesiasticus) – done by Ben Sira’s grandson, who most likely knew the building project, in the 38th year of Ptolemy VIII (Euergetes II), i. e., in 132 bce.9 The other sources are two decrees of the Seleucid king Antiochus III (223–187 bce) to the Jews: the Edict of Rights10 granted after the conquest of Judea in 198 bce that brought the Ptolemaic regime there to its end; and a second decree11 concerning the sanctity of the Temple and Jerusalem. A comparison of these two sorts of sources, which nicely complement each other, indicates that Ben Sira’s words of praise are not poetical fantacies, but rather refer to a real building project on the Temple site.

2.1 The Wisdom of Ben Sira:

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

/ ‫ אשר בדורו נפקד הבית ובימיו חוזק היכל‬/ ‫“גדול אחיו ותפארת עמו שמעון בן יוחנן הכהן‬ / ‫ אשר בימיו נכרה מקווה אשיח בם בהמונו‬/ ‫ בהיכל מלך‬12‫אשר בימיו נבנה קיר פינות מעון‬ 13 ”‫( הדואג לעמו מחטף ומחזק עירו מצר‬Segal, Ben Sira, 340–41).  8 On the “Temple Source,” see: Andrew M. Wilson, and Lawrence Wills, “Literary Sources of the “Temple Scroll”,” HTR 75 (1982): 275–88; Michael O. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 19) (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990), 61–99 (the date is given on page 99); Florentino Garcia Martinez, “Sources et composition du Rouleau du Temple”, Henoch 13 (1991): 219–32. Yigael Yadin (The Temple Scroll, [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983]), had previously identified five thematic divisions in the Scroll, the largest among them dealing with the structure of the Temple, adjacent buildings, and courts.  9  This information is provided by the grandson, the translator, in the Prologue to the Greek version. See the Introduction in Segal, Ben Sira; Avraham Kahana, “The Words of Simeon Ben Sira”, in The Apocrypha, Vol. 2, eds. Avraham Kahana (Tel Aviv: Masada, 1956), 438 (Hebrew). For the Greek text, see Ziegler, Sapientia. 10  Ant. 12.138–144. 11  Ant. 12.145–146. 12  Segal, following Schechter, suggested the reading ‫( מעוז‬maoz) – a fortress / citadel, instead of ‫( מעון‬maon) – residence; ‫( היכל מלך‬hekhal melekh) is the Temple, not a palace of a king of flesh and blood. 13  Such is the verses’ order in the Greek and Syriac translations, and such is also the order

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:40.

66

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

“Greatest among his kindred, the glory of his people,  / was Simeon the priest, son of Jochanan, / In whose time the house of God was renovated, / in whose days the Temple was reinforced. / In his time also the retaining wall was built / for the residence precinct with its Temple of the King. / In his day the reservoir was dug, / the pool with a vastness like the sea’s. / He took care for his people against brigands and strengthened his city against the enemy” (tr. Skehan, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 547).

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The description proceeds from the inside outwards: the Temple (‫ )בית‬itself underwent a restoration; the sanctuary (‫ )היכל‬was reinforced – pertaining perhaps to the walls of the inner court [‫ ]עזרה‬that surrounded the sanctuary; and a new component was added: a retaining wall with prominent corners (‫)קיר פינות‬, which gave the entire complex the look of a citadel (‫)מעוז‬. In addition, a water reservoir, huge as a sea, was excavated. The Greek translation is both less poetic and more specific concerning the project as a whole and the new component.14 It speaks about restoring the House (oikos), strengthening the Temple (naos), and laying the foundations (‫קיר פינות‬ in the Hebrew text) for an elevated courtyard (aule)15 and for the peribolos that enclosed the sacred precinct (peribolou hierou). In reference to a sacred precinct, the Greek term peribolos can have several meanings (see Appendix): it can designate an enclosing wall; another architectural envelope around the sacred precinct; or the enclosed area itself – the Temple courtyard, or temenos, equivalent to aule. The project thus included the creation of a leveled courtyard, supported in the edition of the Israel Academy for the Hebrew Language (supra, n. 3). In this order verses 2 and 3 have a common subject – the restoration of the Temple and the elevation and leveling of a court, and the next verse deals with the water supply. In the Hebrew version, preserved in a single manuscript (MS B), verses 3 and 4 come in a reversed order, and thus they are given by Segal, Ben Sira, 340–41, who comments on the variation in the ordering of the verses (343). Such is also the order followed in the Synoptic edition of the Hebrew text: Pancratius C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (Leiden: Brill, 1997). 14  Ziegler, Sapientia, 357. Segal’s Hebrew translation of the Greek is somewhat ambiguous in modern Hebrew, as is the Hebrew original: “‫ מילוא רם עזרת היכל‬,‫”וממנו נוסד מרום כפול‬. Similarly, Michael Avi-Yonah’s translation of the Greek (“The Second Temple,” in: idem, Sefer Yerushalaim. The Nature, History and Evolution of Jerusalem from its Earliest to our own Days [Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik and Dvir, 1956], 394 [Hebrew]) does not provide a clear idea about the building project: “‫אשר בימיו הונחו היסודות להגבהה כפולה ונבנה המעוז הגבוה מסביב‬ ‫”להיכל‬. Hayward’s English translation of the Greek text is more to the point: “Simon, son of Onias, was the high priest / Who in life patched up the house / And in his days made firm the Temple; / And by him was laid the foundation of height of the court, / The high underwork of the enclosed precinct of the Temple. / In his days was hewn out the reservoir for the waters, / A cistern like the circumference of the sea (Tr. C. T. R. Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook, London: Routledge, 1996, 73). 15  The variant readings include: diploun, diplon, diaples, diples, which all convey the sense of “double”; hence the translation “‫ ”מרום כפול‬or “‫הגבהה כפולה‬,” meaning “double elevation,” of Segal and Avi-Yonah (supra). As a matter of fact the outer court under discussion here indeed had two levels. One was delineated by the soreg, the second was 14 steps farther up – at the level of the ḥel (War 5.195). This may be the reason for using the word “double” here.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:40.

III. The Pre-Herodian Temple

67

on retaining walls, and enclosed by an architectural envelope (peribolos). The water supply comprised a water reservoir (lakkos), a cistern with the circumference of a sea (thalassa), which is the miqveh (‫ )מקוה‬and ‫ אשיח‬of the Hebrew text.

2.2 The Edict of Rights of Antiochus III The Edict of Rights issued by Antiochus III to the Jews at the beginning of the Seleucid regime in Eretz Israel (ca. 198 bce; text cited in Ant. 12.138–144), provides additional details about this building project, clarifying the design of the afore-mentioned peribolos. Although the Edict is explicitly addressed to the Council of Elders (gerousia) as the representative body of the Jewish people, not to the High Priest, the central position of the High Priest among the Jews is well known also from other sources; Simeon would have been among those concerned with implementing the Edict’s directives:

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

“And it is my will that these things be made over to them [the Jews] as I have ordered, and that the work on the Temple (hieron) be completed, including the porticos (stoas) and any other part that it may be necessary to build.”16

In this description, we learn that the architectural envelope under discussion comprised the porticos (stoas) that encompassed the elevated courtyard, founded on high retaining walls. These walls were required in order to create a level courtyard around the Temple and its inner precinct (‫)עזרה‬, which were standing on top of a hill (Fig. III.1). It is evident that the building project had already begun before the Seleucid conquest of the country, and that it was a building project on a large scale, which required extensive resources. We do not know whether paving the courtyard was part of this building project. In the absence of certain archaeological remains (see below), neither do we know the shape of this enclosure; although the very elevation of the court upon a “cornered wall” suggests a rectilinear or tetragonal layout, even if not of four right angles. The “Temple Source” of the Temple Scroll, which speaks about a square courtyard, may reflect the actual shape of this courtyard. Such a shape was probably derived from the description of the courtyard in the Vision of Ezekiel (42:16–20), which itself was square in shape. Did the courtyard follow the axial line of the Temple (as reflected in the position and orientation of water cisterns nos. 5, 3, 2, 34 and 37 – Fig. III.2), dictated by the layout of the Temple first built by Solomon hundreds of years earlier?17 Or did the topographical restraints determine a different axiality?  Ant. 12.141, tr. R. Marcus. the location of the Temple and its non-perpendicular orientation vis-à-vis the much later eastern wall of the Herodian sacred precinct, see infra, Chapter VI. 16

17 On

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:40.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

68

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Fig. III.1. Jerusalem in the time of Simeon the Just: The city wall, the square precinct of the Temple Mount built by Simeon the Just and the Inner Court (ʿAzarah) enclosing the Temple and the Altar. To the NW the location of the Ptolemaic Akra is indicated. (After: S. Gibson and D. M. Jacobson, Below the Temple Mount. A sourcebook on the cisterns, subterranean chambers and conduits of the Ḥaram al-Sharif [BAR Int. Series 637], Oxford 1996, p. 230, Fig. 104, with modifications).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:40.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

III. The Pre-Herodian Temple

69

Fig. III.2. Map of the water cisterns under Ḥaram al Sharif (After: S. Gibson and D. M. Jacobson, Below the Temple Mount. A sourcebook on the cisterns, subterranean chambers and conduits of the Ḥaram al-Sharif [BAR Int. Series 637], Oxford 1996, p. 6, Fig. 2. The cisterns numbers are those of Wilson and Warren, given in Ch. W. Wilson, Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem 1865, Sheet 1: Ḥaram Grounds & c. [Facsimile Edition, Ariel Publishing House, Jerusalem 1980]).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:40.

70

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

There is no answer to this question in the available literary sources. In any case, asymmetric temenoi are known also in Greco-Roman architecture.18 From Antiochus III’s decree concerning the sanctity of the Temple and Jerusalem (Ant 12.145–146) it can be concluded that in the framework of the building project under discussion a zone was also delineated, into which the entrance of Gentiles was prohibited. Here is the relevant passage: “It is unlawful for any foreigner to enter the enclosure of the Temple which is forbidden to the Jews, except to those of them who are accustomed to enter after purifying themselves in accordance with the law of the country (Ant. 12.145 tr. R. Marcus).

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

It is evident that the prohibited zone must have been clearly marked. From later sources we know that the area under discussion was marked by a partition (soreg – ‫) סורג‬, which was made of pillars and stone plates onto which Greek and Latin inscriptions were affixed, prohibiting the entrance of Gentiles under penalty of death (War 2.341; 4.182; 5.193–194; 227; 6.124–126; Ant. 15.417; Against Apion 2.103; Philo, ad Gaium, 212; m. Mid. 2:3; Acts 21:26–29). The building project of Simeon the Just thus included an element and regulations that seemingly had not existed earlier, and hence its approval by the sovereign was required.19 It is quite possible that the new arrangement was triggered by the attempt of Ptolemy IV to intrude into the Holy of Holies, mentioned above. The political support Antiochus gave to the Temple itself can be seen in an additional provision of the Edict: it exempted the Council of Elders (gerousia), the priests, the scribes of the Temple and the Temple-singers from the poll-tax, the crowntax and the salt-tax (Ant. 12.142). Hence it can be concluded that, in addition to the excavation of a vast water cistern, the building project of Simeon the Just included the elevation and leveling of the outer court of the Temple and the enclosure of this court by porticos. It is reasonable to assume that the zone prohibited to Gentiles was marked at this time by a partition running on the inside of the area surrounded by the porticos. Gentiles were allowed to gaze on and admire the magnificence of the Temple from the outside of this area.20 18  Such are, for example, the Athena precinct in Pergamon, or the arrangement of the lower court in the Zeus precinct in Gerasa (27/28 ce), relative to the Hellenistic shrine each had encompassed. 19  Michael Ben-Ari, “Zones of Sanctity in the Temple Mount,” (PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 2007), 106–17 (Hebrew); idem, Ḥel – The Security Zone of the Temple.” New Jerusalem Studies 9 (2004): 61–82 (Hebrew), had noticed this significance of Antiochus’ edict, but he was not aware of its implications for the building project of Simeon the Just. See likewise David M. Jacobson, “The Jerusalem Temple of Herod the Great,” in The World of the Herods: Volume 1 of the International Conference the World of the Herods and the Nabataeans held at the British Museum, 17–19 April 2001, ed. Nikos Kokkinos (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 2007), 145–76, esp. page 156, n. 49 and Fig. 3 on page 159. 20  War 2.341: Neapolitanus, the envoy of Cestius, the governor of Syria, genuflects to the Temple from the permitted zone; War 4.182: the High Priest Ḥananus son of Ḥananus says that

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:40.

III. The Pre-Herodian Temple

71

3. Discussion

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The first building phase of the Second Temple was accomplished by the first returnees from the exile. The compound that later surrounded the Temple had gradually evolved during the Second Temple period. Cyrus’s license to rebuild speaks only about a Temple and an altar, nothing more (Ezra 1:2–4; 6:2–5). The First Temple had two courtyards (2 Kgs 21:5; 23:12). In 1 Kgs 7:12 an inner court is mentioned (and so also in Ezek 8:16, on the eve of the destruction); hence, there was also an outer court. The shape and size of neither are known. The Second Temple certainly was not perched on a bare hill; seemingly, the area surrounding the Temple was terraced in accord with the remains of the underlying structures and courtyards of the First Temple period. Already early during the Restoration period we hear about the courts of the Temple in the plural (Zach 3:7; Neh 8:16; 13:7).21 Hence, the Second Temple also had an outer court beyond the inner one (‫)עזרה‬. It might be assumed that this outer court gradually ascended around the main building, following the slope of the terraced mount that was covered with the buried buildings of the First Temple period. The leveling and fortification of the outer court was a gradual process that continued throughout the Second Temple period. Nehemiah was permitted to roof the gates of the Temple birah (Neh 2:8); that is to say, a birah with unroofed gates had been constructed earlier. The birah gates were not identical to the city gates (Neh 7:2–3). Birah (‫ )בירה‬in the book of Nehemiah (2:8; 7:2), and in 1 Chronicles (29:1, 19), like the Aramaic birta (‫ )בירתא‬and the Akkadian birtu, signifies a “fortress,” or “ acropolis” – a citadel.22 Such is its usual meaning in texts and inscriptions of the Persian period.23 Mazar had suggested that Nehemiah’s birah was the outer court, and that its area was 500 × ​500 cubits. Ritmeyer’s reconstructions followed this interpretation. However, Cyrus’s edict does not speak about such an esplanade. The placement of such a level structure on top of a mountain would have required huge resources that the first returnees did not possess. The writings that refer to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah do not give any indication of such large-scale leveling operations in the Temple Mount area at that period. The birah mentioned in the Romans had never transgressed the area prohibited to Gentiles, but always watched the Temple courts with reverence from afar. 21 The place for the gathering of the people was in “the street of the House of God” (Ezra 10:9), which was an open space that permitted a large crowd to assemble. This might have been the outer court of the Temple. 22 Thus Mazar, and later-on Mandel: Benjamin Mazar, “The Temple Mount”, in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, ed. Janette Amitai (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985), 463–68; Pinḥas (Paul) Mandel, “Birah as an Architectural Term in Rabbinic Literature,” Tarbiz 61 (1992): 195–217 (Hebrew). 23  Andre Lemair and Hélène Lozachmeur, “Birah / Birta en arameen,” Syria 64 (1987): 261– 66.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:40.

72

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Nehemiah should seemingly be interpreted in the restricted sense of a fortification that enclosed only the inner court of the Temple (theʿAzarah,24 ‫)עזרה‬, that stood on the prominence of the city, looking like an acropolis. As for the outer court, the vaster one, it is reasonable to assume that at that particular time it was surrounded only by a fence, rather than by a thick defensive wall. Such a wall was not permitted by Cyrus’s license, nor do we hear about such a fortification later under the Persian regime.25 The elevation and the leveling of the outer court could only have been the building project of Simeon the Just; and this entailed surrounding the court by porticos, not by a fortification wall, as was indicated above (see also supra, Chapter II). The fortification of the outer court, and later on its gradual extension, took place only later, under the Hasmonaeans, when the Jews had for some time enjoyed political independence; a permit from foreign authorities was not required. Under Herod the outer court was extended even farther. What was the area and shape of the courtyard? Would it be correct to attribute the 500 × ​500 cubit square indicated on Ritmeyer’s plans (applying a cubit 52.5 cm long) to the building project of Simeon the Just, rather than to Nehemiah, as had already been suggested by Avi-Yonah?26 The eastern side of this square is the eastern wall of the Temple Mount. This wall is built of large ashlars on the slope ascending to the Kidron and has deep foundations. It is evident that immense resources were required for its construction, and generally it is attributed to the Hasmonaeans. Moreover, against this wall on the inside extended a portico that was lower-lying than the level of the Herodian court; this, in turn, was an extension, but not an elevation, of the court of Simeon the Just, incorporated in the Hasmonaean precinct. This portico is attributed to Solomon by Josephus (Ant. 20.220–221), and was called “Solomon’s Portico (stoa),” in the NT (John 10:22–24). The court and porticos of Simeon the Just, located nearer to the Temple proper, should be sought on a higher level; the eastern wing of these structures could not be “Solomon’s Portico.” Antiquities 15.400, which refers to Herod’s time, tells us that the upper court (peribolos) that surrounded the inner court (‫)עזרה‬, was leveled and smooth, namely, paved; and that it was square

24 Concerning the infiltration of this term (mentioned also in Ben Sira 50:11) into the Hebrew, to designate the Temple court, see Avi Hurvitz, “The Archaeological-Historical Dispute concerning the Antiquity of the Biblical Literature in the Light of the Philological Study of the Hebrew,” in The Dispute Concerning the Historicity of the Bible, eds. Lee I. Levine and Amiḥai Mazar (Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2001), 34–46 (Hebrew). 25 The Samaritan sacred precinct on Mt. Gerizim was similarly not a leveled and paved precinct (in contrast to the compound of the octagonal church built much later above it), and it was surrounded by a wall without projecting fortification towers. About this precinct and its relation to the Jerusalem Temple see: Yizhak Magen, “The Temple of Yahveh on Mount Gerizim and in Jerusalem,” Eretz Israel 29 (Ephraim Stern Volume) (2009): 277–97 (Hebrew). 26  Sefer Yerushalaim, 394.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:40.

III. The Pre-Herodian Temple

73

in shape, 1 × ​1 stadia in dimensions.27 Was this the shape and size of the court erected by Simeon the Just, surrounded by porticos and encompassing the area bounded by the partition (soreg)? It is quite possible. It is likewise reasonable to assume that the area barred to Gentiles at that time was not altered in later years.

4. Possible Remains

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Are there any extant remains of the building project of Simeon the Just? Jacobson had suggested28 that the partition delineated a square 205 m per side (which is larger than 1 × ​1 stadia). He suggested that the remains of a graded monumental wall that are preserved to the south of the upper esplanade of the Ḥaram al-Sharif, near the Muslim ablution fountain (Qas),29 mark the approximate location of the southern side of the square delineated by the partition;30 the northern side ran tangential to cistern no. 23; it is approximately marked by the location of the northern side of the upper platform of the Ḥaram (only 160 m long; shorter than 27  We should not conceive of this peribolos as the Herodian outer court: its shape was not square, and its dimensions were larger (see the Appendix below). One should not also confuse this square area with the much larger 500 × ​500 cubit area of the Temple Mount according to m. Mid. 2:1. These rabbinic dimensions of the “Temple Mount” do not match those of the upper outer court, which enclosed only the walled ʿAzarah and the Temple proper, mentioned by Josephus in the succeeding passage (Ant. 15.401). On the inside of the eastern side of the ʿAzarah, lengthwise, opposite the Temple façade, a double portico had extended. The Mishnaic Temple Mount was surrounded by a wall with gates that led outside – two to the south, and one to each of the three other wings (m. Mid. 1:3). Hence the Mishnaic account deals with an area that extends also below the peribolos of Ant. 15.400. The number of the gates on the west – one instead of four – suggests that the pre-Herodian Temple is referred to in the Mishnah. As for the measurements of 500 × ​500 cubits – this figure, derived from Ezekiel’s vision, was attained only under the Hasmoneans. See supra, Chapter II. 28  David M. Jacobson, “The Plan of Herod’s Temple,” BAIAS 10 (1990–91): 50–1 and Fig. 2 on page 53. 29  David M. Jacobson and Simon Gibson, “A Monumental Stairway on the Temple Mount,” IEJ 45 (1995): 162–70. One should bear in mind that Leen Ritmeyer (The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, [Jerusalem: Carta], 2006) also draws the southern line of the grille (soreg) near to this location; but in spite of the fact that this is the most substantial pre-Islamic wall preserved below the upper compound (so it seems), he does not attribute any special significance to this relic; see also Z. Qoren, VeAsu Li Miqdash (Jerusalem: The Wailing Wall Heritage Foundation, 2007). Ritmeyer (Quest, 338) draws the soreg within the area of 500 × ​ 500 cubits, only to the west, south, and east. 30  The area delineated by the soreg was somewhat elevated relative to the level of the Herodian outer court – (Ant. 15.417), and in this spirit War 5.187 should also be understood; namely, that the upper courts (hoi ano periboloi) refer both to this area and to the ʿAzarah, located still higher (Fig. II.3a and 3b, p. 37). The lower sacred precinct (to kato hieron), then, is the Herodian outer court, which extended between the soreg and the porticos. Such is the sense of this paragraph in most translations, such as Henry St.J. Thackeray’s English translation in the LCL edition. Lisa Ulman (in her recent Hebrew translation), had suggested a different sense, and see Shatzman’s comment ad loc., page 462 (Simḥoni’s Hebrew translation ad loc. is misleading). See also the Appendix below.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:40.

74

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

the square’s sides); and the eastern side of the square, according to the proposal, ran across water cistern no. 15.31 This is an interesting proposal, but impossible to confirm without excavations. It is rather more reasonable to assume that the graded wall published by Jacobson and Gibson preserves either the line of the outer wall of the southern portico or Judas Maccabaeus’s fortification wall that had replaced it.32 The soreg itself (which would have left no traces) ran along a line ca. 10 m to the inside of this line (Fig. III.3), encompassing a square of ca. 185 m, namely, an area of 1 × ​1 stadia, like the area of the peribolos specified by Flavius Josephus in the abovementioned passage (Ant. 15.400). The two water cisterns (nos. 6 and 36), T-shaped, perhaps originally ritual baths (miqvaoth),33 designate the possible location nearby of an opening in the southern portico and in the soreg. As for the vast water cistern dug by Simeon the Just – its identification is controversial. Was it located inside the peribolos or outside; was it perhaps even at some distance from the Temple, built to provide water for all the citizens of the city, rather than only for the Temple? Ritmeyer notes that the Arabic name of cistern no. 7 (Fig. III.2, supra) is al-bahr (“the sea,”), and attributes this to Simeon the Just. Cistern no. 8, the largest water cistern on the Temple Mount, into which the lower aqueduct leads, he attributes to the Hasmonaeans, not to Simeon the Just (albeit its Arabic name being, according to him, “the great sea”).34 It is quite possible that one of these water cisterns preserves the ancient name mentioned by Ben Sira.35 Mulder interpreted ‫ אשיח‬as a barrier wall (though without a linguistic basis), and suggested that the water reservoir of Simeon was the Bethesda Pool – a double pool that was located outside the city wall at that time.36 To conclude: Simeon the Just renovated the Temple proper and consolidated the walls of the ʿAzarah. He elevated and leveled the outer court, which had extended over the slopes of the mountain since the Restoration period; he founded this leveled court atop a “cornered wall,” a high retaining wall with impressive corners (as seen from the outside). Porticos were constructed on the outer perimeter of the elevated court. An area on the inside of the porticos was marked, seemingly already at that time, by the soreg, a grille barring access to Gentiles. Simeon also dug out a water reservoir, as immense as a sea. 31 Leen P. Ritmeyer understands the lower step of the NW staircase leading to the upper esplanade of Ḥaram al Sharif as a remnant of the western side of the square 500 × ​500 cubits; this is not in line with Jacobson’s location of the western side. 32  See also supra, Chapter II and my “The Temple and its Mount: Location and Layout,” in The History of Jerusalem (Sefer Yerushalaim). The Second Temple Period (332 bce–70 ce), Vol. 1, eds. Isaiah Gafni, Ronny Reich, and Joshua Schwartz (Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak ben Zvi, 2020), 263–326 (Hebrew). 33  Ronny Reich, “Two Possible Miqwa’ot on the Temple Mount,” IEJ 39 (1989): 63–5. 34  The Quest, 222–27, 230. 35  This was already suggested by Jean J. Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament: Researches and Theories (Leiden: Brill, 1952), 350. 36  Mulder, Simon the High Priest, 102, 114–15, 330.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:40.

III. The Pre-Herodian Temple

75

Fig. III.3. The portico of the precinct of Simeon the Just. Note the soreg in front of the portico (drawn by M. Edelcopp).

5. Appendix: Peribolos in the Writings of Flavius Josephus

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The term peribolos occurs 57 times in the writings of Flavius Josephus. In 15 occurrences (excluding Ant. 1–10), it designates the Temple precinct, walls, or courts (in the plural, or in singular). Peribolos denotes the Inner Court (ʿAzarah), namely the court of the priests and of Israel, in the following passages: – War 5.7 (held by the forces of Elazar and his followers); – Ant. 15.418 (a description of the gates of the inner court). It denotes the Outer Court, or the First Sacred Precinct, up to the soreg, in: – Ant. 15.410 (speaking about the gates in the western wall of the precinct); – Ant. 15.416–417 (in a description of Herod’s building project); – Ant. 17.259 (a description of fighting from the roof of the porticos that surround the peribolos, namely, the precinct located outside the Temple [hieron]). The term hieron is also used at times by Josephus to denote the Outer Court, or the First Sacred Precinct. In the plural, denoting the Temple Courts, peribolos occurs in: – War 2.400 (denoting all the courts surrounding the Temple: naos); – War 4.182 (denoting the area within the soreg, and the inner precinct: ʿAzarah);

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:40.

76

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

– War 5.18 (denoting Temple courts, in general); – War 5.187 (denoting the elevated upper courts, as against the more lower [and larger] hieron [which denotes here the outer court]); – Ant. 15.420 (The passage describes Herod’s preoccupation with the construction of the outer courts, or walls, as distinguished from the three inner courts: that permitted to those ritually clean with their wives; that forbidden to women; and that permitted only to priests); – Ant. 19.294 (outer courts).

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Hence, the term peribolos was not used to designate only one specific court. Its precise meaning must be derived from the context. – Pertaining to War 5.187: From Ant. 15.417 we learn that the second sacred precinct (peribolos) was accessible by few steps from the first sacred precinct (peribolos); from the description of the first sacred precinct in War 5.195, we learn that from there on, 14 steps led to the strip of the ḥel, 10 cubits wide, that surrounded the Temple, and from that point 5 more steps led to the gates. Since there was a difference in elevation of 15 cubits, which is equivalent to 30 steps, between the level of the Inner Court (ʿAzarah) and the area outside (War 5.196), 11 more steps were required inside the gates in order to reach the level of the ʿAzarah from the outside. – Hence, it makes sense to render War 5.187, as speaking about the upper periboloi, as against the lower hieron; i. e., the outer, lower court. Cf. Shatzman’s comment ad loc., page 462 in Ulman’s translation. See also supra, note 30. The word peribolos denotes the outer wall of the precinct in: – War 5.186 (the entire wall of the precinct [hieron]); – Ant. 12.145 (in the edict of Antiochus III; it denotes the precinct forbidden to Gentiles. This area was encompassed within the porticos mentioned in the Edict of Rights of that monarch; ibid. 141), to be identified with the aule and peribolos in the Greek version of The Wisdom of Ben Sira 50:2. This area was later fortified by Judas Maccabaeus, destroyed by Antiochus V, and rebuilt by Jonathan. This is the peribolos of Ant. 13.181, while the peribolos of Ant. 14.5 is the fortified precinct added in the Hasmonaean extension.37 What was the area of the second peribolos, bounded by the soreg? It seems that the answer lies in Ant. 15.400. Here the phrase pan peribolos designates the upper, leveled and paved area, which is positioned by Josephus between the eastern wall of the Temple Mount and the wall of the ʿAzarah. Since this was a square, 1 × ​1 stadia in dimensions  – namely, smaller than the Herodian compound  – this peribolos should be understood as the more elevated court, 37  For all these fortification walls, see supra, Chapter II and Patrich, “Location and Layout” (supra, n. 32).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:40.

III. The Pre-Herodian Temple

77

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

located nearer to the summit and surrounded by a soreg. This identification conforms to the area delineated by the soreg in War 4.182; it is the same as the peribolos mentioned in the edict of Antiochus III (Ant. 12.145). It should not be confused with the area of the entire outer court, referred to as the first peribolos in Ant. 15.417.38

38 My thanks are due to Prof. Israel Shatzman for his useful comments to this article. The ideas presented here were conceived in seminar meetings with Profs. Daniel R. Schwartz and Jean Willem van Henten during our joint term of residence at The Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies (NIAS), February–June 2008, as members of a research group on Flavius Josephus. I am indebted to them for the fruitful discussions and the ensuing e-correspondence. I am grateful to Dr. Ruth Clements for style-editing the article.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:40.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved. Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:54:40.

IV. Segregating the Sacred: The Inner Court (ʿAzara) and the Latticed Railing (Soreg) of the Second Temple and their Gates1 1. Introduction

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Ten degrees of holiness of the land are listed in m. Kelim 1:6–8, in the following order: 1. The land of Israel; 2. The cities surrounded by a wall; 3. Jerusalem within its walls; 4. The Temple mount; 5. The ditch2 (ḥel / ‫ )חיל‬is more holy than it, for gentiles and he who is made unclean by a corpse do not enter there; 6. The court of the women; 7. The court of Israel; 8. The court of the priests; 9. The area between the porch and the altar is more holy than it, for those priests who are blemish or whose hair is unloosed do not enter there; 10. The sanctuary is more holy than it, for a priest whose hands and feet are not washed does not enter there; 11. The Holy of Holies is more holy than they, for only the high priest on the Day of Atonement at the time of the service enters there. R. Yose counts the area between the porch and the altar (no. 9) as holy as the sanctuary (no. 10), giving a total of ten. Likewise in Siphre Zutta 5.2 (ed. Horowitz, 228),3 where Abba Shaul considers the ʿAliyah (upper floor) more holy than the Holy of Holies, since it is accessed only in rare cases, when there is a need. R. Judah grades the roof highest in sanctity, since it is accessed only once every three years. According to m. Mid. 2:3, the ditch (no. 5 in the list) was ten cubits wide, and it was located inside a latticed railing (soreg), ten hand-breadth high. According to Flavius Josephus (War 5.197), gentiles and he who is made unclean by a corpse where not allowed to enter beyond this railing, while the ditch (ḥel), was located farther inside, at the bottom of the wall of the Great Court (ʿAzarah). 1  This subject was treated by many, among them by Joan R. Branham, “Penetrating the Sacred: Breaches and Barriers in the Jerusalem Temple,” in Thresholds of the Sacred: Architectural, Art Historical, Liturgical, and Theological Perspectives on Religious Screens, East and West, ed. Sharon E. J. Gerstel (Dumbarton Oaks: Harvard University Press, 2006), 6–24. The emphasis in the present article is on the number of gates of the Great Court, their names, location and layout. The layout of the latticed railing and the shape of its gates is graphically proposed. For a detailed earlier study on these topics see Joseph Patrich, “On the Number of Gates of the Temple’s Great Court (ᶜAzara) and the Gates of the Grille (soreg): Current Scholarship and a New Proposal,” New Jerusalem Studies 19 (2013): 213–30 (Hebrew). 2  This meaning should be preferred over “rampart”, applied by Neusner in his translation of the Mishnah. 3  For the correct reading see Saul Lieberma, Siphre Zutta (The Midrash of Lydda) (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1968), 17–8 (Hebrew).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:55:02.

80

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

While describing the Temple precinct (War 5.190–206), Flavius Josephus speaks of the following courts: the outer court; the second, surrounded by a stone balustrade, was debarred to foreigners; then came a level terrace, ten cubits broad (called ḥel in m. Mid. 2:3), located at the foot of the high wall that surrounded the Temple. On its east was the women’s court, walled. The Temple proper was surrounded by the inner court. A stone parapet, about a cubit high, separated the laity from the priests there. Only the officiating priests, clad in the holy vestment, were permitted to go up the altar and enter the sanctuary. They had to abstain from strong drinking during the ritual. The high priest, clad in his official garb, accompanied them only on Saturdays and new moons, and on any national festival or annual assembly of the people. He entered the innermost sanctuary only once a year, in the Day of Atonement (War 5.230–237). Lepers and persons afflicted with gonorrhea were excluded from the city altogether. The temple precinct was closed to women during their menstruation. Contaminated men were prohibited admission to the inner court and likewise priests when undergoing purification (War 5.227). In Against Apion (2.103–104), Josephus speaks about five degrees of inviolable barriers which preserved the sanctity of the Temple: The outer court, open to all, foreigners included, except women during their impurity; the second, to which only Jews were admitted when uncontaminated by any defilement, including their wives. To the third – only male Jews, if cleaned and purified were admitted; to the fourth – only priests vested in their priestly robes. The sanctuary was entered only by the high priests in their peculiar raiment. The First Temple was conceived as an attraction for all nations; a goal for all peoples. A change had occurred during the Second Temple period. But before proceeding and elaborating about the earliest occurrence of the railing in the Temple compound, and the number of gates of the Great Court (ʿAzarah), we should first trace the evolution of the Temple Mount, starting with its ancient topography.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

2. The Ancient Topography4 According to War 5.136–141, ancient Jerusalem was built over two hills, which were opposite to one another. One, much higher, contained the upper city; the other, narrower, called ʾAcra, or Ophlas, sustained the lower city. In the First Temple period Solomon’s Palace occupied its summit. In the Second Temple period the Seleucid fortress ʾAcra was built there by Antiochus IV in order to control the route connecting the lower city to the Temple. In addition, according to Josephus, over against the ʾAcra hill there was a third hill, lower  For details see supra, Chapter II.

4

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:55:02.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

IV. Segregating the Sacred

81

than it and parted formerly from the other by a broad valley. The Temple stood on this third hill. The physical evolution of the Temple Mount is outlined by Flavius Josephus in War 5.184–185: “Though the temple, as I said, was seated on a strong hill, the level area on its summit originally barely sufficed for shrine and altar, the ground around it being precipitous and steep. But king Solomon, the actual founder of the temple, having walled up the eastern side, a single portico was reared on this made ground; on its other sides the sanctuary remained exposed. In course of ages, however, through the constant additions of the people to the embankment, the hill-top by this process of leveling up was widened ….” (tr. H.St.J. Thakeray, LCL) It is reasonable to assume that a courtyard on a higher elevation, located nearer to the Temple and of smaller dimensions, was architecturally elaborated in an earlier period than a courtyard more remote from it, down the slope. Given the actual topography, retaining walls required for the leveling of a smaller court on a higher elevation were less high and less thick than those required for leveling a more peripheral courtyard of vaster dimensions, located farther down. According to the literary sources four stages can be discerned in its evolution in the ca. 600 years period the temple stood (Pl. II, p. XIV): 1. The Persian period – the time of the Restoration and the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, in the sixth and fifth centuries bce. 2. The building project of Simeon the Just – around 200 bce: Elevating and leveling the Outer Court, and adding a railing, in order to demarcate the area beyond which the access of gentiles was prohibited. Its area was ca. 1 × ​1 stadia. 3. The Hasmonaean Temple: Expansion to the east and to the south, seemingly under John Hyrcanus I. The Temple Mount was given a square shape 500 × ​ 500 cubits in dimensions, as recommended by Ezekiel 42:16–20 concerning the Outer Court. The motivation was both religious and political. The reason, according to Flavius Josephus – to connect the city to the Temple and to let it be seen from the Lower City.5 For this end the ʾAcra fortress was dismantled, the top of the ʾAcra hill was leveled, and the rivulets separating the Temple Hill from the ʾAcra Hill were filled by earth. 4. The Herodian building project – from the foundation of the compound by Herod up to the first revolt: extending and leveling of the precinct to the north, west and south. The railing became a feature of the Temple Mount only from the time of Simeon the Just and on.6 But let’s start with the gates of the Great Court. 5  “The Hasmonaeans … filled up the ravine [that separated the ʾAcra hill from the Temple], with the objective of uniting the city to the temple, and also reduced the elevation of the Acra by leveling its summit, in order that it might not block the view of the temple” (War 5.139, tr. H.St.J. Thackeray, LCL). 6  Supra, Chapter III.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:55:02.

82

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

3. The Gates of the Great Court – Their Shape The layout of the Herodian Temple is detailed in the Jewish Antiquities and Jewish War of Flavius Josephus, written immediately after its destruction. As was suggested by Lee Israel Levine (1994),7 the few differences in dimension and detail between these two sources result from modifications that occurred between the time of the inauguration of the temple, to which Antiquities refers, and the time the temple was destroyed, addressed by the Jewish War. Some differences had occurred during a ca. century separating between these two events. One example is the layout of the southern and northern gates of the Inner Court. According to Antiquities (15.418), referring perhaps to the shape of the preHerodian Temple, these were three-compartments gate houses, like the courts gates of Ezekiel, the Temple Scroll and the Samaritan Temple on Mt. Gerizim, that had three pairs of compartments in the Persian phase, and two pairs of compartments in the Hellenistic phase.8 According to War (5.201–203) they were shaped like gate houses with two pairs of lofty columns, each twelve cubits in circumference, dividing the inner space to two exedras. It seems reasonable to suggest that the barrier walls between the early compartments were later replaced by two columns (Figs IV.1–2). The temple described in tractate Mid. of the Mishnah, composed by an eye witness (R. Eliezer b. Yaʿacob), who knew the temple before it was destroyed, is very detailed. It was laid out in a hope that it will be shortly restored. Some of the information embedded there also preserves the memory of the pre-Herodian temple. The dimensions provided can serve as an architectural blue print, so detailed they are (Pl. I, p. XIII).9 The Temple Scroll provides some details about structures that might have stood in the pre-Herodian precinct, like the House of the Laver, The House of Utensils and Beit HaMesibba (Fig. IX.1, p. 177).10

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

4. The Number of Gates of the Great Court According to Flavius Josephus (War 5.198–206), the Great Court (ʿAzarah) had seven gates – three on the north, three on the south, and one on the east. M. Mid. 1:4–5, names them.11 The count is counter clockwise, first those on the south,  7  “Josephus’ description of the Jerusalem Temple; ’War’, ‘Antiquities’, and other sources,” in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period; Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, eds. Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 233–46.  8  For references see supra, Chapter III.  9  Joseph Patrich, “The Structure of the Second Temple – A New Reconstruction,” in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. Hillel Geva. (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994), 260–71. See also infra, Chapter XI. 10  For details see infra, Chapter IX. 11  1:4 “Seven gates were in the courtyard: three at the north, three at the south, and one at

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:55:02.

IV. Segregating the Sacred

83

Fig. IV.1. The pre-Herodian gate of the Great Court (ʿAzara), plan (drawn by L. Ritmeyer). Fig. IV.2. The Herodian gate of the Great Court (ʿAzara), plan (drawn by L. Ritmeyer).

from west to east: The Kindling Gate, the Offering12 Gate, and the Water Gate; next the one on the east – Nikanor’s Gate, and last – those on the north, from east to west: The Flame Gate, the Offering Gate, and the House of the Hearth. There are other Rabbinic sources, dealing with a variety of topics, according to which the ʿAzara had seven gates: – The guarding system of the ʿAzara (m. Mid. 1:1; m. Tamid 1:1).13 – Sugioth in the Babylonian Talmud dealing with the Temple curtains (b. Yoma 54a; b. Ketub. 106a).14 – There were seven supervisors (amarcalim) in the temple, holding their seven keys (t. Sheq. 2:15).15

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Accordingly, many commentators (starting with the Rambam’s commentary on the Mishnah (Naples, 1192), 64 and the later prints, and modern scholars, depict an ʿAzarah with seven gates in the plans that accompany their commentaries the east. That on the south was the gate of the kindling, next to it, the gate of the offering (thus according to all MSS, while the prints renders here “firstlings”; see next note), next to that, the gate of the water. And that on the east is the gate of Nikanor’s ….. 1:5 And that on the north is the gate of the flame ….. Next to it was the gate of the offering, and next to that, the [gate of] the room of the hearth” (tr. J. Neusner). 12  The Firstlings Gate, given in all printed editions of the Mishnah is a mistake. All available MSS render here Offering Gate. See Asher Z. Kaufman, The Temple of Jerusalem: Tractate Middot (Jerusalem: Har-Yeraeh, 1991 [Hebrew]). 13 M. Mid. 1:1: “In three places do the priests keep watch in the sanctuary: in the room of Abtinas, in the room of the flame, and in the room of the hearth. And the Levites [keep watch] in twenty-one places: …. five at the five gates of the courtyard …” (tr. J. Neusner). According to m. Mid. 1:5, the room of the flame and the room of the hearth were gates on the north. Hence, altogether seven gates. 14 B. Yoma 54a: “… as to ‘curtain’ the reference here means the curtain at the entrances, for R. Zera said in the name of Rab: There were thirteen curtains in the Sanctuary, seven facing the seven gates ……” (ed. I Epstein, tr. L. Jung, Soncino Press). 15  “The seven supervisors (m. Sheq. 5:2A) what do they do? The seven keys to the courtyard are in their hand. [If] one of them wanted to open up, he could not do so, unless all seven came together” (tr. J. Neusner).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:55:02.

84

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. IV.3. The Great Court and its gates (drawn by L. Ritmeyer).

and studies. Such are the plans accompanying Tosafoth Yom-Tov Commentary, 1st print, Prague 1647; the temple map in Sefer Hanukat HaBaith, Venice 1696; the map of R. Yonathan ben Yosef of Razinae, Lithuania, 1720; the Temple Plan of Elḥanan Aibeschuetz 1996;16 Louis-Hugues Vincent (1954);17 Ehud Netzer18 and likewise mine (Fig. IV.3). 16  Elḥanan Aibeschuetz, Ha Bait Ha Sheni Be Tifarto: Binyan Hordus (Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Cook, 1996 [Hebrew]). 17  Louis-Hugues Vincent, “Le temple Herodien d’apres la Mišnah,” RB 61 (1954): 5–35, 398–418. 18  Ehud Netzer, The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 144, Fig. 33.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:55:02.

IV. Segregating the Sacred

85

But according to other commentators and scholars, the Great Court had thirteen gates. According to m. Sheq. 6:3, there were thirteen gates against which the thirteen prostrations mentioned in Sheq. 6:1 were made.19 This is also repeated in the final clause of Mid. 2:6 (a Mishnaih that deals with the Inner Court of the Temple [ʿAzara]), attributed to Abba Yose son of Ḥanan, naming the thirteen gates against which people were prostrating.20 The Amoraim, and following them many other commentators of the Mishnah, were of the opinion that in this final clause Abba Yose son of Ḥanan is in disaccord with the opinion according to which the ʿAzara had just seven gates, naming more and different ones. Accordingly, starting from the early 20th c. and on, maps that accompany commentaries of the Mishnah depict an ʿAzara with thirteen gates. Such is the case in the Hebrew Encyclopedia of the Talmud, Albeck’s commentary (very popular among students in the Israeli Universities), Kehati’s commentary, Steinsaltz’s edition of the Babylonian Talmud, Middot and more. But the ʿAzara could not have seven gates and thirteen gates in one and the same time. I maintain that the Amoraim and the commentators who followed them were wrong in their interpretation of the words of Abba Yose son of Ḥanan – a sage that lived during the temple time and was familiar with the layout of the temple. He could not totally err. It is inconceivable that he described a state of affairs that did not exist. I claim that the words of Abba Yose son of Ḥanan address the opening clause of m. Mid. 2:3, speaking about thirteen breaches that were made by the kings of Greece in the latticed railing, against which thirteen prostrations were decreed.21 Namely, that the prostrations took place opposite gates in the railing, commemorating the breaches that were later repaired.

5. The Latticed Railing

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The Latticed Railing, or grille (Soreg) is the elegant stone balustrade that surrounded the Temple (Fig. IV.4), on which Greek and Latin inscriptions were set, prohibiting under death penalty access of gentiles beyond. Two such in19  “Thirteen shofar chests, thirteen tables, [and] thirteen acts of prostration were in the sanctuary” (tr. J. Neusner). 20  “And there were thirteen places where prostrations were to take place there. Abba Yose b. Ḥanan says: ‘Opposite thirteen gates’. The southern gates, [counting] from the west: the upper gate, the kindling gate, the gate of the firstlings, the gate for water. …. And opposite them, on the north [counting] from the west: the gate of Jeconiah, the gate for the offering, the gate for women, the gate for song. ….. And that in the east: Nikanor’s gate. And it had two doors, one on the right and one on the left. And the two [gates] on the west had no name” (tr. J. Neusner; the Midrashic sections pertaining to the Water Gate and the Gate of Jeconiah were omitted). 21  “Inside it [the 500 × ​500 cubits Temple mount] is a latticed railing, ten handbreadths high. There were thirteen breaches in it, which the kings of Greece opened up. They went and closed them up again and decreed on their account thirteen prostrations” (tr. J. Neusner).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:55:02.

86

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Fig. IV.4. A typical section of the latticed railing (soreg) (drawn by I. Rabinowitz).

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

scriptions were indeed found, one intact, the other fragmentary, saying: “No foreigner is to enter within the balustrade and forecourt around the sacred precinct. Whoever is caught will himself be responsible for (his) consequent death” (tr. J. J. Price).22 It is first mentioned in the writ of rights given by Antiochus III concerning the sacredness of the Temple of Jerusalem, given to Simeon the Just, saying: “It is unlawful for any foreigner to enter the enclosure of the temple which is forbidden to the Jews, except to those of them who are accustomed to enter after purifying themselves in accordance with the law of the country ….” (Ant. 12.145–146, tr. R. Marcus). Similar restrictions on free access to temples and rituals enacted against foreigners or the defiled was quite common also in other ancient religions and societies, as is plainly stated in similar inscriptions.23 Here are some examples from the Graeco-Roman world and from some eastern cultures:

22  In Hanna Cotton et al., Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae: A Multi-Lingual Corpus of the Inscriptions from Alexander to Muhammad, Vol. 1: Jerusalem, Part 1 (BerlinNew York: De Gruyter, 2010), 42–45, inscr. no. 2. For a figure, see also https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Temple_Warning_inscription. 23 See the discussion on the inscription mentioned above – CIIP I, inscr. # 2, with references to earlier studies. See also Elias Bikerman, “Une proclamation séleucide relative au temple de Jérusalem,” Syria 25 (1946): 67–85. Similar warning inscriptions were found in Lykosoura, Arcadia, in an entrance to the temple of Kore-Persephone; in the temple on the island of Astypalaia, 3rd c. bce; in the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, 2nd c. bce. Inscriptions on two stelae in Delos prohibited access of women and also of man clad in wool to this sacred site.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:55:02.

IV. Segregating the Sacred

87

– In the Agora of Athens boundary stones, found in situ and dated to ca. 500 bce, say: “I am the boundary of the Agora”. Criminals were prohibited trespassing.24 – In the Temple of Seti I (D.19) in Abydos, Egypt, an inscription on the south wall of the second hypostyle, engraved in the doorway, is restricting access to the temple, saying: “All who enter this house: be pure four times.”25 Segregation of space is also recognized in the layout of the Egyptian temples, and the multiplicity of courtyards and gates along the axis of access to the innermost temple, enabling strict control.26 Such was also the case in the Sun Temple of Ḥatra, surrounded by a precinct wall, and having numerous Diwans to sit different groups of people,27 and in Baʿalshamin temple at Siʿa of the Ḥauran, Syria,28 having three successive gates and courtyards. Both temples served pre-Islamic Arab tribes.

6. The Gates of the Railing

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

From the description by Flavius Josephus it can be deduced that the railing of the Jerusalem Temple was set on top of an elevated podium (crepidoma). Hence, passage was possible only through gates to which staircases led, and therefore it is logical to assume that the breached made by the kings of Greece were at these gates. Namely, each breach represented a former gate, and after being repaired a prostration was decreed on account of each of them. According to the interpretation suggested above, m. Sheq. 6:3 and m. Mid. 2:629 provide their names. Some names are the same as those of the seven gates of the Great Court (see Table 1), suggesting that they were located opposite to each other.

24  John M. Camp, The Athenian Agora. Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens (London: Thames and Hudson, 1986), 48–52. 25  I am indebted to Dr. Arlette David, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for this information. 26  See Aylward M. Blackman, “Purification (Egyptian),” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Vol. 10, ed. James Hastings (New York: Charles Scribner’s sons, 1951), 476; Richard H. Wilkinson, The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt (London: Thames & Hudson 2000). 27 Henri Stierlin, Cités du Désert: Pétra, Palmyre, Hatra (Paris: Seuil 1987), 183–208; Michał Gawlikowski, The Development of the City of Hatra, in Hatra: Politics, Culture and Religion between Parthia and Rome. Proceedings of the conference held at the University of Amsterdam, December 18–20 2009. Oriens et Occidens 21, ed. Lucinda Dirven (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2013), 73–80. 28  Howard Crosby Butler, Syria, Publications of the Princeton Archaeological Expedition to Syria, Division II: Architecture, Section B: Southern Syria, Part 2: The Southern Hauran (Leyden: Brill 1909), 365–402. 29  See above, note 19.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:55:02.

88

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Fig. IV.5. A proposed reconstruction of latticed railing around the Temple (drawn by I. Rabi­ no­witz). Table 1. Gates of the ʿAzara and of the Railing compared Location

The ʿAzara Gates

The Upper Gate

On the South Kindling

Kindling

offering

Firstlings

Water

Water Jechoniah

On the North

On the east Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

On the west

The Railing Gates

House of the Hearth

Offering

Offering

Women

Flame

Song

Nikanor’s, flanked by two chambers Nikanor’s, flanked by two wickets Two nameless gates

A railing with thirteen gates were already depicted on the temple plans of R. Yonathan ben Yosef of Razinae, Lithuania, 1720 and likewise in Busink 198030 and in my reconstruction (Fig. IV.5). The shapes of the railing’s gates are tentatively illustrated in Figs. IV.6–7.

30  Theodore A. Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem. Vol. 2: Von Ezekiel bis Middot (Leiden: Brill, 1980).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:55:02.

IV. Segregating the Sacred

89

Fig. IV.6. A proposed reconstruction of a common gate in the latticed railing (drawn by I. Rabinowitz).

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. IV.7. A proposed reconstruction of Nikanor’s gate of the latticed railing and its two wickets (drawn by I. Rabinowitz).

Some may wonder why the Temple in this drawing is set askew to the railing framing it. The temple much preceded the railing, of course. As is indicated supra, Chapter VI, its original location is still preserved to the present day by water cistern no. 5 (Fig. VI.1, p. 112).31 31  Simon Gibson and David M. Jacobson, Below the Temple Mount. A sourcebook on the cisterns, subterranean chambers and conduits of the Ḥaram al-Sharif. BAR International Series, 637 (Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, 1996), cistern no. 28 in their system, following Schick.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:55:02.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved. Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-23 14:55:02.

V. On the “House of Stone” (beth even) (Mishnah Parah 3:1) Mishnah Parah 3:1 states: Seven days before the burning of the cow, they separate the priest who burns the cow from his house, [bringing him] to the chamber which faces (‫ )על פני‬the northeast corner of the Temple building (birah); and it was called the Stone House. And they sprinkle on him all seven days [with a mixture] from all the purification [waters] which were there. R. Yose says, “They sprinkled on him only on the third and seventh [days] alone.” R. Ḥananiah Prefect of the Priests says, “On the priest who burns the cow they sprinkle each of the seven days. And on the one of the Day of Atonement, they sprinkled only on the third and seventh [days] alone.”1

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Burning a red heifer was a rare event. The rabbinic tradition knows only of seven such occasions: “The … sages say: Seven from Ezra onward. And who prepared them? Simeon the Righteous and Yohanan the High Priest did two each. Elyehoenai b. Haqqof and Hanamel the Egyptian, and Ishmael b. Phiabi did one each” (m. Parah 3:5). All seven individuals mentioned by the sages were high priests.2 According to this tradition, the Stone House Chamber may have existed from the days of Simeon the Just or of John Hyrcanus, long before Herod’s days. According to a baraita in b. Yoma 2a (MS Vatican, Bibliotheca Apostolica, Ebr. 134, folio 071r; top of the left column),3 the priest was taken from his house to the Parhedrin Chamber which faced the birah in the northeast corner, also called the Stone House Chamber. Even if this text is erroneous,4 it is clear

1 All the Mishnah translations are from Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation (Rensselaer, NY: Yale University Press, 1988). This is a translation of the standard printed text, as given by Ḥanoch Albeck in his Shishah Sidre Mishnah, 6 vols. (Tel Aviv and Jerusalem: Dvir, 1954–1958). The translation was occasionally altered to conform to MS Kaufman (Neusner, Mishnah, ix). 2 Ḥanamel the Egyptian should probably be identified as Ḥananel, a Babylonian priest from a minor family, appointed by Herod and serving as high priest from 37–36 bce. Elyehoenai son of Haqqof is apparently Elionaeus the son of Cantheras (Ant. 19.342). He served as high priest for approximately one year at the end of Agrippa I’s reign. There were two high priests named Ishmael son of Phiabi. The first served ca. 15–16 ce, and the second during ca. 59–61 ce, under Agrippa II. For more about them see Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 bc–ad 135), rev. and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979), 2:229–31. 3  The MS is dated to the early to mid 13th century ce. 4  Thus asserts Joshua Schwartz (“The Temple in Jerusalem: Bira and Baris in Archaeology and Literature,” in The Centrality of Jerusalem: Historical Perspectives. Edited by M. Poor-

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:12.

92

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

that the early copyist (or his source), was of the opinion that the Stone House Chamber is the same as the Parhedrin Chamber. The Parhedrin Chamber is the name of the house to which the High Priest was set apart each year before the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), as we read in m. Yoma 1:1: “Seven days before the Day of Atonement they set apart the high priest from his house to the councillors’ chamber (‫ פלהדרין‬/‫ ;לשכת פרהדרין‬Parhedrin / Palhedrin).”5 There was another reading that he was taken to the “Chamber of Boulevtin (‫)בלווטין‬.”6 The High Priest thus stayed there for seven days each year before the Day of Atonement.7 That is, the chamber was in use once a year – more often than the few occasions when the red heifers were burnt. Is this the correct interpretation of this final clause? T. Parah 3(2):1, which examines the differences between the High Priest’s preparations for burning the red heifer and for serving on the Day of Atonement, does not discuss a difference in the place where he is sequestered. Hence, it can be concluded that on both occasions he stayed in the same chamber. Did a chamber called the Stone House or Parhedrin / Palhedrin indeed exist on the Temple Mount? If so, can its location be suggested? Did it leave any archeological traces?8 thius and Ch. Safrai [Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996], 29–49 [44 n. 37]), without explanation. (His article does not focus on the present matter.) 5  See t. Yoma 1:1 with Lexicon (sefaria.org). T. Kippurim 1:1 (Saul Lieberman, Tosefta [Jerusalem and New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1955–88], 2:220) states: “Why do they separate the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) from his household to Lishkat (Chamber of) Parhedrin?” The explanation of Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira is that otherwise he might be intimate with his wife, and there might be a doubt as to whether she is a niddah; and he might thus become impure in the seven days before Yom Kippur. 6  Ibid. See the discussion about the correct readings of these texts in Saul Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshuṭa, Vol. IV Seder Moʿed (Newark: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962), 718, 729. Y. Yoma 1, 38c states: “‘To the Palhedrin lodge.’ Abba Shaul called it the council member’s (‫ווטין‬ ִ ‫)ּבּול‬ ֶ lodge. Earlier it was called the council member’s lodge. But now one calls it the Palhedrin lodge. The ex-priests (Parairtin / ‫יֵּר ֵתין‬ ִ ֵ ‫)ּפר ֳא‬, ְ a passing matter” (y. Yoma 38c with Lexicon (sefaria.org)). And in b. Yoma 8b we read: “Originally, indeed, it was called the ‘cell of the bouleutai’ (from the Gr. βουλευταί, council members), but because money was being paid for the purpose of obtaining the position of high priest and the [high priests] were changed every twelve months, like those counsellors (Parhedrin), who are changed every twelve months, therefore it came to be called ‘the cell of the counsellors’ (Parhedrin).” (ed. Soncino, https//: halakhah.com by Tzvee Zahavy). 7  This is also implied by the ending clause of m. Parah 3:1 cited above, suggesting that the High Priest was isolated in the Stone House Chamber also during the week before the Day of Atonement; and see also the discussion infra. 8 I concur with those scholars who maintain that the rabbinic sources regarding the Temple, its chambers, and its rituals are generally highly reliable, though, of course, every statement has to be examined cautiously and critically. One of the objectives of the present chapter is to provide a convincing proposal pertaining to the location of the Stone House and to pinpoint its archeological remains, thus strengthening the reliability of the Mishnah concerning this structure and its function.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:12.

V. On the “House of Stone” (beth even) (Mishnah Parah 3

93

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

According to b. Yoma 2b, the Stone House was called by that name “because all its functions [in connection with the red heifer] had to be performed only in vessels made of either cobblestones (or dung – ‫)גללים‬, stone or earthenware” – vessels that cannot become impure (m. Oholot 5:5; m. Parah 5:5; m. Yad. 1:2, and more). This interpretation is not convincing, however. Moreover, this chamber may have functioned before the Herodian or Hasmonaean period, when the use of stone vessels actually began to be widespread.9 We should probably conclude, then, that the chamber was built of stone, and that it was so labeled in order to distinguish it from the other chamber used by the High Priest – the Wood Chamber, located near the Water Gate.10 As for the designation Parhedrin / Palhedrin / Parairtin Chamber – according to Gedalyahu Alon11 the name Parairtin is derived from Gr. προϊεραθέντες, a word denoting previous high priests; deputy priests; or (at least in Greek culture) ex-high priests. Alon also argues12 that from Abba Shaul’s words in y. Yoma 1, 38c and in m. Mid. 5:4 concerning the Wood Chamber, it is clear that the Parhedrin Chamber is not the Wood Chamber, since it is unlikely that this sage would have given two different names to the same chamber. Lieberman accepts Alon’s suggestion13 that “Parairtin” is derived from Gr. προϊεραθέντες. Likewise, the definition “a passing matter” mentioned in y. Yoma 1, 38c,14 refers to former, deputy high priests. Thus, the High Priest was isolated in a chamber that also served as a meeting place for former priests who were also councilmembers, when they were required for discussing issues pertaining to Temple matters.15 Rabbinic sources depict a scenario of often-changing high priests, which matches  9  Recent excavations in Givʿati Parking Lot, to the south of the Temple Mount, and elsewhere in Jerusalem, indicated that stone vessels came in use already under the Hasmoneans. 10  On the Wood Chamber and its location, see Chapter VIII in this volume. 11  Gedalyahu Alon, “Parairtin [‫]פראירתין‬: On the History of the Priesthood at the Close of the Second Temple,” in idem, Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud, 2 vols. (Tel Aviv: Ha-Kibbutz Ha Meuchad, 1967–1970), 1: 48–76 (64–67) (in Hebrew) (published earlier with the same title in Tarbiz 13 [1941]: 1–24). Others previously held that the term Parhedrin was derived from πάρεδροι. Marcus Jastrow, in his dictionary (A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, with an Index of Scriptural Quotations [New York: Pardes Pub. House, 1903], 1216– 17), translates Parhedrin (m. plural: πάρεδροι) as assessors, councilors. Jecob Levy (Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, 2. Aufl., mit Nachtragen und Berichtigungen von Lazarus Goldschmidt, 4 vols. [Berlin: B. Harz, 1924]), 4:103 gives the definition: “Beisitzer bei einem Staatsamte, Richter, Gerichtsräte”; Baruch Kropnick (Karu) and A. M. Silbermann, A Dictionary of the Talmud, the Midrash and the Targum with Quotations from Sources, 2 vols. (Tel Aviv: ʿAm ʿOlam, 1970), 2:241: Richter, Judges. Schürer (History, 214) also holds that parhedrin is derived from πάρεδροι. 12  “Parairtin,” 53 and appendix 2, pp. 70–71. 13  Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshuṭa, 718. 14  See above, n. 6, for the text. 15  The gathering place of the Jerusalem city council – the βουλή – which also included lay councilmembers, was outside the Temple Mount. It is mentioned by Flavius Josephus in War 5.144; 6.354. See also Adolf Büchler, Das Synedrion in Jerusalem und das grosse Beth-Din in

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:12.

94

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

the situation under Herod, his sons, and the Roman prefects, up until the Great Revolt.16 The purpose and function of the Stone House / Parhedrin / Palhedrin Chamber should be addressed before turning to the question of its location. The High Priest resided there throughout the week before the burning of the red heifer, and likewise in the week before the Day of Atonement. We read in t. Kippurim 1:2: “All the chambers in the Beit Hamikdash were exempt from mezuzah aside from Lishkat Parhedrin because it was a residence for the Kohen Gadol seven days a year.”17 On the eve of the Day of Atonement, he was not permitted to eat much, “for food brings on sleep” (m. Yoma 1:4). Elders of the court would read to him every day of the week the Torah laws of the Day of Atonement in the Temple ritual (m. Yoma 1:3), and he would read and recite them as well. On the morning of the day before the Day of Atonement, they would place him in the East Gate and pass cows, goats, and sheep before him, so he would be accustomed to the sacrifices. After the fast began the court elders passed him on to the elders of the priesthood. Before departing, the court elders had him swear that he would burn the incense according to the laws of the Pharisees (m. Yoma 5:1), not the Sadducees. The elders of the priesthood took him to the upper Chamber of Abtinas, where he was taught how to burn the incense on the following day. On the eve of the Day of Atonement, apparently already in the Chamber of Abtinas with the elders of the priesthood, he would study and teach Torah  – reading and explaining, or hearing others read and explain. Young priests around him would make sure he remained awake until the time of the Tamid sacrifice (m. Yoma1:6–7) at dawn (m. Yoma3:1). On regular days, the High Priest was permitted to perform sacrifices, but if he chose not to, ordinary priests chosen by lottery replaced him. However, “All seven days [before the Day of Atonement] he tosses the blood, offers up the incense, trims the lamp, and offers up the head and hind leg [of the daily whole der Quaderkammer des Jerusalemischen Tempels (Vienna: Israelitisch-Theologische Lehranstalt, 1902), 21–24; Alon, “Parairtin,” 51, 53 with n. 10. 16 T. Kippurim 1:7 (ed. Lieberman, Tosefta, 2:220): “when [unacceptable] kings became many, they ordained the practice of regularly appointing priests, and they appointed high priests every single year” (tr. J. Neusner, The Tosefta translated from the Hebrew, Second Division: Moʿed [The Order of Appointed Times], New York 1981, p. 187), referring to the days of Herod and his descendants, up to those of Agrippa II. Sifrei Bamidbar (Balak 131 ed. Horowitz, page 173; ed. Kahana 84, page 56, with commentary on pages 1113–14) and Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana (Aharei Mot ed. Buber 177a) mention the decline of the status of the high priests and their frequent replacement, and the position’s sale to the highest bidder. See also b. Yoma 8b (text in n. 6 above). Alon , “Parairtin,” 57–67, suggests that these names – Parairtin or Boulevtin – were terms used by the Pharisees that degraded the status of the high priesthood, and reflected reality in the days of Agrippa II (the first years of the sixties) – although frequently changing high priests existed already from Herod’s times. Regarding the high priests, see Schürer, History, 227–36, including references. 17  Tr. t Yoma 1:2 (sefaria.org). Note a similar baraita in b. Yoma 10a.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:12.

V. On the “House of Stone” (beth even) (Mishnah Parah 3

95

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

offering]” (m. Yoma 1:2). From m. Parah 3:1 we learn that the High Priest who would be offering the red heifer was sprinkled with waters of purification on the third and seventh days, rather than immersing in a ritual bath. Waters of purification were prepared by mixing the ashes of a previously burned red heifer with water drawn with stone cups from the Siloam spring, by children from distinguished families that were extraordinarily careful about avoiding impurity. The children brought the water to the Temple Mount with similar care for impurity (m. Parah 3:2–4). But in order to serve at the altar on every one of the seven days before the Day of Atonement, the High Priest had to immerse each day in a ritual bath, like any serving priest: “A person does not enter the courtyard for the service, even if he is clean, unless he immerses” (m. Yoma 3:3).18 On the Day of Atonement itself, the High Priest bathed ritually five times and washed his hands and feet ten times. All ritual bathing, aside from the first immersion, took place in the holy part of the Temple Mount, in the ritual bath on the roof of the Parwah Chamber. The first ritual bath took place before the Tamid offering was sacrificed, in a bath (miqveh) that stood on the roof of the Water Gate, adjacent to the Wood Chamber; after the immersion the High Priest withdrew to this chamber (b. Yoma 31a; m. Mid. 5:4). This first ritual bathing was not in the Parhedrin / Parairtin Chamber, where, seemingly, he used to bath ritually on every one of the seven days before entering the ʿAzara. Hence, this house must have held a ritual bath (miqveh). Büchler, in spite of not being aware to the version of the b. Yoma 2a in the Vatican MS, held that the Stone House Chamber and the Parhedrin / Parairtin Chamber were one and the same, with m. Para 3:1 using the Hebrew name and m. Yoma 1:1 using the Greek name (which is not a translation of the Hebrew).19 Alon held that this is possible indeed, but added another possible interpretation: that the palhedrin / parhedrin did not occupied always the same chamber; that perhaps there is a chronological gap between the names, and this seems to be the case.20 Alon claims that the name in Mishnah Yoma and its parallels in the Tosefta, the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds, and in various Midrashic sources, reflects the late Second Temple Period through the early sixties of the first century c.e.21

18  Beyond purification from impurity caused by contact with the dead or vermin, menstruation, nocturnal emissions, etc.; ritual bathing was required after defecation, while urination necessitated only washing of hands and feet (m. Yoma 3:2). 19  Adolf Büchler, The Priests and their Cult in the last decade of the Temple in Jerusalem, Jerusalem 1966, 85, note 35 in the Hebrew translation; idem, Die Priester und der Cultus im letzten Jahrzehnt des jerusalemischen Tempels (Wien: A. Hölder, 1895), 113; Büchler, Synedrion, 31. 20  Alon, “Parairtin“, 71. 21  Supra, note 16.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:12.

96

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Hence, we find out that this was a very important chamber, that had several functions associated with the serving High Priest and ex-high priests. It is possible that the Stone House was used as early as the days of Simeon the Just or John Hyrcanus and by the end of the Second Temple period it was enlarged to a vaster complex; that the earlier Stone House Chamber had become a wing of the Parhedrin / Parairtin Chamber. Where was this complex located? Adolf Büchler22 was of the opinion that the Parhedrin Chamber was located inside the ʿAzara, deriving it from b. Yoma 11a, saying: “All the gates that were there (on the east side of the Temple courtyard) did not have a mezuza except for the Gate of Nicanor, as [in the courtyard just] inside [the gate was] the Chamber of Parhedrin, [in which there is an obligation to affix a mezuza. Therefore, a mezuza was affixed to the gate as well]”.23 But the version of Midrash Tannaim to Deuteronomy 6:9 (ed. Hoffmann), according to which the chamber was not located in the ʿAzara, should be preferred. And indeed, this Chamber could not be located within the ʿAzara, since according to the tannaitic tradition, the High Priest was not permitted to sit in the ʿAzara, let alone sleep there;24 it must have been located outside.25 Let’s first examine the Stone House. According to Ant. 18.93,26 the high priest’s garments were held by the Romans and kept in a Stone House (ἔν οἴκοῳ λίθοις). It likely refers to the Antonia Fortress, hence it is not the chamber at our concern, which did not held the high priest’s garments.27 22  A. Büchler, Das Synedrion in Jerusalem und das grosse Beth-Din in der Quaderkammer des Jerusalemischen Tempels (Wien: Israelitisch-Theologische Lehranstalt 1902), 29, note 18. 23  B. Yoma 11a:1 (sefaria.org). 24  See y Pesachim ch. 5, 32d: “Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “nobody could sit in the Temple courtyard except kings of the Davidic dynasty”? And Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, even the kings of the Davidic dynasty could not sit in the Temple courtyard (Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 5:10:3 with Connections (sefaria.org).” See also y. Sotah ch. 7, 22a and b Sotah 40b. On standing and sitting in the ʿAzara, see: Joshua Schwartz, “ ‘To Stand – Perhaps to Sit.’ Sitting and Standing in the ʿAzara in the Second Temple Period,” in Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity. Edited by Alberdina Houtman, Marcel Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz (Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 1998), 167–89. 25  Schürer, History, 214; Büchler, Synedrion, 29, note 18 in the Hebrew translation of the book, quotes the Abudarham (A commentator on the Synagogue liturgy, who lived at Seville, Spain, about 1340 [https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/690-abudarham-david-ben-josephben-david]), who says in his commentary (“Ḥibbur Perush ha-Berakot we-ha-Tefillot,” [a new corrected and augmented edition according to the first print, Jerusalem 1963] [non vidi]), that the chamber was not in theʿAzara but in the rampart (Hel / ‫)חיל‬ – a 10 cubits wide strip that surrounded it on the outside, where he was sleeping, since it was not consecrated like the ʿAzara. 26 See parallels: Ant. 15.403–408; Ant. 20.6–14. My thanks to Prof. Daniel Schwartz who brought my attention to this passage in a lecture he gave at The Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities and Social Sciences in May of 2007. The present chapter is a result of our conversation after this lecture. 27  But perhaps more research is required in this regards.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:12.

V. On the “House of Stone” (beth even) (Mishnah Parah 3

97

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

According to m. Parah 3:1 cited above, the chamber was located al-pnei (‫על‬-‫ )פני‬the northeast corner of the Temple building (birah). The Hebrew conjugation al-pnei has several meanings: on top of, upon, across the bounds of,28 on the area of, before, and over against or opposite.29 According to one meaning, the chamber is on the northeast of an architectural compound called “bira.” According to a second, it is located northeast of it. Paul [Pinchas] Mandel, who explored the architectural meaning of the word bira in Scriptural and Rabbinic texts,30 found two main definitions: First, the military-political meaning, like the Aramaic birta and Akkadian birtu, denoting a fortress or citadel. This is an earlier definition, appearing in Persian era documents and inscriptions.31 The second meaning is denoting a large building or group of small buildings surrounding a central courtyard.32 Mandel, following Mazar,33 suggests that in Nehemiah and 1 and 2 Chronicles, the word is used in its first meaning, referring to the entire Temple Mount, including the temple, its courts and auxiliary structures. The Temple Mount was surrounded by a wall and served as an acropolis. In the late Second Temple Period, the word was used in its second meaning, referring to the temple enclosure – the temple and its ʿAzara, which was also walled. This second usage, according to Mandel, is the meaning of the word in the mishnayah at our concern.34 If this is the case, the Stone House Chamber should be found to the northeast of the ʿAzara. However, it is still possible that this was an early, pre-Herodian chamber, and the bira mentioned here has its early meaning, referring to the 28  Thus in Gen. 1:20: “For God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and birds that fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky (Genesis 1:20 with Connections (sefaria.org);” Lev. 16:14: “And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward” (Trinity Bible Society). For more examples see dictionaries. 29 Thus in Zach 14:4: “And his feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east …”; Deut. 34:1: “And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the mountain of Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho”; 1 Sam 26:3: “And Saul pitched in the hill of Hachilah, which is before Jeshimon, by the way” (Trinity Bible Society). For more, see dictionaries. 30  Pinchas [Paul] Mandel, “‘Birah’ as an Architectural Term in Rabbinic Literature,” Tarbiz 61 (1992): 195–217 (in Hebrew). 31  See also Andre Lemaire and Hélène Lozachmeur, “Birah / Birta’ en Araméen,” Syria 64 (1987): 261–66. 32  Therefore it is not clear to me how Schwartz (Bira and Baris, Pl. 1 on page 32), arrived at the conclusion that the Rabbinical bira is a long narrow rectangle located north of Mazar’s and Ritmeyer’s 500 × ​500 cubit square (infra), despite his agreement with Mazar’s suggestion that the bira was the Temple Mount fortress. It seems there is an error in this figure. 33 Benjamin Mazar, “The Temple Mount,” in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology. Edited by Jannet Amitai (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985), 463–68. In this article Mazar suggests that the bira is the 500 × ​ 500 cubits square mentioned in Ezekiel 42:16–20 and in m Mid. 2:1. These are the dimensions of the Middle Court in the Temple Scroll as well. 34  Mandel, ‘Birah’, 209 and n. 74.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:12.

98

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

entire Temple Mount – Mazar’s 500 × ​500 fortified square. In this case, the Stone House Chamber was in the northeast of the compound. Either way, the Stone House Chamber was in the northeastern area of the Temple Mount. The translation of the word bira in the Septuagint is illuminating for our period of interest – the Hellenistic Period. The Septuagint translates these words as oikodome – building, or oikos – house, in I Chrn. 29:1 and 19, respectively.35 I maintain that bira refers to the entire Temple Mount according to the Rabbis. The location of this 500 × ​500 cubit square – is disputed.36 Whether the area was a square, or whether 500 × ​500 is the area of a non-square compound, is disputed as well.37 The length of the cubit is unclear as well.38 Benjamin Mazar adopted Ritmeyer’s position  – that the square left archeological remains in Ḥaram al-Sharif: the lowest step of the northwest staircase leading to the upper plaza of the Dome of the Rock is clearly the top of a wall built of ashlars with a boss-projecting course; it marks the western side of the square. Its northern side is defined by a rock cut line running at the northern edge of the upper plaza and the eastern side is the section of the eastern wall of the Temple Mount running from the “bend” (in Mazar’s map), at which the masonry style changes, northward to the Golden Gate. Due to these remains, Leen Ritmeyer suggested the square was based on the Egyptian–Pergamene cubit (52.5 cm), which was widespread in the area during the Roman Period. According to this view, the Temple Mount wall in the pre-Herodian Period also served as the city wall in the north and west.39 Gibson and Jacobson suggested that the square was smaller and further inside the city wall in every direction.40 Their reconstruction separates between the city wall, which could be accessed by soldiers, and the holy area of the temple; this, in my opinion, is more likely. Either way, the Stone House Chamber was located in the northeastern part of this area. I suggest that cisterns nos. 37, 34, and 2 in Wilson’s map (nos. 27, 29, and 30 according to Schick, followed by Gibson, and Jacobson) (Fig. V.1), located in the  See also Lemaire and Lozachmeur, “Birah / Birta’”, 264.  For a more detailed discussion on the 500 × ​500 cubits square, see supra, Chapter II. 37  This is the opinion of Yehoshua Peleg in his dissertation and in the joint article: Joshua Schwartz and Yehoshua Peleg, “Are the ‘Halachic Temple Mount’ and the ‘Outer Court’ of Josephus one and the Same?” in Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism (Louis H. Feldman Jubilee Volume). Edited by Shaye J. D. Cohen and Joshua Schwartz (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007), 207–22. Asher Kaufman and Zalman Qoren argue for this as well. See: Asher S. Kaufman, The Temple Mount. Where is the Holy of Holies? (Jerusalem: Har Yera’eh, 2004); Zalman Qoren, Ve-Asu Li Miqdash (Jerusalem: The Wailing Wall Heritage Foundation, 2007), 129–39 (Hebrew). Qoren discusses the Stone House Chamber in pages 108–9. 38  For an overview on this issue see infra, Chapter VI, note 17. 39 According to Dan Bahat, Carta’s Great Historical Atlas on the of Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Carta, 1989), 36–7 (Hebrew), the Temple Mount wall doubled as the city wall on these sides. 40  Simon Gibson and David M. Jacobson, Below the Temple Mount: A Sourcebook on the Cisterns, Subterranean Chambers and Conduits of the Ḥaram al-Sharif (BAR International Series, 637) (Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, 1996), 230, fig. 104. 35

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

36

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:12.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

V. On the “House of Stone” (beth even) (Mishnah Parah 3

99

Fig. V.1. Map of the Herodian Temple Mount marking the location of the Temple and its Courts and the water cisterns under the Ḥaram al-Sharif (the cistern numbers are those marked in Wilson’s 1876 map of the Ḥaram al-Sharif).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:12.

100

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

northeast of the relevant area – the bira in our mishnah – preserve the location of the Stone House Chamber. It is possible that this chamber became a part of a larger complex with two courtyards – the Parhedrin / Parairtin Chamber. According to my proposal, the cisterns were found underneath the courtyards of this complex (Fig. V.2). Cisterns nos. 34 and 2 are crossed by elevation line 740 m a.s.l. Cistern no. 37, to their east, located beyond the upper plaza of Ḥaram al-Sharif, is bound between elevation lines 737 and 740 (cistern no. 5, which bounded the altar ramp between the Temple and the southern wall of the ʿAzara, is located between these elevation lines as well).41 Cistern no. 37 is shaped like a long corridor with a circular space at its eastern end (Fig. V.3a and b). It seems that the floor of the corridor was stepped, descending 0.9 m. from west to east. It is unclear whether there was an access to the cistern from the west. The lowest level of the cistern’s floor is 8.8 m. below the upper surface, which at this point was the natural rock. The corridor is 17.6 × ​ 3.4 m. in dimensions; the circular space is 5 × ​5.4 m. Long cisterns such as this one are known in the Iron Age as well.42 Cistern no. 34 (no. 29 according to Schick;43 in Arabic it is called bir altzawana  – the flint cistern) is a double bell-shaped cistern. The bottom dimensions of the northern chamber are 10 × ​7 m., and of the southern chamber are 8.2 × ​8.2 m. Their height is 11.5 m. and the level of their floor is 14.8 m. below the upper plaza of the Dome of the Rock. The shape of cistern no. 34 is very similar to that of cistern no. 22 (no. 15 according to Schick); stairs descend into cistern no. 22 along its circular inner wall. Such cistern shape is widespread in Hellenistic Maresha. However, cistern no. 34 lacks stairs. Cistern no. 2 (20 according to Schick; bir al-atzfir – the bird cistern – in Arabic), is almost square shaped. Its dimensions are 18.3 × ​15.2 m., and niche-like expansions in its northeast and southwest give it dimensions of 24–25 × ​10.5 m. Its height is 10.3 m. and its floor is 14–14.5 m. below the upper plaza. It is fully hewn in rock, and its ceiling is flat. Gibson and Jacobson suggest that both cisterns no. 34 and 2 should be dated to approximately 200 bce.44 41 On the significance of this water cistern for locating the Altar and the Temple, see infra, Chapters VI and VIII. 42  For example, the Iron Age cistern in Khirbet Abu-Tabaq in the Hyrcania Valley, installed in a deep man-made cave that is 35 m. long, 7 m. wide, and 5 m. high (Magharat Abu-Tabaq) and the cistern near Kibbutz Tzuba, in a man-made cave 24 m. long and 4 m. wide. See: Joseph Patrich, Archaeological Survey of Israel: Map of Mar-Saba (315) (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. The Archaeological Survey of Israel, 1995), site no. 35, pages 48* and 51; Simon Gibson, The Cave of John the Baptist (London: Century 2004), 191–209. 43 Conrad Schick, Die Stiftshütte, der Tempel in Jerusalem und der Tempelplatz der Jetztzeit (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1896). 44  Gibson and Jacobson, Below the Temple Mount, 26, figure 10; 129–34 figs. 60–64, 139–42, 231. Rebecca Gonen (“Was the Site of the Jerusalem Temple Originally a Cemetery?” Biblical Archaeology Review 11 [1985]: 44–55), suggested that these are tombs from the Early Bronze Age IV or the Middle Bronze Age. Gibson and Jacobson think this is unlikely. Schick suggested

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:12.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

V. On the “House of Stone” (beth even) (Mishnah Parah 3

101

Fig. V.2. The location of the Stone House and the Parhedrin / Palhedrin Chamber on the Temple Mount relative to the Temple and its Courts, and relative to Water Cisterns nos. 34, 37, and 2.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:12.

102

The Temple Mount and its Courts, Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. V.3. Water cisterns nos. 34, 37, and 2. a): Plan; b). cross-section (Gibson and Jacobson, note 39, Figs. 62 and 64 respectively).

The long axis of cistern no. 37, and the three cisterns as a group, are set up along an axis parallel to that of cistern no. 5 (no. 28 according to Schick), which that cistern no. 37 (no. 27 according to him) was first a round cistern that was later expanded and lengthened west (Gibson and Jacobson, Below the Temple Mount, 128–29). If this was the case, it is clear that the expansion west was along the axis parallel to the northern wall of the ʿAzara, unrelated to the later Herodian axes.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:12.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

V. On the “House of Stone” (beth even) (Mishnah Parah 3

103

preserves the long axis of the temple and its ʿAzara.45 This set of axes is preHerodian, and cistern no. 3 (Schick’s 32), apparently denoting the priests’ ritual bathing house, belongs to it as well. The axis of cistern no. 1 (Schick’s no. 31) is parallel to that of the double and triple gates and of the Temple Mount’s western wall. Thus, it preserves a later set of axes – that of the Herodian compound. It is, of course, possible to challenge the suggestion that these cisterns point to the location of the Stone House Chamber. Without having access to them, there can be no certainty regarding their date – perhaps they are late cisterns. This claim can be raised regarding other cisterns as well. However, in light of the cisterns’ alignment with the pre-Herodian set of axes and their lack of alignment and integration with the Ḥaram’s axes and structures, it seems that Gibson’s and Jacobson’s dating is well-founded. Another possible challenge to my proposal can be that the cisterns may have been in an open space, rather than surrounded by buildings; as they are today. They also may have belonged to other structures in this area of the bira, such as the two Places of Ashes (Beit HaDeshen /‫בית‬ ‫ )הדשן‬outside the ʿAzara.46 But it is likely that these structures, which emit unpleasant odors and smoke, were located further from the ʿAzara. It is also unlikely that they required water cisterns for their operation. Another possible claim is that one of the cisterns further northeast (nos. 12–14) marks the location of the Stone House Chamber. However, this chamber was important and required constant supply of water, and thus it is likely that it was closer to the ʿAzara. Cisterns nos. 37, 34, and 2 cover an area fifty meters long. It seems that cistern no. 37, which is parallel to the pre-Herodian set of axes, is the earliest of the three. It is the furthest to the east, and is located in the northeast corner of the pre-Herodian temple compound.47 According to my suggestion, the Stone House Chamber in m. Para 3:1 was above this cistern. The texts about the Parhedrin / Parairtin Chamber reflects a later period – that of the years before the Great Revolt. It seems that at a certain point, a larger complex was built west of the Stone House Chamber, being used as a gathering place, and perhaps also a daily eating place for the group of ex-high priests (like the prytaneis – the executives of the boule – eating daily in the prytaneion of Athens). I suggest that cisterns nos. 2 and 34 are remnants of this expansion. These suggestions are clearly not beyond any doubt, but I believe they worth to be considered.48

 See infra, Chapter VI.  M. Zebaḥ. 12:5; b Zebaḥ. 104b; See more in Schwartz, Bira and Baris, and Büchler, Synedrion, 31. 47  The compound’s exact location, dimensions, and layout are disputed, see Chapter II. 48  A first translation of the paper was prepared by Saḥar Segal, my student at the time. I am deeply indebted to her. 45 46

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:12.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved. Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:12.

VI. The Location of the Second Templeand the Layout of its Courts, Gates and Chambers: A New Proposal 1. The Location

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The exact location of the temple on the Temple Mount is still an unresolved riddle. Many proposals have been put forward pertaining to this issue.1. Most scholars located it on the upper platform of the Temple Mount on which the Dome of the Rock is located today, and opinions vary whether the Muslim rock marks the site of the Holy of Holies2 or the altar.3 Some set the rock to the north of the temple,4 or to its southeast.5 As for its orientation, almost all scholars 1  Bellarmino Bagatti, „La posizione del tempio erodiano di Gerusalemme,“ Biblica 46 (1965): 428–44; Theodore A. Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomon bis Herodes: eine archäologisch-historische Studie unter Berücksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempelbaus, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1970); David M. Jacobson, “Ideas Concerning the Plan of Herod’s Temple” PEQ 112 (1980): 33–40; Leen P. Ritmeyer, The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006). The Quest, is an elaboration of his unpublished PhD dissertation: The Architectural Development of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (The University of Manchester, 1992) and several other studies; see infra, note 2. He had examined 13 different proposals pertaining to the location of the Temple, in addition to his own. The earliest was that of de Vogüé 1864 (below, note 5), and the latest Jacobson’s (David M. Jacobson, “The Plan of Herod’s Temple.” BAIAS 10 [1990–91]: 36–66. Busink’s proposal (Der Tempel von Jerusalem, vol. 2: Von Ezekiel bis Middot [Leiden: Brill, 1980], 832, fig. 200; 1179, fig. 253; and 1540, fig. 343), was not included in Ritmeyer’s survey. 2  Thus Conder in Charles Warren and Charles R. Conder, The Survey of Western Palestine – Jerusalem (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1884); Charles M. Watson, “The Site of the Temple,” PEFQS 28 (1896): 47–60, 226–28; Frederick J. Hollis, The Archaeology of Herod’s Temple, with a commentary on the tractate Middot (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1934). See also Ritmeyer, The Quest, 153–54, 155–66, 159–60, respectively. See also Ritmeyer 1992: 24–45, 64–65; 1996. More recently, Zalman Qoren, Ve-Asu Li Miqdash (Jerusalem: The Wailing Wall Heritage Foundation, 2007), has shared this traditional view as well. 3  Thus Conrad Schick, Die Stiftshütte, der Tempel in Jerusalem und der Tempelplatz der Jetztzeit (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1896); Carl Mommert, Topographie des alten Jerusalem, Zweiter Teil: Das Solomonische Temple und Palast-quartier auf Moriah (Leipzig: E. Haberland, 1903); Gustav Dalman, “Der Zweite Tempel zu Jerusalem,” PJb 5 (1909): 29–57; idem, Sacred Sites and Ways: Studies in the Topography of the Gospels (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1935); Louis-Hugues Vincent, “Le temple Herodien d’après la Mišnah,” RB 61 (1954): 5–35, 398–418; idem and Ambroise-Marie Steve, Jérusalem de l’ancien testament, 2e partie (Paris: Gabalda, 1956). See also references to them in Ritmeyer, The Quest, 154–55, 156–57, 158–59, 161–62, respectively. 4  James Fergusson, The Temples of the Jews and the other Buildings in the Haram Area at Jerusalem (London: J. Murray, 1878). See Ritmeyer, The Quest, 147. Warren located the temple’s sanctuary to the south of the Rock (Ritmeyer, The Quest, 151–52), as did Bellarmino Bagatti, Recherches sur la site du Temple de Jérusalem (I–VII siecle) (Jerusalem: Franciscan

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

108

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

maintained that its longitudinal axis was perpendicular to the eastern wall (which is inclined 6.18° west relative to due north).6 Hollis7 claimed that the Second Temple faced east and that the eastern side of the present upper platform, running north–south, keeps this absolute primitive axiality,8 and so does Qoren, more recently.9 Busink placed the temple in the northern part of the upper platform, shifted north relative to the rock, so that the temple axis, set perpendicular to the eastern wall, ran through the Kiponus Gate on the west and the Shushan Gate, mentioned in m. Mid. 1:3 on the east.10 Among the more recent proposals, that of Kaufman is exceptional. He places the temple and its courts in the northern part of the Herodian compound, on the upper platform and beyond, so that the Dome of the Winds of that platform, located to the northwest relative to the rock, marks, according to him, the site of the Holy of Holies. He maintains that the complex of the temple and courts is wedge-shaped, narrower on the western side, and that the axis of the complex does not run perpendicular to the eastern wall but slants slightly south, pointing toward the Dome of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives.11 According to David Jacobson, following a geometrical analysis of the Herodian complex, the rock (which, he acknowledges, was hidden from sight in the Second Temple period), marks the center of the sanctuary, and not the Holy of Holies; and the Dome of the Chain marks the site of the altar.12 Ritmeyer, who Printing Press, 1979), 11–32 and Ernst Vogt, “Vom Tempel zum Felsendom.” Biblica 55 (1974): 23–64. The proposals of the latter two were not discussed by Ritmeyer.  5  Melchior de Vogüé, Le temple de Jérusalem. Monographie du Haram-ech-Chérif, suivie d’un Essai sur la topographie de la Ville-Sainte (Paris: Noblet & Baudry, 1864); Ritmeyer, The Quest, 149–51.  6  See: Erwin F. Reidinger, “The Temple Mount Platform in Jerusalem from Solomon to Herod: An Archaeological Re-Examination.” Assaf. Studies in Art History 9 (2004): 1–64. I am indebted to Ronny Reich for bringing this study to my attention.  7 The Archaeology of Herod’s Temple, 122–39, pl. X; and see Ritmeyer, The Quest, 159–60.  8 In m. Sukkah 5:4 there is a description of two priests blowing the trumpets, after passing through the Women’s Court: “They went on until they reached the gate that lead out to the east. When they reached the gates that leads out to the east, they turned their faces to the west and said ‘Our fathers when they were in this place turned with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east, and they worshipped the sun toward the east (Ezek. 8:16); but as for us, our eyes are turned toward the Lord’” (and parallels in y. Sukkah 54d–55a; b. Sukkah 51b). Hollis maintained that this account is an indication of the rejection of an earlier solar cult. As for Solomon’s temple, he had oriented it perpendicular to the eastern wall of the Herodian precinct, along a line that connects the Dome of the Rock and the summit of Mt. Olives – that is, slightly north of due east.  9  Thus in his model of the Second Temple (on display in the Western Wall Tunnel and more recently in his book – Ve-Asu Li Miqdash. 10  Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem, vol. 2. 11 Asher S. Kaufman, The Temple Mount: Where is the Holy of Holies? (Jerusalem: Har Yera’eh, 2004). Kaufman is relying on Ezek 8:16 when orienting his temple to the Mount of Olives. In his map, the southern side of cistern no. 5 (see below) marks the line of the southern wall of the trapezoidal Temple Mount. 12 Jacobson, “The Plan of Herod’s Temple,” 36. In his analysis, Jacobson suggests that the line of the northern wall of the Temple Mount passed across Birket Israil. There is nothing in

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

VI. The Location of the Second Temple

109

dedicated a thorough study to this topic, claimed that the rock marks the Holy of Holies and set the temple perpendicular to the eastern wall.13 Of course, whoever suggests that the rock was not included within the temple, or under the altar, maintains that in the Second Temple period its elevation was below the floor level of the Priestly Court. And indeed, while the altitude of the lower platform of the Ḥaram al-Sharif adjacent to the upper platform (738 m a.s.l.) is in accordance with the level of the base of the Herodian pilaster as preserved near the northern end of the western wall, the top altitude of the Rock is 743.7 m, that is, 1.3–1.5 m below the level of the upper court of the Herodian Temple (depending on the length of the cubit in use), according to the relative levels given by Josephus Flavius and in the Mishnah.14 The floor level of the temple itself, comprising the Porch, the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies, was six cubits higher. The point of departure of the new proposal is the daily liturgy. According to the Mishnah, describing the first actions of the priest who was elected to serve the altar that day  – cleaning it of the cinders (deshen) (following Lev 6:3), using a silver shovel or fire-pan. This took place not long after the cock’s crow (m. Tamid 1:2), when it was still dark outside:

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

He whose lot it was to clear the Altar of ashes went to clear the Altar of ashes, while they said to him, “Take heed that thou touch not the vessel before thou hast sanctified thy hands and feet in the laver; and lo, the fire pan lies in the corner between the Ramp and the Altar, the archaeological data to sustain this hypothesis. The proposals of Kaufman and Jacobson are also among those examined by Ritmeyer, The Quest. 13  Leen P. Ritmeyer, “Locating the Original Temple Mount,” BAR 18.2 (1992): 24–45, 64– 5; idem, The Temple and the Rock (Harrogate: Ritmeyer Archaeological Design, 1996); idem, The Quest, 242–78. 14 The differences of elevations were already noted by James Turner Barclay (The City of the Great King: or, Jerusalem as It Was, as It Is, and as It Is to Be, [Philadelphia: J. Challen, 1858:], 242), as well as by Busink (Vol. 1, 13) and Bagatti (Recherches, 19–20), and following them, Jacobson (“The Plan of Herod’s Temple,” 59), who had suggested that this situation was changed under Hadrian, when the structure and the entire temple platform became a quarry. The Bordeaux pilgrim saw there a pierced stone (lapis pertusus), which he said the Jews come and anoint each year. This was apparently the present rock. See also Simon Gibson and David M. Jacobson, Below the Temple Mount. A sourcebook on the cisterns, subterranean chambers and conduits of the Ḥaram al-Sharif. BAR International Series 637 (Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, 1996), 288. The variance of elevations can be also deduced from the data provided by Meir Ben-Dov, In the Shadow of the Temple: The Discovery of Ancient Jerusalem. Trans. from the Hebrew by Ina Friedman (Jerusalem: Keter 1985), 98–101, based on the top elevation of Robinson’s Arch and on the elevation of the aqueduct in the Jewish quarter. (In the Hebrew edition, p. 93, he gives different arguments, yet the convention that the floor level of the Holy of Holies was much higher than the present elevation of the Muslim rock prevails in both versions). In contrast, Ritmeyer (The Quest, 277; The Temple and the Rock), presents the top of the rock projecting slightly above the level of the Holy of Holies. He maintains that this was the stone called Shetiyah, which “was higher than the ground by three fingerbreadths” (m. Yoma 5:2). But the fact is that during the temple period the rock was buried deep below the level of the Priestly Court.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

110

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

on the western side of the Ramp.” None went in with him and he carried no lamp, but he walked in the light of the Altar fire. They neither saw him nor heard sound of him until they heard the noise of the wooden device [muchni /mechane] which Ben Katin had made for the laver; and then they said, “The time is come!” He sanctified his hands and feet at the laver, took the silver fire pan and went up to the top of the Altar and cleared away the cinders to this side and to that, and scooped up the innermost burnt [cinders] and came down again (m. Tamid 1:4–2:1).15

In m. Yoma 3:10, we hear more: Ben Katin made twelve stop-cocks for the laver which before had but two; and he also made a [mechanical] device [Muchni / Mechane] for the laver that its water should not be rendered unfit by remaining overnight.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The Laver was, thus, a huge basin, ca. 3 m in diameter, permitting 12 priests to wash their hands and feet simultaneously. According to m. Mid. 3:6, “The laver stood between the Porch and the Altar, towards the south,” i. e., between the porch and the altar’s ramp.16 Muchni / Mechane is a Greek term (μεχανή), denoting in the present context a wooden lifting device by means of which fresh water was provided to the laver;17 15 All passages cited from the Mishnah follow the English translation of H. Danby, The Mishnah (London: Oxford University Press, 1933). My comments or clarifications have been added in square brackets. 16  The Mishkan laver also served the priests for washing their hands and feet (Exod 30:18–21; 40:31–32). In Solomon’s temple, the Molten Sea served the priests for washing (1 Kgs 7:23–26, 2 Chr 4:1–6). It was located in a similar position relative to the temple. It was a huge bowlshaped basin, made of brass, 10 cubits in diameter and 5 cubits high, relief decorated on the outside. It stood on 12 oxen, arranged in 4 groups of 3, oriented to the four points of the compass. It weighed ca. 30 tons. According to Kings, its capacity was 2,000 baths, equivalent to 44,000 liters. According to Chronicles, the capacity was 3,000 baths, equivalent to 66,000 liters. In contrast to the mechane that served the Second Temple laver, it is not said how this lofty Sea got its water. Its large dimensions prevented getting to its rim without the help of a ladder or of some other climbing device; it was also too deep to immerse in. It is possible that it was equipped with some kind of faucets that permitted controlled flow of water from beneath, but this detail is not mentioned in the Bible. In Ezekiel’s temple, no Sea is mentioned. See: Yigael Yadin, “The First Temple,” in Sefer Yerushalaim: The Nature, History and Development of Jerusalem from its Beginning to the Present, ed. Michael Avi-Yonah (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik and Dvir, 1956), 185 (Hebrew); Shmuel Yeivin, “Solomon’s Temple,” in Encyclopedia Miqrait. Vol. 5 (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialiq, 1968), 341–43 (Hebrew); Avigdor Horowitz, “Solomon’s Temple,” in Sefer Yerushalaim: The Biblical Period, ed. Shmuel Aḥitov and Amiḥai Mazar (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2000), 150–52 (Hebrew); Zeev Herzog, “Solomon’s Temple: Its Reconstructed Plan and Archaeological Parallels,” in Pages 155–74 in Aḥituv and Mazar, Sefer Yerushalayim, 164–65 (Hebrew); Busink, Vol. 1, 326–52; Vincent and Steve, Jérusalem de l’ancien testament, 414–23; Andre Parrot, The Temple of Jerusalem. Trans. B. Hooke (London: SCM, 1957), 45–47. 17  The rabbinic commentators (R. Ovadiah of Bartinoro; Tosafot Yom Tov of R. Yom Tov Lipmann-Heler; Tiferet Israel of R. Israel Lifschitz), as well as Ḥ. Albeck, interpreted it as a wheel by which the laver was lowered down into an adjacent cistern. See a reconstruction drawing in Israel Ariel, The Holy Temple of Jerusalem (Carta Encyclopedia) (Jerusalem: Carta and Temple

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

VI. The Location of the Second Temple

111

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

the wooden sound mentioned in m. Tamid 4:1 was the sound of the revolving wheel. This is a common term in Greek literary sources, including papyri, to denote a geared water-wheel. According to Oleson, this geared technology, appropriate for vertical lifting and known in Arabic as sakiya, was a 2nd century bce invention. Philon of Byzantion, an engineer writing in the 3rd century bce, did not mention it yet.18 Our proposal is that the cistern that fed the laver is cistern no. 5 on Wilson’s map of 1876 in his Ordnance Survey (Fig. VI.1).19 It is a huge cistern, 15 m deep, and of a unique layout. It was very diligently cut: all walls are perpendicular or parallel to each other. The main gallery, shaped like a corridor, is 54.5 m long and 4.6 m wide. On the eastern end, two perpendicular arms (9 m long and 3.5–4 m wide) project to the north. The more eastern of the two also extends 18 m southward. On the western end, another arm, 17 m long, narrower, and of an irregular shape, extends to the south. This looks like a natural fissure in the geological limestone formation of the Temple Mount rock. A narrow, well-cut staircase 5 feet (ca. 1.5 m) wide descends down into the main corridor from the east and then turns right along the eastern wall of the northeast arm, becoming ca. 7 feet (i. e., ca. 2.1 m) wide. According to our proposal, the altar ramp was located near the eastern end of the cistern, in the area 11 m wide separating the two arms of the cistern extending to the north. The ramp, 16 cubits broad and 32 cubits long (m. Mid. 3:3),20 could Institute, 2005), 68 (Hebrew). Adin Steinsaltz in his commentary to the Babylonian Talmud renders it as: “machine, wheel, or lever.” 18 See: Joseph Peter Oleson, Greek and Roman Mechanical Water-Lifting Devices: The History of a Technology. Phoenix Supplement 16 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press 1984), 11, 94, 127, 130, 132–40, 290, 327, 358, 368, 378, 380; John William Humphrey, Joseph Peter Oleson, and Andrew N. Sherwood, Greek and Roman Technology: A Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1998), 309–22; John Gray Landels, Engineering in the Ancient World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), 63–66, 68–70; Thorkild Schiøler, Roman and Islamic Water Lifting Wheels (Odense: Odense University Press, 1973). However, the exact device to which this term refers in the literary sources, or in the papyri, is not always clear. See infra, Chapter X. 19 Charles Wilson, Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem in the Years 1864 to 1865, and Sheet 1: “Ḥaram Grounds &c”. rev. ed. (Southampton: Ordnance Survey Office, 1876); Facsimile Edition (Jerusalem: Ariel, 1980). This is cistern no. 28 in Gibson and Jacobson, Below the Temple Mount, 288. Unfortunately, it is impossible at present to descend into the cistern and explore it. 20  Opinions vary about the length of the cubit that was in use in the construction of the temple. In m. Kelim 17:9, a long, medium, and short cubit are mentioned, which differed by hand digit from one another. The following lengths have been proposed, respectively (Arye Ben-David, “Ha-Middah ha-Yerushalmit: An Archaeological Solution of a Talmudic-Metrological Problem,” IEJ 19 [1969]: 159–69; idem, “The Hebrew-Phoenician Cubit,” PEQ 110 [1978]: 27–8): 56 cm = the long/“building”/Jerusalem cubit; 52.5 cm = the medium/Egyptian/ “Desert”/“Moses” cubit. This is the formal Pergamene-Roman cubit, current in the East since 129 bce. It had reached Pergamon from Egypt, and went hence to Rome; 46.5 cm = the short/ “Vessels” cubit. Jacobson (“The Plan of Herod’s Temple,” 47, 61 n. 2) opted for a size very

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

112

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. VI.1. Water Cistern no. 5 (Gibson and Jacobson 1996: 137). close to this – 46.4 cm – because he found harmony (2 cubits = 3 imperial feet) between such a cubit and the 30.9-cm long foot in use by Herod when constructing the Royal Stoa (according to Rafael Grafman, “Herod’s foot and Robinson’s arch,” IEJ 20 [1970]: 60–66), and its half is close to the rise of the Herodian stairs in front of the Double Gate. Yehoshua Peleg (unpublished MA thesis, Bar Ilan University 2003; not seen), opted for the “building cubit,” 0.56 m long according to Ben-David, “Ha-Middah ha-Yerushalmit”. See also Yehoshua Peleg, “Review of The Temple Mount: Where is the Holy of Holies? by A. S. Kaufman,” Cathedra 117 (2005): 157–63 [Hebrew]). Asher Z. Kaufman (“Determining the Length of the Medium Cubit,” PEQ 116 [1984]: 120–32; The Temple Mount, 4 and 40), concluded that the cubit in use in the construction of the Second Temple was 43.7 cm long. On this issue see also: Hollis, The Archaeology of Herod’s Temple, 349; Jean Joseph Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament: Researches and Theories (Leiden: Brill, 1952), 406 n. 1; Robert B. Y. Scott, “The Hebrew Cubit,” JBL 1958 (1958): 205–14; idem, “Weights and Measures of the Bible,” BA 22/2 (1959): 22–41; Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Study edition (London: SCM, 1969), 11–2 n. 20. Simons (Jerusalem in the Old Testament) adhered to the Philetairan cubits of Pergamon, 52.5 cm long. Busink (vol. 2, 1068) posited a 46-cm-long cubit. Qoren (Ve-Asu Li Miqdash, 84, 136–43) suggested a cubit 57.4 cm long. The reconstruction presented here (Figs. XI.1 and Pl. I.1, pp. 202 and XIII) has adopted a cubit 52.5 cm long – the medium/Pergamene-Roman cubit. According to Ritmeyer (The Quest), this cubit is to be recognized in the 500 × ​500-cubit square, the remains of which he had traced. According to the 52.5-cm-long cubit, the altar ramp was 8.40 m wide – narrower than the interval between the two northern arms of the cistern. According to a 56-cm-long cubit, it would have been 8.96 m wide. In this case as well, the ramp could easily fit into that area. It is noteworthy that in the construction of the Nabatean temple of

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

VI. The Location of the Second Temple

113

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

easily fit into this area. According to the information at hand, there is a stone ceiling above the southern end of the southeastern arm, while most of the ceiling is plastered, suggesting masonry, rather than a rock-cut ceiling.21 The cistern, when cut, was thus open to the sky, so that a water-wheel or several wheels could have been set in a line along the main corridor or in the perpendicular extending arms. (A rock-cut ceiling would not have permitted, of course the operation of any water wheel above). The location of the laver between the temple Porch and the altar ramp indicates that its water-wheel was set above the arm that delineated the ramp on its west. If several wheels had been set also along the main gallery and in all the arms extending from it, one could get an enormous flush of water for washing the court, especially the House of Slaughtering, if the wheels were operated simultaneously. On Passover, when there were many individual and public offerings, the court was washed down by the priests not only on each working day of the holy day but on the Sabbath as well (m. Pesah. 5:8). It is reasonable to assume that it was flushed regularly also throughout the year, perhaps daily but at least once a week, perhaps on the eve of Sabbath, when the altar was also washed with a cloth, because of the blood (m. Mid. 3:4). The washing could have been done by buckets filled with water, but using a flush of water emerging from a wheel seems to have been much more efficient.22 Qasr al-Bint at Petra, almost contemporary with the Herodian temple in Jerusalem, the 52.5-cmlong cubit was applied. See: Fawzi Zayadine, François Larché, and Jacqueline Dentzer-Feydy, Le Qasr al-Bint de Petra: L’architecture, le décor, la chronologie et les dieux (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 2003), 77–79. 21  Charles Wilson, Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem, 1865  – Notes (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1866), 43; Schick, Die Stiftshütte, 293–304, pl. IX; Gibson and Jacobson, Below the Temple Mount, 135–40, fig. 65. According to Wilson, this arm had a rocky ceiling; however, Gibson and Jacobson mark only the southern end of this arm (no. 7 in their fig. 65) as having a rocky ceiling. If the entire ceiling would have been stone, it would have been unnecessary to cover it with plaster. Since most of the cistern has a plastered ceiling, we can conclude that it is of masonry. 22  It is not said that the water of the aqueduct coming from ʿEitam served this purpose. And indeed, the aqueduct, which reached the Temple Mount on top of the bridge on the site of Wilson’s arch, encircled Mt. Zion on the south at an elevation of 735 m a.s.l. (Amiḥai Mazar, “A Survey of the Aqueducts of Jerusalem,” in The Ancient Aqueducts of Israel, eds. David Amit, Joseph Patrich and Yizhar Hirschfeld. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 46. [Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2002], 221); it could not feed the cisterns on the upper platform of Ḥaram al-Sharif or on the Second Temple court level, which was still higher. It fed cistern no. 8 on Wilson’s map (cistern no. 3 in Gibson and Jacobson, Below the Temple Mount, 33–41), on the southern side of the Temple Mount. The top elevation of cistern no. 8, according to Gibson and Jacobson, is 734.9 m; it is ca. 1.5 m lower than the floor level of the Ḥaram at that place. This aqueduct was apparently constructed under John Hyrcanus or Alexander Jannaeus (infra, Chapter XV; Mazar, “A Survey of the Aqueducts,” 217–23, 230– 38). The Amorite sages were of the opinion that the water of ʿEitam fed the Sea of Solomon’s Temple (y. Yoma 41a 3:8), as well as the miqvaʾot on top of the Water Gate and Parwah Chamber, in which the high priest used to immerse on the Day of Atonement during the Second Temple period (b. Yoma 31a). But this would have been impossible in light of the difference in elevations indicated above. There is no reference in the Mishnah to corroborate these Amoritic

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

114

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Not only the court’s floor had to be washed regularly; the channel draining the offering-blood under the foundation of the altar to the Kidron brook (m. Yoma 5:6; m. Mid. 3:2) had to be flushed as well. In this connection, the description of the temple and its rite in the Letter of Aristeas 88–90 is instructive:23 The whole foundation was decked with (precious) stones and had slopes leading to the appropriate places for carrying the water which is (needed) for the cleansing of the blood from the sacrifices. (Many thousands of animals are brought there in the festival days). There is an uninterrupted supply not only of water, just as if there were a plentiful spring rising naturally from within,24 but also of indescribably wonderful underground reservoirs, which within a radius of five stadia from the foundation of the Temple revealed innumerable channels for each of them, the streams joining together on each side. . . . There were many mouths at the base, which were completely invisible except for those responsible for the ministry, so that the large amounts of blood which collected from the sacrifices were all cleansed by the downward pressure and momentum. (trans. R. J. H. Shutt).

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

To the best of my knowledge, such an elaborate system of water supply, cleansing and draining a temple precinct, is unique in antiquity.25 Since it is agreed that the altar and the temple had parallel axiality and their location relative to each other is given in the Mishnah, by fixing the axiality and location of the ramp and the altar as proposed above, the axiality and location of the temple is actually determined. Thus, the longitudinal axis of cistern no. 5 (9.7° south of due east) preserves the original orientation of the temple (Fig. VI.2, see also Fig. I.1, p. 20). This orientation is at variance with the preclaims (I was not aware of this point when I wrote the article reproduces as Chapter XV). It seems that rain water collected from the roofs fed these miqvaʾot. 23 Opinions vary about the date of this letter. For a detailed survey, see Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 b.c.–a.d. 135), Vol. 3/1, ed. Géza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), 677–87. Following a thorough presentation of various opinions, the authors opt for a 2nd century bce date, earlier than 170 bce (684). This date was first suggested by Harry Meyer Orlinski, “Review of Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates (1951),” Crozer Quarterly 29 (1952): 201–5 and, following him Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1968; repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1978), 48 n. 1. Rowland James Heath Shutt (“Letter of Aristeas,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 2 [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983–85], 9) is also in favor of this date (the citation from the Letter of Aristeas given here is taken from this translation, pages 18–19). Accordingly, Menaḥem Stern (History of Eretz Israel: The Hellenistic Period and the Hasmonaean Period (332–37 bce), [Jerusalem: Keter and Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 1981], 9–19, 98–105, 124, 138, 140–41 [Hebrew]), refers to this source in his chapter dealing with the pre-Hasmonean period. Uriel Rappaport (“When was Aristeas Letter Composed?” in Studies in the History of the People and Land of Israel. Vol. 1 [Tel Aviv: University of Haifa, 1970], 37–50 [Hebrew]), was of the opinion that the treatise should be dated to the end of the 3rd century bce – the end of the Ptolemaic regime in the Land of Israel. 24 The reference to this natural spring of abundant water is apparently inspired by Ezek 47:1– 5. Such is also the case with the final paragraph of m. Mid. 2:6, speaking of the Water Gate and citing R. Eliezer ben Yaaqov saying: “Through it the water trickles forth, and hereafter they will issue out from under the threshold of the House.” 25  See infra, Chapter X.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

VI. The Location of the Second Temple

115

Fig. VI.2. The temple location in the precinct relative to Water Cistern no. 5. Map (drawn by Leen Ritmeyer according to the instructions of the author).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

116

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

vailing opinion, according to which the axis of the temple ran perpendicular to the eastern wall of the Temple Mount – namely, forming an angle of 6.18° north of due east.26 This orientation can be considered to be east no less than the prevailing one and is in accord with the literary sources, according to which the temple faced the rising sun.27 Of course, the temple preceded the eastern wall of the Temple Mount. The proposed location and orientation is perpendicular to the bedrock altitude contours in this part of the hill,28 so it is topographically reasonable. A location slightly below the summit fits a threshing floor such as that of Ornan the Jebusite (2 Sam 24:16–24; 1 Chr 21:15–28; 2 Chr 3:1). The Second Temple altar was erected on the foundations of the First Temple (Ezra 3:2–6; 5:16; 6:7–8).29 “The Temple Mount measured five hundred cubits by five hundred cubits” (m. Mid. 2:1). This could have been a literal formula, in accord with the LXX of Ezek 42:20 (and 45:2). The Temple Scroll gives the external dimensions of the inner court to be 294 × ​294 cubits and of the middle court (equivalent of the Temple Mount of the Mishnah) 500 × ​500 cubits as well. According to Flavius Josephus, Ant. 15.400, the circumference of the upper court around the Temple was 4 stades, 1 stade in each direction of the compass. These are the dimensions of Simeon the Just’s outer court; the area surrounded by the grille (see supra, Chapter III). The square of the Mishnah, and the square of the Temple Scroll may better reflect the actual situation of the pre-Herodian / Hasmonean precinct. For an elaboration of this topic see supra, Chapter II. Ritmeyer suggested that there are archaeological remains that permit locating this square, which in any case preceded the Herodian precinct. From these, he concluded that the cubit in use measured 52.5 cm.30 In the plans presented here, 26 Reidinger,

“The Temple Mount Platform,” 40.  The Letter of Aristeas 88; m. Mid. 2:4; 4:3; 4:5; 4:7, etc.; Ant. 8.64 (describing the Temple of Solomon). On Hollis’s opinion about the temple orientation, see supra, note 2. 28  August Kümmel, Materialen zur Topographie des alten Jerusalem, Begleitext zu der Karte der Materialen zur Topographie des alten Jerusalem (Halle: Verlag des Deutschen Palaestina-Vereins, 1904); Vincent and Steve Jérusalem de l’ancien testament, Pl. I; Robert Pearce S. Hubbard, “The Topography of Ancient Jerusalem,” PEQ 98 (1966): 130–54. 29  Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Book 8 (the book of labor), Hilkhot Beit Ha Behira (Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Cook, 1963), Ch. 2, states that the altar was very carefully oriented, and it should not be changed. Moreover, in Halakha 4 Maimonides says that, of the three prophets that came with the returnees from exile, one gave testimony about the location of the altar and one about its dimensions. 30 Ritmeyer, “Locating the Original Temple Mount.” Benjamin Mazar, “The Temple Mount,” in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, ed. Jannet Amitai (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985), 463–68 and following him, Ritmeyer (ibid, and The Quest), attributed the original square to the Bira of Nehemiah – a fortified acropolis that had encompassed the temple itself, but this suggestion is doubtful. It is rather more plausible that the formation of the square took place under the Hasmoneans. See supra, Chapter II.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

27

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

VI. The Location of the Second Temple

117

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

this is the unit adopted.31 In any case, it is obvious that the square came later than the temple. Since it had to meet topographical constrains, it could not be set parallel to the temple walls. However, a simple geometrical analysis indicates that the diagonals of Ritmeyer’s square intersect approximately in the center of the Porch entrance,32 implying that the corners of the square were dictated by the location of the temple. Shifting the altar and the temple farther east relative to the prevailing location, leads to several results that deserve our attention: – The Rock under the Muslim Dome (lower than the level of the Priestly Court) is left outside the Temple and its court.33 – Adhering to the dimensions given in the Mishnah for the length of the courts (187 cubits for the Temple Court, and 135 cubits for the Women’s Court) brings the entire complex nearer to the eastern wall. But an accurate survey34 shows that there was still enough room to include all the elements that existed to the east of the altar, in their specified dimensions, within the Temple compound.35 Farther 31  However, it is quite possible that the Herodian temple and its courts were built according to a shorter cubit. But since at present I do not have at hand better archaeological data than that provided by Ritmeyer, I have used this unit. For other proposals for the length of the cubit see above, note 20. 32  Benny Arubas of the Hebrew University drew my attention to this point in the context of a graphical examination of the feasibility of the present proposal using AutoCad software. I am indebted to him. In the location given in Figs. VI.2 and I.1 here, there is a slight diversion between the center of the Porch entrance relative to the meeting point of the diagonals. This plan was not drawn by AutoCad. It is also not clear how precise the present map of the precinct is. And it is also doubtful whether absolute precision was possible with the measuring instruments used by the ancient architects, in light of the topographical constrains they had to overcome. There also is some uncertainty about the extent that the southern arm of the cistern had penetrated into the Water Gate and into the Gullah Chamber and about the actual interval between the E–W axis of the altar and the E–W axis of the temple. 33  The rock, with present elevation of 743.7 m a.s.l., was actually ca. 1.5 m underneath the floor level of the upper court; the Porch, the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies were 6 cubits higher still (see above, note 14). In spite of this, as mentioned above, Ritmeyer (“Locating the Original Temple Mount,” 38–40, 56–57; The Quest, 241–77), and as a matter of fact, all scholars who located the Holy of Holies over the rock, are of the opinion that the top of the rock was the stone called Shetiyah, which projected slightly above the floor of the Holy of Holies. They are wrong, of course. 34  This was not carried out in the sacred precinct but by means of AutoCad software using Wilson’s 1876 map, which was scanned. This project was carried out by Benny Arubas, to whom I am indebted. 35  The dimensions of the Women’s Court are 135 × ​135 cubits and of the Great Court, 187 × ​ 135 cubits. The courts of Israel and of the Priests were 11-cubit-wide strips, on the eastern side of the Great Court, to the east of the altar. Adopting a 52.5-cm cubit and a square shape for the Women’s Court leaves a horizontal distance of 9.5 m between the northeast corner of this court and the eastern wall of the Temple Mount. This permits enough width for the eastern portico. But it is reasonable to assume that the Women’s Court had a trapezoidal shape, so that its eastern wall ran parallel to the eastern wall of the Temple Mount, and that the length of 135 cubits was an average, or maximum, longitudinal dimension; this is the case in the illustration presented here as Figs. VI.2 and I.1. According to Ant. 15.418, the Women’s Court was not an original part

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

118

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

east, and at a lower level, was the eastern portico, attributed to King Solomon. This portico remained lower and narrower than the other porticos,36 so that the actual distance separating the eastern portico from the eastern gate of the Women’s Court was longer than the horizontal distance. It is reasonable to assume that a staircase was located there. It is suggested here that the actual shape of the Women’s Court was trapezoidal, rather than square.37 – We propose locating the altar in front of the Porch entrance, rather than farther south. Such a positioning will not cause a serious obstacle for circulation. “Between the Porch and the Altar was 22 cubits” (m. Mid. 3:6); the twelve grades located there had extended only 17 cubits east from the Porch, leaving a distance of 5 cubits between the lowest grade and the altar’s foundation38 – enough width to permit convenient circumnavigation of the altar.

2. The Court’s Gates and Chambers (Fig. IV.3, p. 84)

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The new proposal permits to set more precisely the location of some of the gates and chambers of the Temple Court. The southern arm of cistern no. 5, on the east, indicates the location of the Water Gate.39 The southern arm on the west – apparently a natural fissure that preceded the cutting of the long gallery and the arms extending from it on the east – marks the location of the Gullah Chamber.40 Placing the altar in front of the gate of the Porch, as proposed above, brings the southern arms of cistern no. 5 deep enough into the Water Gate and the Gullah Chamber, permitting the operation of water-wheels inside. Moreof the Herodian building project but rather a later addition. Adolf Büchler, “The Fore-Court of Women and the Brass Gate in the Temple of Jerusalem,” JQR 10 (1898): 706–18 had suggested that it was completed only in the years 44–48 ce. 36 In the time of Agrippa I (41–44 ce), who was appointed by Claudius to supervise the temple, when work was concluded, the people wanted to increase the height of this portico, 400 cubits long, to provide more work and prevent unemployment (Ant. 20.220–21). 37 A trapezoidal shape for this court was suggested also by Qoren (Ve-Asu Li Miqdash) because he oriented the façade of the temple due east, rather than parallel to the eastern wall of the precinct. 38  The rise of each stair was half a cubit. The flight of stairs, 6 cubits high, bridged the level of the court and the level of the sanctuary. As for their length: the 12 stairs were divided into 4 groups of three; each of the first 3 groups were 1 cubit, 1 cubit, and 3 cubits long (covering 1 + 1 + 3 = 5 cubits; 5 × ​3 =15 cubits); the uppermost group covered 1 cubit, 1 cubit, and 4 cubits, and according to R. Yehuda: 1 cubit, 1 cubit, and 5 cubits. However, the top stair covered partially, or fully, the thickness of the Porch wall, 5 cubits thick (m. Mid. 4:7), and thus the uppermost group extended just 2 cubits westward from the Porch wall, leaving an interval of 5 cubits between the flight of stairs and the altar: 15 + 2 = 17 cubits; 22 – 17 = 5 cubits. 39  For its ceiling, see supra, note 21. If the entire ceiling of this arm was of rock, it would have been impossible to operate a water wheel above. Nonetheless, the shape of this extension suggests that this was possible, at least above a part of it. For more on the Water Gate and the meaning of its name, see below. 40  See infra, Chapters VIII and IX.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

VI. The Location of the Second Temple

119

over, cistern no. 5 can be identified with the Gullah Cistern mentioned above.41 The small projection from the main corridor in the northwest corner of cistern no. 5 – apparently the northern tip of the natural fissure – might have served to collect the water of the drain that ran east–west, forming the southern space of the temple (m. Mid. 4:7: it drained the water from the temple roofs), apparently through a channel that has disappeared. These identifiers permit us to suggest more accurate relative locations for the other gates and chambers of the court, as will be detailed below. 2.1 The Gates (Fig. IV.1 and 2, p. 83)

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The Mishnah lists the gates and the chambers, without specifying their dimensions. Flavius Josephus gives dimensions. According to War 5.201–5, which pertains to the temple destroyed,42 one can conclude that all the gates (except the one leading from the Women’s Gate to the Israel Gate), were actually gate-houses of two openings measuring 15 × ​30 m, provided with doors. One opening faced into the Temple Court, the other faced out. The internal dimensions of each gate house, beyond the openings, were 30 × ​30 cubits. From the parallel passage in Ant. 15.418, describing the temple as it was built by Herod, we learn that the court gates on the north and on the south were of the “three-compartment type.”43 Compartment gates are also mentioned in the description of the courts of Ezekiel’s temple44 and in the Temple Scroll.45 Such were also the gates of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim: they had three pairs of compartments in 41  The reading Gullah (meaning water source, or a basin) Cistern is preferred over the reading Golah (meaning Diaspora, Exile) Cistern. As was mentioned above, the arm projecting into this chamber seems to be a natural karstic fissure (it is impossible to determine this without a close inspection). In the southern wall of the main gallery there is a sort of inset, so that its eastern third, from which the eastern arms project to the north and to the south, is slightly narrower. It can be cautiously suggested that this inset marks the southeast corner of the earlier cistern, namely, that the Hellenistic/Hasmonean phase consisted only of the karstic fissure and the western part of the corridor, up to this corner, and later it was extended east, connecting this part with the eastern arms, encircling three sides of the altar’s ramp,, bringing the long gallery to its present length. This extension was cut slightly narrower on the south. 42  Lee Israel Levine, “Josephus’ Description of the Jerusalem Temple: ‘War’, ‘Antiquities’, and other sources,” in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, eds. Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 233–36. It should be noted that not all the gates looked identical (see below). 43 Τριστοιχηοῦ πυλονᾶ, and there are various readings. Ralf Marcus (Loeb Classical Library edition, 459) translates: “three chambered gateways”; Avraham Schalit translates: “on the inside, on the south and on the north, there were triple gates, separated from each other” (Hebrew trans., 201). 44  Menaḥem Haran, “Ezekiel’s Temple,” in Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. 5 (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1968), 346–56 (Hebrew); idem, “The Plan of Ezekiel’s Temple,” in Olam Ha Thanakh: Ezekiel, eds. Menaḥem Haran et al. (Tel Aviv: Davidson – Itai, 1996), 204–18 (Hebrew). 45  Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 200–10: the inner court; 241–49: the middle court; 249–56: the outer court.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

120

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

the Persian phase, and two pairs of compartments in the Hellenistic phase.46 In the Jewish War 5.201–205, it is said that beyond the openings the gate-houses became wider, resembling two exedrae of two lofty columns each, each column twelve cubits in circumference. It seems reasonable to suggest that the two barrier walls separating the compartments on each wing of the gate-house of the earlier phase were later replaced by two columns, resembling the structure of the Triple Gate.47 How were the gates located relative to the Court? Did they project out, into the non-holy ground, or were they positioned differently? In Ezekiel’s temple, the two courts were provided with gates. Those of the outer court projected into the court, while those of the inner court, which is equivalent to the great court of the temple described in the Mishnah, projected outside of this court.48 The width of the court was 135 cubits. According to the given dimensions of the gates, it is reasonable to assume that most of the gates on the south and on the north projected outward, into the non-holy area. About the Water Gate it is said explicitly in a baraita of the Babylonian Talmud that it was located in non-holy ground.49 Only the House of the Hearth gate was located partially in the holy and partially in the profane, and apparently this was also the case of the Nitzotz Gate. As for the chambers to be discussed below, according to the Tosefta, Maʿaser Śeni 2:14–15 (ed. Zuckermendal, 89–90; ed. Lieberman, 254), no chamber was located entirely in the profane and open to the holy (as were most of the gates).50 46  Yizhak Magen, “Mount Gerizim–a Temple City,” Qadmoniot 120 (2001): 74–118 (Hebrew); idem, “The Temple of Yahveh on Mount Gerizim and in Jerusalem,” Eretz Israel 29 (Ephraim Stern Volume) (2009): 277–97 (Hebrew). The northern and the western gates to the Mt. Gerizim temple court were exposed during the excavations. 47  De Vogüé, Le temple de Jérusalem (reproduced in Ritmeyer, The Quest, 150), reconstructed only two columns in each gatehouse, while it is said that there were two exedrae, each having two columns; Schick, Die Stiftshütte, taf. 7 (see also Ritmeyer, ibid, 154) set four columns in the midst of each gate, lengthwise; Watson, “The Site of the Temple,” 47–60 (see also Ritmeyer 2006: 156) depicted the gates like exedrae open to the court, each having one pair deep inside, or two pairs of columns to the front. Busink (Vol. 2, 1064, fig. 242) set in the center of the southern and northern wings large gates, each having two exedrae of two columns. On either side of these central gates he placed simple gates, with no columns. Ehud Netzer (“The Form and Function of Courts and Gates that Surrounded the Second Temple,” Qadmoniot 38/130 [2006]: 97–106 [Hebrew]), placed two columns in the façade of each gate-house, but this is not what is said by Josephus. 48  In the Temple Scroll, three courts are mentioned. The gates of the inner court (with their inner dimensions of just 280 × ​280 cubits) and of the outer court, are mostly located within the court, with a smaller part extending outside, while the gates of the middle court (having inner dimensions of 480 × ​480 cubits) are located inside (Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 246–47). 49 B. Yoma 31a: “Our Rabbis taught: The high priest underwent five immersions and ten sanctifications on that day [of Atonement], all of them on holy ground, in the Parwah Cell, with the exception of the first, which took place on profane ground, on top of the Water Gate, lying at the side of his [private] cell.” 50  But the gates had two openings. See Saul Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshuṭah, 742–44, commentary on lines 75 and 85; all chambers must have been at least partially in the holy. In

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

VI. The Location of the Second Temple

121

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The Mishnah (Mid. 1:4) lists seven gates of the court: three on the north, three on the south, and one on the east.51 Further on, their names are given. Since the Water Gate occupied the easternmost end on the southern side, we can conclude that the listing is counterclockwise, first those on the south, from west to east: the Kindling Gate, the Firstlings/Offering Gate, and the Water Gate; next the one on the east – the Nikanor’s Gate; and last, those on the north, from east to west: the Nitzotz Gate, the Offering Gate, and the House of the Hearth. Thus, the House of the Hearth, which was a vast building, partially in the holy and partially in the profane, having two openings, one in the holy, the other in the non-holy, was located near the northwest corner of the Court, opposite the Holy of Holies, rather than farther east along the northern wall or near the northeastern corner, facing the altar and the slaughtering place to its north, as some scholars and commentators have suggested in their reconstructions.52 From its northwest corner, stairs led down to a passage leading to the Chamber of Immersion, apparently located nearby. According to our proposal, cistern no. 3, whose axiality is perpendicular to that of cistern no. 5, marks the site of the Chamber of Immersion.53 As was indicated above, on the north, the gates are listed from east to west, the easternmost being the Nitzotz Gate. We suggest locating it vis-à-vis the Water Gate. In the Nitzotz Gate (Gate of the Flame?), the two openings were at two different levels. A watch of priests was standing in the entrance leading from the court, and a watch of Levites was standing in the other entrance, leading to the ḥel (rampart). Farther west was the Offering Gate. The Salt Chamber was a storehouse, where “they put the salt for the offerings” (m. Mid. 5:3). It was apparently located farther to the west, but there is no certainty about its exact location. The southeastern chamber of the House of the Hearth belonged to Netzer’s reconstruction (“The Form and Function”), all the chambers are placed outside of the court (187 × ​135 cubits in dimensions), so that, though open to the sacred, all are located on nonsacred ground. This stands in contrast to the wording of the Tosefta. 51 In m. Mid. 2:6, 13 gates are mentioned, opposite which there were 13 prostrations: four on the south (and they are listed from west to east): the Upper Gate, Kindling Gate, Firstlings/ Offering Gate (See supra, Chapter IV), Water Gate; four on the north (and they are also listed from west to east): Jechania Gate, Offering Gate, Women’s Gate, Song Gate; three on the east: Nikanor’s Gate and its two wickets, on the right and on the left; and two on the west, which had no name. In this list, wickets and smaller openings that were not full-fledged gates were mentioned as well. The number corresponds to the 13 breaks in the soreg made by the Greek kings (m. Mid. 2:3), apparently on the site of openings that were broken through, but m. Mid. 2:6 speaks about openings of the court, not in the soreg. See Chapter IV. 52 Netzer (“The Form and Function”) placed it opposite the altar and Lifshitz, as well as Qoren, slightly farther west. Maimonides placed it in the middle of the northern wall, and thus also Ariel. Aibeschuetz placed it farther west, but not in the northwestern corner. 53  This is also Ritmeyer’s proposal (The Quest, 345). In this case, this cistern would have provided water to an immersion pool, the water of which could have been replaced. Tangential to it there must have been an otzar, which held undrawn water.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

122

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

“Them That Made the Shewbread,” and on the northeast the place where the sons of the Hasmoneans had hidden away the stones of the Altar that the Greek kings had defiled. Then came the space where a hearth was burning – a large, dome-shaped building, with two gates, one open to the Temple Court, to the holy ground, the second outside, to the non-holy ḥel (m. Mid. 1:7). Then came the western chambers of this gate-house: the Chamber of the Lamb-offerings (it might have been a kind of animal-pen),54 on the southwest, and on the northwest a spiral staircase by means of which the priests went down to the Chamber of Immersion. The southern chambers of this gate-house were located in the holy, the northern ones on profane ground (m. Mid. 1:6–8). Along the northern side of the court, there were thus eight architectural components: two regular gates (with a gate-house of 30 × ​30 cubits according to Flavius Josephus), two chambers served as workshops associated with slaughtering and rinsing of the offerings, one storehouse (the Salt Chamber), and the House of the Hearth – a complex with three components. This was the westernmost complex.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

2.2 The Chambers There are two contradicting versions pertaining to the names of the southern and northern court chambers (see infra, Chapter VIII). According to m. Mid. 5:3–4, “There were six chambers in the temple court, three to the north and three to the south. Those to the north were the Salt Chamber, the Parwah Chamber, and the Rinsing Chamber. . . . Those to the south were the Wood[en] Chamber, the Gullah Chamber, and the Chamber of Hewn Stone.” All extant manuscripts of the Mishnah (Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Kaufmann 50, p. 70; Parma, Biblioteca Palatina 3173 [de Rossi 138], pp. 146–47) give this order. In the printed text of the Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 19a, the order is reversed: “Six cells [i. e., chambers] were in the Temple Court, three to the south, three to the north. Those to the south were the Cell of the Salt, the Cell of Parwah, The Rinsing Cell. . . . The three to the north were: The Wood[en] Cell, the Exile [= Golah]55 Cell, and the Cell of Hewn Stone.” Here there is no consensus in all three extant manuscripts. While two of them (Vatican, Bibliotheca Apostolica, Ebr. 134, 079v and New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, Rab. 1623, 139v) give this order (which differs twice from the Mishnaic text, replacing north with south and south with north), in a third MS (British Library, Harley 5508), “north” is rendered twice: “Those to the north were the Cell of the Salt, the Cell of Parwah, the Rinsing Cell. . . . The three to the north were:  See the hypothetical reconstruction depicted in Ariel, The Holy Temple of Jerusalem, 70.  Thus Danby’s translation, but as was mentioned above, we should instead read Gullah, not Golah (Exile), and translate accordingly “water source” or “a basin.” Similarly in the next citation. 54

55

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

VI. The Location of the Second Temple

123

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

the Wood[en] Cell, the Exile [= Golah] Cell, and the Cell of Hewn Stone.” The passage in this MS is evidently corrupt, yet it differs just once from the Mishnaic text.56 Maimonides, in his Mishneh Torah, opted for the version found in the Babylonian Talmud and drew a sketch of the temple court in accord with this text, placing the Wood[en] Chamber, the Gullah Chamber, and the Chamber of Hewn Stone in the north, while the Salt Chamber – where they put the salt for the offerings, the Parwah Chamber, where they salted the hides of the animalofferings  – and the Rinsing Chamber  – where they rinsed the innards of the animal-offerings (m. Mid. 5:3),57 he had placed in the south, remote from the House of Slaughtering (in spite of the fact that all the three had functions related to the slaughtered offerings). This drawing of Maimonides was appended to his Commentary on the Mishnah, written in Arabic. Accordingly, some hand altered the first printed version of the Mishnah (Neapoli 1492) to meet his interpretation. Other Rabbinic commentators followed Maimonides in their drawings, including, more recently, R. Israel Lifshitz, the author of Tiferet Israel commentary (end of the 18th century to the early 19th century), and many others up to the most recent plans of R. Israel Ariel, the chair of the Tempe Institute, and R. Zalman Qoren, whose model is set under Wilson’s Arch, on the northern side of the Wailing Wall. However, since Cistern no. 5 is the only candidate that can be identified with the Gullah Cistern,58 as was indicated above, and the water-wheel operated there was located in the Gullah Chamber, this chamber must have been located on 56 I. Epstein, in his translation of the Babylonian Talmud, Seder Moʿed (1961, 81) had generally followed the text of the British Library (Harley 5508). But in his translation of the passage under consideration, given above, he put south instead of north, following the texts of the other manuscripts. 57  The commandment to wash in water the internal organs and the legs of the burnt offering is given in Lev 1:9, 13. In Solomon’s Temple, the ten bases (mechonoth) of brass served this purpose. Every brass base had four brazen wheels, which bore the lavers; they stood in two parallel rows to the right and the left of the sanctuary entrance. The lavers were four cubits in diameter and in height (1 Kgs 7:27–39; 2 Chr 4:6). The large dimensions indicate that moving them from one place to another was not easy. It was impossible to use them without climbing a ladder or using a similar device, unless there were some faucets that permitted a controlled flow (as suggested in the case of the Sea). But this is not mentioned in the Bible. For discussions, with further references, see supra, note 16. Cisterns 2, 34, and 37 on Wilson’s map are located not far from the Rinsing Chamber. But since they are located outside the court, to the north, priests were not permitted to get out, into the non-holy, in order to draw water from them. They could have been used to wash sacrificial animals by individuals, before being brought in to be slaughtered (but see Chapter V for the interpretation given to these water cisterns later in my study). As was mentioned above, water for all the needs of the Inner Court were provided by the Gullah Cistern. 58  Qoren (Ve-Asu Li Miqdash, 122–24) had suggested that Cistern no. 1 (= Cistern no. 31 of Gibson and Jacobson, Below the Temple Mount, 143–51) was the Gullah Cistern. It is ca. 40 m long and 7.3 m wide, with a masonry vaulted ceiling. Qoren identifies no cistern that could have served the laver.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

124

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

the southern side of the Temple Court. Hence, we should follow the text of the Mishnah rather than that of the Babylonian Talmud, pace Maimonides and all of the Rabbinic commentators that followed him. The Wood[en] Chamber and the Chamber of Hewn Stone were thus on the south. According to our proposal, the chambers were listed clockwise: those on the north, from west to east, and those on the south, from east to west. There is also internal evidence to suggest this order (see below). According to this order, the Wood[en] Chamber was the nearest to the Water Gate, to its west. As for its name: R. Eliezer ben Yaacob, who was still alive after the destruction of the temple and to whom the Mishnaic tractates Middot and Tamid are attributed, said: “I forgot what was its use.” We may thus conclude that its name was not derived from its function as storage space for wood for the altar but rather that it was an ancient chamber, built of wood – a Wooden Chamber, hence our rendition above. Abba Saul [b. Batnith] said: “It was the chamber of the High Priest.” It seems that it served for this purpose in earlier times, otherwise it would be difficult to understand how its function was forgotten. That this chamber of the High Priest was indeed located near the Water Gate we learn from another passage, speaking about an immersion pool (miqveh) for the high priest at the top of the Water Gate (b. Yoma 31a). The source of water for this miqveh was located within the gate.59 The location of the Gullah Chamber was already indicated above. Apparently, the Firstlings/Offering Gate was located to its east, between it and the Wooden Chamber, and to its west was the Kindling Gate. The Chamber of the Hewn Stone was located farther west, near the southwest corner of the court. A Rabbinic passage concludes that this Chamber was located in the southwest corner of the court, partially in holy ground and partially in the non-holy ground, as is indicated in the drawing (Fig. IV.3, p. 84). This as well was a vast building, located opposite the Holy of Holies, like the House of Hearth on the north, on the opposite side of the temple. This is the passage in question: “The Cell [= Chamber] of the Hewn Stone was [built] in the style of a large basilica. The count took place in the eastern side, with the elder sitting in the west, and the priests in that form of a spiral figure. . . . Abaye said: We can infer from this the Cell of Hewn Stone was [situated] half on holy ground, half on non-holy ground; that the Cell had two doors, 59  In m. Mid. 2:6 is written: “And why was it called the Water Gate? Because through it they brought in the flagon of water for the libation at the feast [of Tabernacles].” But it seems that, in addition to this rite, the name was derived from the cistern located therein, which had provided water for the miqveh on its roof (and for other needs). Aibeschuetz (Ha Bait Ha Sheni Be Tifarto, 149–50), who relies heavily on rabbinic commentators, also reaches a conclusion in this spirit. In this case, as well, a tangential otzar, which held un-drawn water, was obligatory, and the water could have been brought up in pipes (following a practice detailed in m. Miqw. 6:8; t. Miqw. 5:5 [the Hebrew term designating a pipe is silon]). But the roof was large enough (30 × ​30 cubits) to permit the collection of an adequate amount of rain-water in this miqveh.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

VI. The Location of the Second Temple

125

one opening on holy ground, the other opening on non-holy ground” (b. Yoma 25a, trans. I. Epstein; b. Yoma 24b).

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The Talmudic discussion is based on m. Maʿaser Śeni 3:8, and Tosefta, ibid. 2:13–15 (ed. Zuckermendal, 89–90; ed. Lieberman, 254).60 It is inferred from it that the place where the elders (which included also non-priests) were sitting was in the non-holy ground and on the west.61 Namely, this part of the chamber projected west of the court’s wall. This section also had a separate opening from the profane (perhaps the Upper Gate mentioned in m. Mid. 2:6 on the southern side). The lottery to choose the priests for service took place on the eastern side of the chamber, and an opening provided access there from the court – namely, from the holy.62 Other scholars have erroneously placed the Chamber of the Hewn Stone elsewhere. Qoren, adhering to Maimonides’ interpretation, placed it in the northwest corner of the court. Ritmeyer and Netzer, adhering to the Mishnaic text, but adopting an order the reverse of ours, placed it in the southeast corner. The regulations of Maʿaser Sheni bear upon the location of the gates and chambers both in the holy and in the profane grounds. The court’s wall separates between the holy and the non-holy, or profane, ground. There were chambers built in the holy and open to the non-holy; there were others that were built partially in the holy and partially in the non-holy, and open to the holy and to the non-holy, like the House of the Hearth, the Chamber of Hewn Stone, and the Nitzotz Gate. If we accept Josephus’s testimony, according to whom the gates had a huge gate-house measuring 30 × ​30 cubits, we must conclude that all the gates (except the House of the Hearth and the Nitzotz Gate), were located in the profane, and open to the holy and to the profane. There was not enough room to locate them entirely in the holy. “The Rinsing Chamber [was so named] because there they rinsed the innards of the animal-offerings” (m. Mid. 5:3). This task must have been carried out on tables similar to those provided for the place of slaughtering (m. Mid. 5:2). Therefore, it is suggested that this Rinsing Chamber was its northern part and that it was therefore located opposite the altar. On its northwestern corner there was a stair-tower (mesibbah) leading to the roof of the Parwah Chamber, where  See also Tosefta Ki-fshuṭa, 742–44.  According to the sages, only the non-priestly kings of the house of David were permitted to sit in the temple court: b. Yoma 21a. See also Maimonides Hilkhot beth Habehira 5:17, 1963, 36. 62 See the commentary of Rabbenu Ḥananel, cited by Aibeschuetz (Ha Bait Ha Sheni Be Tifarto, 251). But Aibeschuetz’s discussion and that of many commentators are wrong, adhering to b. Yoma 19a version (see infra, Chapter VIII), according to which the Chamber of the Hewn Stone was located on the northern side of the court, which is a mistake. See also the discussion in Qoren (Ve-Asu Li Miqdash, 117–21), who also maintains that it was on the north, but following R. Yosef Mitrani (1595) and R. David Pardo (1799) he concluded rightly that, if it is on the north, it should be in the northwest corner. 60 61

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

126

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

the place of immersion (miqveh) for the High Priest on the Day of Atonement was located. The Parwah Chamber was thus located near the northwestern corner of the Rinsing Chamber. In the Parwah Chamber, “they salted the hides of the animal-offerings” (m. Mid. 5:3). It was thus a simple storeroom for the salted hides, provided with some tables. The Salt Chamber also seems to have been a simple storeroom located farther west. It is suggested that both flanked a portico in front of the Offering Gate.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

3. Conclusions To sum up, cistern no. 5 on Wilson’s map – a prominent archaeological feature entirely preserved under the upper platform of the Temple Mount  – is a key for locating more precisely the temple according to the literary sources. From m. Tamid 1:4, we can infer that near the laver, located between the Porch and the altar ramp, there was a cistern that provided the laver with water by means of a mechanical device: a geared water wheel of the sakiya type. Cistern no. 5 is the only candidate that might have provided fresh water to the laver. The orientation of its long corridor preserves the orientation of the Temple and its Courts: 9.7° south of due east (instead of 6.18° north of due east according to the opinion that has generally prevailed). Locating the altar ramp between the northern arms of the cistern enables us to determine the location of the Temple quite precisely. The result is that the temple was standing more to the east relative to current opinions, so that the Rock under the Muslim Dome (which was below floor level during the Second Temple period, hidden from sight) was located to the west of the temple court. The southern arms of cistern no. 5 mark the locations of the Water Gate and of the Gullah Chamber. Locating the Water Gate enables us to suggest a relative location for all other gates. The Water Gate was thus located near the southeastern corner of the court. The Firstlings/Offering Gate63 was to its west, and the Kindling Gate farther west. On the north, the Nitzotz Gate faced the Water Gate, the House of the Hearth Gate was on the western end of this side, and in between was the northern Offering Gate. Cistern no. 3, whose axis is perpendicular to that of cistern no. 5, marks the location of the Chamber of Immersion, accessed by an underground passage and a stair-tower leading down from the House of the Hearth. The dimensions of the gate-houses of the court were 30 × ​30 cubits. As for their plan, according to Ant. (15.418) they were first triple-compartments gates, resembling those described by Ezekiel and in the Temple Scroll and those found in the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim. From the parallel description in the Jewish War (5.201–205), it can be concluded that in a later phase the  See Chapter IV.

63

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

VI. The Location of the Second Temple

127

barrier walls separating the compartments were replaced by two pairs of lofty columns. The Gate of the House of Hearth and the Nitzotz Gate must have had a different plan. The exact plan and shape of the chambers is a more intricate issue, deserving further study. However, none of the chambers was located entirely within profane ground, with openings to the holy. The exact location of the Gullah Chamber is marked by the southwestern arm of cistern no. 5. It indicates that this chamber was on the south, and hence the text of the Mishnah, not that of the Talmud, should be adopted for the names of the northern and southern chambers. The Wooden Chamber that served the High Priest was attached to the Water Gate. Since the Chamber of the Hewn Stone was on the south, the Rabbinic sources given above lead to the inevitable conclusion that it was located in the southwestern corner of the court, built partially in the holy and partially in the non-holy. As for the northern chambers, there are no precise indicators for their exact location (except the chambers in the House of the Hearth). According to their function, it is reasonable to assume that the Rinsing Chamber was part of the House of the Slaughtering, which extended from the altar to the north, and that the Parwah Chamber was attached to it on the west. They were thus adjacent to the Nitzotz Gate and adjacent to each other, since the ascent to the miqveh on the roof of Parwah Chamber was by means of a stair-tower (mesibbah) located in the Rinsing Chamber. The Salt Chamber was located farther west, relative to these two.64

 The proposal presented here was conceived while writing the chapter “538 bce–70 ce: The Second Temple,” published in Oleg Grabar and Benjamin Zeev Kedar (eds.), When Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade (Jerusalem and Austin, TX: Yad Yizhak BenZvi and University of Texas Press, 2009), 37–71. It was briefly presented in the framework of an authors’ colloquium, which took place in Jerusalem, Feb. 28–March 2, 2006. Since then, various aspects were presented in several conferences in Israel (“The Southern and Northern Chambers of the Second Temple,” paper read at the 17th conference for the Study of Judaea and Samaria, Ariel Academic College, June 21, 2007), USA (Brown University), Jordan (“Waterwheels at the Service of the Second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem,” lecture delivered at Cura Aquarum in Jordan, the 13th International Conference on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean Region, Petra–Amman, 31 March–9 April 2007 (see Chapter X), and Vienna (“The Second Temple Relocated: The Gates and Chambers of its Court,” paper read at the SBL International Meeting, Vienna, July 23, 2007). For a brief and essential Hebrew article, see Joseph Patrich, “The Location of the Second Temple: A New Proposal,” New Jerusalem Studies 12 (2006): 41–48 (Hebrew). For a detailed Hebrew version of the present article, see idem, “The Second Temple and Its Courts: A New Proposal about Their Location on the Temple Mount,” Eretz Israel 28 (2007; Teddy Kollek Memorial Volume): 173–83 (Hebrew). The English article has been modified and elaborated as a result of further research. I have received useful suggestions and comments from my colleagues Prof. Elḥanan Reiner and Mr. Benny Arubas. I am indebted to them for the time they spent discussing various issues with me.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

64

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved. Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:30:59.

VII. “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever”(Ps 44:24). On Jerusalem Temple Orientation, Dedication and the Sun Rise* 1. The Temple Dedication

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

In Psiqta Rabbati ii (Mizmor Shir Hanukkat HaBayit),1 the Rabbis counted seven Feasts of Dedication (Hanukkah): The dedication of the Creation of the world, the dedication of Moses [of the Mishkan/Tabernacle], the dedication of Solomon’s Temple, the dedication of the Second Temple, the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem by Nehemiah (Neh. 12:27), the dedication of Temple by the Hasmoneans, and the dedication of the World to come. My main concern here is with the Second Temple. It replaced the First Temple as the principal cultic place of the God of Israel, and this, in its turn, had replaced the Tabernacle that held the Ark of Covenant. In spite of this connection, each of them was inaugurated on a different date, according to Jewish tradition. The dates of dedication of the Tabernacle2 and of Solomon’s Temple3 are given in the * The original article was co-authored with Jonathan Devor, astronomer (Appendix B), and Roy Albag, architect (Appendix C). 1 Pesiqta Rabbati 5a, ed. Meir Ish-Shalom (Vienna, 1880). 2 According to the Bible, the Tabernacle was erected on the first day of the first month, which is Nisan (Exod 40:17). The Dedication of the altar by Moses (“Hanukkah of the princes”) lasted twelve days; on each day another prince of a tribe presented his sacrifice (Num 7:1–2, 11–88, KJV). In Complete Seder Olam Rabbah 7:2 (Moshe Yair Weinstock [ed.], [Jerusalem: Maʿayan HaChochma, 1956], 108–9; Chaim Milikowsky, Seder Olam. Critical Edition, 1. Commentary and Introduction [Jerusalem, 2013], 241), a tradition is presented, according to which from Adar 23 to the end of the month, throughout the seven days of miluim, the Tabernacle was erected and dismantled each day by Moses, and the process was concluded on Nisan 1. For a discussion of the erection of the Tabernacle on either Adar 23 or Nisan 1, see Chaim Milikowsky, Seder Olam. Critical Edition. 2. Commentary and Introduction (Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak BenZvi, 2013), 134–38. According to the Scholion to Megillat Taʻanit on Kislev 25, the Dedication of Moses lasted seven days. See Vered Noʻam, Megillat Taʻanit (Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak BenZvi, 2003), 103–4, 266–70 [Hebrew]. According to Psiqta Rabbati vi, 24a, the erection of the Tabernacle was completed on the twenty-fifth of Kislev, but this is not said in the Bible, and it seems that the reason is to match it with the Hasmoneans’ Hanukkah (infra). 3 The building of Solomon’s Temple had started on the fourth year of his reign, on the second of the second month (1 Kgs 3:2; 6:37; 2 Chron 3:2), which is Ziv (Iyar), 480 years after the Exodus of the Sons of Israel from Egypt (1 Kgs 6:1). Its inauguration occurred “in the month of Eitanim, in the Feast, which is the seventh month” (1 Kgs 8:1–2, 53; 2 Chron 5:1–3; 7:5): the month is Tishrei. The work had lasted for seven years and was completed in his eleventh regnal year (1 Kgs 6:38). According to 2 Chron 7:8–10, the inauguration feast continued for

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

130

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Bible. The historicity of the first is debated, and the chronology of Solomon’s reign is ambiguous. The problems associated with dating Solomon’s reign, the duration of the Temple construction and the dates of its beginning and conclusion (day and month), were discussed by Handy, who emphasized the lack of a firm chronological point of reference in the various literary sources addressing this building project – the Bible, the writings of Flavius Josephus and later Christian chronographers.4 The lack of coincidence with any extra-biblical historical event, either in Egypt, or in Mesopotamia, does not permit precise dating. Nadav Naʾaman has recently examined the chronological interrelation between Solomon and Hiram I, King of Tyre, concluding that neither the biblical narrative nor that of Flavius Josephus are trustworthy in this context.5 According to Handy’s summary, the earliest possible date for the accession of King Solomon to the throne is 973, and the latest possible date of his demise – 930 bce. Thus, if he indeed ruled for 40 years, the start of his reign would have been 969. But Handy is skeptical about these two dates as well. Yet, under the existing constraints, many scholars do specify specific years. Thus, according to the chronological table in the Biblical Encyclopedia,6 Solomon was anointed as a king already during the lifetime of his father David, in 970 bce, and his reign as sole ruler started following David’s death in 967 bce. The building of the Temple began in the fourth year of his reign. Hence, if the count begins from Solomon’s anointing under his father, the building of the Temple would have started immediately after King David’s death, and the completion of the Temple in the eleventh year of Solomon’s reign would have been 960 bce. If the seven days before Succoth, which was also celebrated for seven days (from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of Tishrei), and thereafter the eighth day of the feast (Shemini ʻAzereth) (Tishrei 22). On Tishrei 23 Solomon sent away each person to his place. According to 1 Kgs 8:55–56, the entire assembly – for the dedication feast and for Succoth – had lasted fourteen days (Shemini ʻAzereth is not mentioned there). In any case, the feast had started on Tishrei 7. However, according to 1 Kgs 6:38, the work of building the House was concluded in the month of Bul, which is the eighth month (Heshvan). The day of the month is not given. This contradicts the dating of the inauguration in the month of Eitanim (Tishrei), mentioned in the other sources, unless the inauguration was celebrated before the actual completion of the entire work. But perhaps we have here two contradicting traditions about the same event. The biblical tradition about Solomon’s seven-day dedication is also mentioned in the Scholion of Megillat Taʻanit, see Vered Noʻam, Megillat Taʻanit (Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2003), as well as in Genesis Rabbah 35:3, 332: “Rabbi Levi said: (…) do you not have seven days before the festival [for Solomon’s Hannukah] (…) and Israel was drinking, eating, rejoicing, and lighting lights for seven days?” (https://www.sefaria.org.il/Bereishit_Rabbah.35.3?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en ([last accessed 01. 01. 2​ 022]) (see Noʻam, Megillat Taʻanit, 270). 4  Lowell K. Handy, “On the Dating and Dates of Solomon’s Reign.” Pages 96–105 in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, ed. Lowell K. Handy (Leiden-New York-Köln: Brill, 1997). 5  Nadav Naʾaman, “Hiram of Tyre in the Book of Kings and in the Tyrian Records,” JNES 78 (2019): 75–85. 6  Shmuel Yeivin, “David,” Encyclopedia Miqraʾit. Vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialiq, 1973), 641–42 (Hebrew).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

VII. “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever”

131

count begins with King David’s death and the beginning of Solomon’s sole rule, the eleventh year would have been 957 bce. According to another publication,7 Solomon accession to the throne was in 970 bce. In an earlier publication of Oded,8 the reign of David extended between approximately 1004 and 965 bce, and that of Solomon between 965 and 928 bce. Hence, the eleventh year would have been 955 bce. As for the Second Temple, the dates of its founding and dedication are anchored in the regnal years of the Persian Achaemenid dynasty. The foundations of the Temple were laid on the twenty-fourth of the ninth month, which is Kislev (Hag 2:18).9 According to the book of Ezra (6:15, KJV), the building of Zerubbabel’s Temple was concluded “on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.” The dedication feast was celebrated by the children of Israel, the priests and the Levites and the rest of the children of the captivity with joy. One hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs and twelve he goats for a sin offering (‫ )חטאת‬for all Israel were sacrificed. The priests were set in their divisions and the Levites in their courses (Ezra 6:16–18).10 It has been suggested that the feast continued for seven days, although this is not said in the Bible.11 There is no evidence that this feast was celebrated in later years (similar to the dedication feast of the First Temple). Likewise, among other people of the ancient Orient – in Mesopotamia, Egypt  7 ʻOlam

HaMiqra (The Bible World), I Kings (Tel Aviv: Davidson – Itai, 1998), 12 (Hebrew).  Bustenai Oded, History of Eretz Israel, Israel and Judea (Jerusalem: Keter and Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 1984) (Hebrew).  9 The dedication of the altar preceded that of the Temple by fifteen years (Ezra 3:2). 10  The number of sacrificial animals seems to be exaggerated. Passover was celebrated somewhat later, in its time – the fourteenth of the first month, Nisan (Ezra 6:19). According to I Esdras 7:5, the inauguration feast, with plenty of sacrifices, was held on the twenty-third of Adar, in the sixth year of Darius, twenty days after the date given in the book of Ezra. The date given by Josephus, Ant. 11.107, is also Adar 23, but in the ninth year of Darius (and according to one manuscript – in the eleventh regnal year). See Ralf Marcus, Jewish Antiquities IX–XI (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), 365–56. Perhaps this date derived from a wish to make it correspond with the date of the erection of the Tabernacle – the 23rd of Adar, as given in Seder Olam Rabba (Weinstock ed., Complete Seder Olam Rabbah 7:2 [Jerusalem: Maʿayan HaChochma, 1956]; Chaim Milikowsky, Seder Olam. Critical Edition, Commentary and Introduction [Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2013]). In Against Apion I, 21.154, Josephus says that the construction of the Temple was completed in the second regnal year of Darius. I Esdras is a Hebrew composition preserved only in Greek and Latin. According to some scholars its composition predates that of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and according to others it is a compilation derived from the Bible (from 2 Chr and from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, with some additions). For an English translation see Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Write, A New English Translation of the Septuagint (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). On this book and its composition, see also Yaaqov Shalom Licht, “Ezra, The Apocryphal book of Ezra,” in Encyclopedia Miqrait. Vol. 6 (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1971), 151–55 (Hebrew). Flavius Josephus made use of it in his description of the Redemption. 11  Solomon Zeitlin, “Hanukkah: Its Origin and Its Significance,” JQR 29 (1938): 3. The duration of the “Hanukkah of Ezra” is not mentioned in the Scholion of Megillat Taʻanit.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

 8

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

132

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

and Iran, it was not customary to commemorate temple dedications each year.12 The case was different in the Roman world, but this is remote in time and place from our concern.13 Besides the reference in the book of Ezra (Ezra’s Hanukkah, ‫)חנוכת עזרה‬, a single echo of the original inauguration feast of the Returnees of Zion was preserved only in Psiqta Rabbati ii (Mizmor Shir Hanukkat HaBayit) mentioned above.14 The dedication feast of the Hasmoneans (Hanukkah) marked the purification of the altar and renovation of the sacrifices in an orderly manner: the renovation and inauguration of the altar and restoration of the standing temple. It was not a dedication of a new temple. The event took place on the 25th of the ninth month (Kislev), year 148 of the Seleucid era (164 bce), exactly 3 years after the altar had been defiled by the Greeks (1 Macc 4:36–57; 2 Macc 1:18; Ant. 12:323–325; and compare 1 Macc 1:54–59 with 1 Macc 4:52–54).15 The dedication lasted eight days.16 Judas Maccabeus ordered the Jews to mark it with a yearly celebration 12  I am indebted for these to Dr. Arlette David, Dr. Michael Shenkar and Prof. Uri Gabbay, with whom I consulted about these issues. 13  In the Roman world it was the custom to celebrate the consecration of temples and altars, with a yearly sacrifice. See Georg Wissowa, “Consecratio,” in Paulys Realencyklopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1900) iii, 2:896–902 and Georg Wissowa, “Dedicatio,” in Paulys Realencyklopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1901) iv, 1:2356–59; Georg Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer (München: Beck, 1912), 474ff (non vide); Michel Renee Salzman, On Roman time: The CodexCalendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 119, 185; Lesley Adkins & Roy A. Adkins, “Dedicatio,” in Dictionary of Roman Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 58. In the 354 ce Roman Calendar, the inauguration feasts of six temples of Rome are mentioned, each celebrated with chariot races in the circus (circenses): those of Heracles, Mars, Jupiter Quirinius, Castor and Pollux, Sallustius, Sol and Luna. See Salzman, On Roman time, 122. 14 Yoseph Tabory, Jewish Festivals in the time of the Mishnah and Talmud (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2000), 371 (Hebrew). As for Psalm 30:1: ‫שיר חנוכת הבית לדוד‬, if ‫ בית‬refers to temple rather than to the private house of David mentioned in 2 Sam 5:11; 7:1–2 (and this way is the KJV translation: “A Psalm and Song at the dedication of the house of David,” it is clear that the attribution to David is late, since no temple for the Lord of Israel was standing in his time and hence it could not be recited by him in any temple cult. In addition, the contents of this chapter are thanks to God for personal deliverance, rather than temple praises. It is a thanksgiving psalm that could be recited in the temple, but scholars maintain that ‫ שיר חנוכת הבית‬is a late interpolation. Yet there are scholars who maintain that ‫ חנוכת הבית‬refers to the First Temple, or to the Second Temple, and even to the dedication of the new altar by the Hasmoneans. According to Tractate Sophrim 18:3, this psalm should be recited in Hanukkah. See discussion in ʻOlam HaMiqra (The Bible World): Psalms. Vol. 1 (Tel Aviv: Davidson – Itai, 1998), 138 (Hebrew). I am indebted to Mrs. Ruth Clemens for raising this point. 15 Likewise, approximately, also Dan 12:11–12. However, according to 2 Macc 10:3, the restoration of the sacrifices occurred two years after their interruption; and see Daniel Schwartz’s comment to 2 Macc 10:3 (II Maccabees (Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2005), 206 (Hebrew). For an attempt to reconcile the information given in the books of Daniel and 2 Maccabees, see: Michael Segal, “Calculating the End: Inner-Danielic Chronological Developments,” VT 68 (2018): 287–96. 16 A somewhat similar event – the purification of the First Temple after its defilement by

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

VII. “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever”

133

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

for that same duration (2 Macc 10:8; Ant. 12.323–325). In year 169 of the Seleucid era (143/2 bce), in the time of Demetrius II, a letter was sent from the people of Judea and Jerusalem to the Jews in Egypt, announcing this feast. A second letter sent to them was fictitiously attributed to Judas Maccabeus (2 Macc 1:2– 10). The first letter let the Jews of Egypt know about the feast, asking them to celebrate it at the said dates as a belated feast of Tabernacles (Succoth) (2 Macc 1:10).17 In a later period – both in the time of the Second Temple and after its destruction – messengers were sent six times a year on behalf of the Sanhedrin to the Jews of the Diaspora, to announce the new moon. One of these yearly trips was connected with Kislev, on account of the festival of Hanukkah (Rosh HaShanah 1:3). Hence, over the course of years and already during the time of the Second Temple, this festival was adopted among the Jews of the Diaspora. But the first letter implies that at the beginning its inclusion in the Jewish festival calendar was not smoothly accepted by the Jews of Egypt, and it was presented as a belated Succoth in order to portray it as biblical.18 The exact date of the inauguration of Herod’s temple (Pl. I, p. XIII) is not preserved in any literary source. Herod set it to coincide with the festival of his ascension, “which they were accustomed to celebrate,” i. e., yearly, and “the fesKing Ahaz – took place in the days of Hezekiah. The purification of the entire temple – its Court and Porch – lasted 16 days. It occurred in the first month – Nisan. See 2 Chr 29:3, 17. This event, mentioned only in 2 Chr, might have been interpolated there for theological reasons rather than being a historical event. 17  2 Macc 1:1–10. The chronology given here pertaining to the First Letter follows Schwarz, who maintains that the manuscripts’ reading of the Seleucid year 148, given at the end of the letter, should be preferred, rather than 188 in other manuscripts, and understands this festival as the one established by Judas in 164 bce. According to Elias J. Bickerman, “A Jewish Festal Letter of 124 b.c.e. (2 Macc 1:1–9),” in Elias J. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History. A New Edition 1 (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2007), 408–31; Solomon Zeitlin, “Hanukkah: Its Origin and Its Significance,” JQR 29 (1938): 1–36; Jonathan A. Goldstein, II Maccabees. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York, Garden City: Doubleday,1983) 24–27, 138–39, as well as other scholars, the Seleucid date 188 (124 bce) should be preferred, and it refers to the year the letter was sent. They also maintain that the First Letter was preceded by a letter sent on behalf of Demetrius, the existence of which is implied in the First Letter. Goldstein designates this as Letter 0. The Second Letter of the Jews of Jerusalem to the Jews of Egypt (2 Macc 1:10–2:18), as noted above, is attributed fictitiously to Judas Maccabeus. According to Schwartz, it is contemporary with the First Letter, and both were written by the Jews of Jerusalem, were appended at the beginning of 2 Macc, and were dispatched together to the Jews of Egypt on 143/142 bce. See Daniel Schwartz, II Maccabees (Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2005), 14–9, 289–95; Appendix A: “Concerning the investigation of the Letters opening II Maccabees” (Hebrew). 18 Yosef Klausner, Israeli History: Studies in the History of Israel II (Jerusalem: Judaism and Humanity, 1924), 17; Solomon Zeitlin, “Hanukkah: Its Origin and Its Significance,” JQR 29 (1938): 22, n. 56. Could a suspicion that Judas was intending to obliterate this way the memory the earlier festival – “Ezra’s Hanukkah,” be another reason for the reservation expressed by the Jews of Egypt? As was indicated above, there is no evidence that that celebration was more than a one-time event.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

134

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

tival was a very glorious” (Ant. 15.421–423).19 There are scholars who hold the opinion that this celebration also coincided with the Hasmonean Hanukkah.20 But if this was the case, the overlap began with Herod’s ascension to the throne, years before the temple reconstruction was completed. Hence, it is more reasonable to assume that Herod planned the inauguration of the new building to coincide with the anniversary of his coronation; the exact date is not known. The inauguration was celebrated yearly, for political reasons, as long as Herod was alive; after his death, it passed into oblivion. The Hasmonean Hanukkah was set from its inception as a yearly festival with national and religious implications. The dedication of the altar on 25 Kislev was deliberately set exactly three years after its defilement by Antiochus Epiphanes. The Tabernacle was erected on 1 Nisan; the inauguration of Solomon’s Temple, seven days long, took place between the 7 and 14 Tishrei, close to Succoth. As noted above, both were one-time events. Their remembrance was preserved only in the literary sources. Why did the Returnees to Zion select the 3rd of Adar for their dedication rather than either of these dates, a decision that would have given their effort much symbolism? Was the date randomly decided, or was there a specific reason behind it? The first options seem to be inconceivable. The specific reason behind this decision is proposed below. As is well known, there are no architectural remains of either Solomon’s Temple, or of the Second Temple. Therefore, many scholars vacillated about their locations and orientations.21 Some years ago I presented a solution for these two problems, relying on the position of Water Cistern no. 5 in the upper plat19 Herod’s coronation, with no specific date, is labeled Dies Herodis in the Fifth Satyr of Persius Flaccus (34–62 ce). 20 Thus Moshe Benovitz, “Herod and Hanukkah,” Zion 68 (2003): 5–40. A chronological investigation does not corroborate this hypothesis. Flavius Josephus applies two eras for Herod’s regnal years. It would be reasonable to assume that with regard to his coronation, the official date would have been his nomination as king in the Roman Senate in 40 bce, on account of which he claimed authority as a ruler, rather than his actual seizure of power from the hands of the Hasmonean Antigonus in 37 bce. Benovitz is of this opinion, presenting convincing arguments. Herod set out to Rome hastily from Alexandria, after the sailing season was over, reaching Brundisium via Rhodes and from there rushing by land to Rome (Ant. 14.370– 380; War 1.271–281). The official sailing season ended on November 11 (Oded Tammuz, “Mare clausum? Sailing Seasons in the Mediterranean in Early Antiquity,” Mediterranean Historical Review 20 [2005]: 145–62, esp. 146, according to Vegetius, Epitome of military science 4.39.7 [ed. N. P. Milner (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1996), 146–47]). Sailing from Alexandria to Rhodes via Myra takes 7.5–10 days (Lionel Casson, “Speed under Sail of Ancient Ships,” Transactions of the American Philological Association 82 (1951): 136–48, Table 1 on 145–46). Hence, at the time of that year’s Hanukkah celebration in Jerusalem, Herod was still on the road. Benovitz (“Herod and Hanukkah, 7) concludes that the nomination in the Senate took place in December, but this fell after Hanukkah, since 25 Kislev in 40 bce corresponded to November 22 according to the Julian Calendar and to November 20 according to the Gregorian Calendar. Hence, Herod’s coronation date in Rome was not on Hanukkah. 21  By orientation we mean the azimuth of the axis of longitude of the Temple.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

VII. “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever”

135

form of the Temple Mount / Ḥaram al-Sharif (Figs VI.1 and 2, pp. 112, 115).22 The stairs leading down from the east, and their continuation northward against the cistern’s walls, are features that permit the attribution of the cistern to the Second Temple period. (The First Temple got its water from a huge laver and from ten brass basins [‫]מכונות‬, that were placed on either side of the Porch gate, not from a water cistern). According to my study, this water cistern is the Gullah cistern (m. ʿErub. 10:14; m. Mid. 5:4), which supplied water by means of a water wheel for the entire needs of the Priestly Court (‫)עזרה‬: drinking, washing, and flushing. It also provided water to the laver, located near the altar ramp (Mid. 3:6), by means of (perhaps a second) water wheel. The northeastern arms of the water cistern flanked the altar’s ramp. The longitudinal axis of the cistern ran parallel to that of the Temple. Hence, water cistern no. 5 points to the exact location of the altar ramp, and therefore, according to m. Middot (2:6–3:6), also to the location of the altar, the Temple, the Priestly Court, and the axis of symmetry of the entire complex (Fig. V.2, p. 99). The longitudinal axis of both, cistern and Temple, runs 9.7ᵒ south of due east; that is, its azimuth is 99.7ᵒ relative to the north.23 Additional evidence supporting this location is indicated by the Temple Scroll 31.10–33.13. The dimensions and location of the altar, the House of Utensils and the House of the Laver given in this passage, with their relative distances from one other and relative to the Temple, result in a precise location for the House of the Laver in the Temple Scroll relative to water cistern no. 5 (Fig. IX.2, p. 182).24 The surprising result is that the western arm of the water cistern, which resembles a natural, deep geological cleft, is the “pit (‫ )מחילה‬which extended downward into the land,” mentioned in the Temple Scroll 32.13–14. This pit drained the water of the Laver that was standing in the House of the Laver. Hence, this fact supports my conclusions regarding the location of the Temple, as well as its orientation parallel to the long axis of the water cistern. I am now able to offer a third piece of evidence, from an unexpected direction, to indicate that the location and the orientation suggested above are correct.

 See supra, Chapter VI.  This azimuth was measured on the PEF map of Ḥaram al-Sharif. The basic meridian of the PEF maps was set at Mar Elias monastery, located somewhat to the south of the Old City; and therefore near Jerusalem, the “Map North” overlaps “True North” – pointing to the North Pole. However, a certain discrepancy should be permitted due to lack of precision in marking the North on the 19th c. British map, in the drawing and orientation of the water cistern on that map, and in the manual measure of the azimuth on it. A possible deviation of few tenths of a degree in either direction cannot be excluded. 24 See infra, Chapter IX and for a detailed discussion of the Temple and its components in the various epochs during the Second Temple era, including references to the literary sources, see Joseph Patrich, “The Temple and its Mount: Location and Layout,” in The History of Jerusalem (Sefer Yerushalayim). The Second Temple Period (332 bce–70 ce). Vol. 1, eds. Ishaiah Gafni, Ronny Reich and Joshua Schwartz (Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2020), 263–326 (Hebrew).

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

22 23

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

136

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

2. The Orientation of the Temple and the Sunrise

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

As was mentioned above, the dedication of the Temple of the Returnees to Zion was on the 3rd of Adar, in the sixth year of King Darius I. It is reasonable to assume that the book of Ezra followed the Babylonian calendar, in which Adar was the twelfth month, and Nisan, the first. The Babylonian calendar, adopted by the Achaemenids, was a Lunar Calendar that was set to correspond to the Solar Calendar by adding a month seven times in a cycle of 19 years. Such an intercalation cycle had been practiced since the beginning of Darius’ reign.25 According to the University of Utrecht’s online digital calendar converter,26 the first year of Darius’ reign was 521/20 bce according to the Julian Calendar, and his sixth regnal year – 516/515 bce. It was not an intercalated year. The month of Adar fell within 515, and 3 Adar corresponded to 12 March 515. According to the digital calendar converter, this day would have been a Saturday.27 But in the Babylonian Calendar there was no division into weeks; the week was not a coherent time unit in this calendar. The week, emerging from the seven days of the Creation, is a biblical, Jewish concept.28 In addition, it should not be excluded that in that year the new moon of Adar was observed in Jerusalem one day later than in Babylon, as can be derived from the Babylonian astronomical inspections, due to problems in seeing the new moon appropriately. If such was the case, then the 3rd of Adar in Jerusalem fell on a Sunday, rather than on a Saturday.29 In any case, there is hardly a doubt that the dedication day would not have been set on a Sabbath in Jerusalem. In addition, a one-day difference between administrative texts 25  James C. VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time (London-New York: Routledge, 1998), 15; Sacha Stern, Calendars in Antiquity. Empires, States and Societies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 71–124, 169–78. According to Stern, at the end of the sixth century or the beginning of the fifth (the beginning of the Achaemenid period), under the influence of the Egyptian fixed calendar, the adoption of the Babylonian fixed calendar, and the establishment of the fixed Persian Zoroastrian calendar started to appear also in the Persian Empire. An intercalation cycle of nineteen years was also adopted then in the Babylonian Calendar. 26 https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/babylon/babycal_converter.htm (last accessed 01. 01. ​2022). This conversion application is based on the conversion tables published in Richard Anthony Parker and Waldo Herman Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, 626 b.c.–a.d. 4 (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1971). I am grateful to Dr. Yigal Bloch who was the first to draw my attention to this conversion application. 27 If the date of I Esdras (Apocryphal Ezra) is applied, the corresponding date would be April 1st, 515, which was a Friday. 28 Abraham J. Sachs and Hermann Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Diaries from 652 b.c. to 262 b.c. Vol. 1 (Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988), 13; Stern, Calendars, 6, n. 25. 29  I am grateful to Dr. Yigal Bloch for this suggestion. The day of the week is not mentioned in the book of Ezra; this information is derived from the digital application (and not from Parker and Duberstein’s Tables, on which this application is based), an outcome of a mathematical algorithm calculating back, following the Julian Calendar.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

VII. “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever”

137

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

and astronomical calendars is known to occur in the Babylonian Calendars.30 Hence, a one-day delay is possible; namely, that the 3rd of Adar in the book of Ezra fell on Sunday, March 13th, 515.31 Obviously, the Babylonian lunar calendar dates did not correspond every year to the same solar date. However, as indicated above, this dedication feast was a one-time event. The sunrise azimuth on 12 March 515 of the Julian Calendar was 98.582ᵒ or 98.575ᵒ relative to the True North.32 The time of sunrise was 6:19 in the morning, indicating the sun’s elevation of 3.258ᵒ above the horizon; namely – above the Mount of Olives. Nine minutes after sunrise the sun had reached an azimuth of 99.7ᵒ  – a reasonable gap of time for a sunrise religious ceremony. Hence, there is a full correspondence between the sunrise azimuth on the date of the dedication of the Temple – 3 Adar 515 bce – and the Temple’s orientation. An amazing result!33 It is hard to believe that this is just a coincidence. What was the reason of fixing the dedication of the Second Temple at the exact date and time when its façade was perpendicular to the rising sun? The Temple layout and its axis were determined already at the very beginning of the building program, taking into consideration the visible remains of Solomon’s Temple and the location of the 30  Stern, Calendars, 84–8. For astronomical tables for the period we are concerned with, see Sachs and Hunger, Astronomical Diaries. 31  According to another proposal, Darius’ reign had started in 522 bce. Thus Stern, Calendars, 102, 105. If such was the case, then his sixth regnal year was 517/6. According to the tables of Parker and Dubberstein (Babylonian Chronology, 103, Table 2.2) and Stern (Calendars, 108, Table 2.4), this was an intercalated year, in which II Adar was added. The 3rd of I Adar according to the tables corresponded to 21 February 516, which fell on a Sunday according to the conversion application; The 3rd of II Adar according to the tables corresponded to March 22, 516, which fell on a Monday according to the conversion application. However, the Book of Ezra only mentions Adar, not specifying I Adar or II Adar. According to Ḥaim Tadmor, “The Days of the Redemption,” in History of Eretz Israel. Israel and Judea in the Biblical Period, ed. Israel Ephʿal (Jerusalem: Keter and Yad Yizhak ben Zvi, 1984), 260–61 (Hebrew), two counts were applied for marking the beginning of Darius I’s reign. According to the practice in effect in Babylon and the satrapy “Beyond the River” (Aber Nahara), the first year of his reign started on the 14th of April 521 bce. But there was another count, according to which he had started to count his regnal years from the death of Cambyses, son of Cyrus, half a year earlier – in the Spring or Summer of 522, and not in the Spring of 521, when he triumphed over his rival to the throne, the legitimacy of whom he did not acknowledge. This second count was adopted in the Babylonian system, according to which the sixth regnal year of Darius was 516/5 bce (Tadmor, “The Days of the Redemption,” 263); the dedication of the Temple would thus have been on 12 March 515 bce (Tadmor, “The Days of the Redemption,” 264). This is the date adopted here. 32 Calculating in two different astronomical applications – Skyfield and HORIZONS (see Appendix B). 33 If we assume a one-day deviation between Babylon and Jerusalem, then the sunrise azimuth on March 13, 515 would have been 97.673°/122°.98 respectively; sunrise time would have been 6:17’/6:18’ respectively, and the azimuth of 99.7° would have been reached within ca. 12 minutes. The degree of uncertainty in calculating the azimuth is estimated to be +/− 0.01°, and in calculating the time, about 5 seconds. The HORIZONS application has NASA’s stamp and therefore it seems to be more precise than Skyfield (see Appendix B).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

138

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

altar. The daily scrutiny of the sun’s course (infra) enabled Temple officials to predict the exact day the sun would rise in the azimuth of the built Temple and to set the dedication date accordingly. A correspondence between temple orientation and the course of the sun was known also in the temples of Egypt,34 although there was not a uniform practice for the orientation of temples in antiquity. According to Magli, three different principal orientation patterns are encountered in Egypt, each prevailing in a different geographical region: The first pattern follows the meridians, an orientation that had prevailed in Saqqara (Memphis); the second follows the vernal solstice, and is associated with Thebes; the third, the inter-cardinal orientation, was common in Abydos. But even within each of these principal patterns one cannot speak about a single orientation. Wilkinson noted that the most prevalent orientation of the Egyptian temples was perpendicular to the course of the Nile, which flows, from south to north; therefore, an East–West orientation was very common. But the course of the Nile is not uniform throughout, and therefore there are also deviations from this prevailing orientation. Some temples followed a North–South axis, perpendicular to earlier temples (thus in Luxor and in Edfu). At times a solar orientation was preferred, or an orientation towards one of the principal stars, such as the Temple of Satet in Elephantine, oriented towards Sirius (Sothis).35 Hollis had maintained that the temples of different deities in Egypt were randomly oriented except for those consecrated to the Sun, which faced east, towards the rising sun. Such were the cases of the temples of Nyuserre of the fifth dynasty, Akhenaten’s temple of Aten at al-Amarna, and the Sun temple in Heliopolis.36 According to Hollis, this was also the case in the temples of Babylon (where the altar did not follow the axis of symmetry of the temples), such as the Esagil temple of Marduk in the city of Babylon (first millennium bce), which faced the rising sun in the summer; and the temple of Nabu in Borsippa, which faced the rising sun in the winter.37 But a more precise 34 See Richard H. Wilkinson, The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt (New York: Thames & Hudson, 2000), 38. 35  Giulio Magli, Architecture, Astronomy and Sacred Landscape in Ancient Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 18, 89; Wilkinson, Temples, 36–37. For the vast variability in the orientation of the Egyptian temples, see Juan Antonio Martin Belmonte, Mosalam Shaltout, and M. Fekri, “Astronomy, Landscape and Symbolism: A Study on the Orientations of Ancient Egyptian Temples” Pages 213–84 in Search of Cosmic Order. Selected Essays on Egyptian Archaeoastronomy, eds. Juan Antonio Martin Belmonte and Mosalam Shaltout (Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities Press, 2009). In their earlier studies, these researchers examined the orientation of some 400 temples from the Early Dynastic to the Roman period. I am grateful to Dr. Arlette David of the Hebrew University for her useful comments concerning the temples of Egypt. 36  Frederick J. Hollis, “The Sun-Cult and the Temple in Jerusalem.” Pages 96–98 in Myth and Ritual: Essays on the myth and ritual of the Hebrews in relation to the culture pattern of the ancient east, ed. Samuel H. Hooke (Oxford and London: Oxford University Press, 1933). 37 37 Hollis, “The Sun-Cult,” 98.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

VII. “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever”

139

examination indicates that on the one hand, facing the sun was not a feature of sun temples alone, and on the other hand, it did not apply to all temples.38 In the Greek world, as well, there was no single orientation common to all temples. Many temples of the Archaic period had a general eastern orientation, but there were also temples that were built on a general North–South axis.39 A more thorough examination of the temples of the Greek world from the Bronze through the Hellenistic Age, including those of Magna Graecia and Sicily, Lycia and Cyrenaica, indicates a large variance, with a slight preference for the east. Thus it was found, that only 58 % of the Greek temples faced the eastern horizon and in the Greek temples of Sicily, orienting the temple facades to the eastern horizon was preferable.40 In terms of the Jerusalem Temple of the Returnees to Zion, the daily Achaemenid custom of facing the rising sun in prayer and bowing to the sun is most remarkable. Xenophon (Cyropaedia 8.1.23) describes a liturgical ceremony in which Cyrus addressed the gods at daybreak. Such a practice was common in Zoroastrian rites. Herodotus (History 7.54) describes how Xerxes poured a libation and prayed to the Sun before crossing the Hellespont. It was an Iranian practice to face the rising sun (or any other source of light or fire) in prayer; a duty for all Zoroastrians.41 Did the Returnees set the dedication of the Temple on a day when its façade would be perpendicular to the rays of the rising sun, about half a year before the date of the dedication of Solomon’s Temple, out of respect to the Achaemenid authorities? It is quite possible that indeed such was the case. Darius, who had renewed the permit to resume the long-deferred building of the Jewish Temple, had also granted state funds of the satrapy Aber Nahara for building the Temple and for the daily provision of sacrificial animals – both young bullocks, rams, and lambs, for the burnt offerings, and wheat, salt, wine, and oil, in order that 38 I

am grateful to Prof. Uri Gabbay of the Hebrew University for this clarification.  See Birgitta Bergquist, The Archaic Greek Temenos: a study of structure and function (Lund: Greelup, 1967), 62–3; 72–80. According to Walter Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985), 92, n. 91, and 384, in Greek temples, when presenting their sacrifices on the altar, the worshipers would stand with their backs to the temple, their faces to the east, praying to the heavens. The opposite practice obtained in Roman temples. According to Vitruvius (De Architectura 4.5.1): “The temple and the statue which is in the shrine look towards the western quarter of the sky, so that those who come to the altar to sacrifice or make offerings may look towards the eastern Heaven and the image in the temple … for all altars of the gods should look to the east.” (Frank Granger, On Architecture, Volume I [London and Cambridge MS: Heineman and Harvard University Press, 1970], 230–31). 40 See García A. C. González and Juan Antonio Belmonte, “Sacred Architecture Orientation Across the Mediterranean: A Comparative Statistical Analysis,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 14 (2014): 95–113 with references to many other studies. 41  Albert De Jong, Traditions of the Magi. Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 366–67. I am indebted to Dr. Michael Shenkar of the Hebrew University for this most significant reference.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

39

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

140

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

the returnees should pray for the life of the king, and of his sons (Ezra 6:8–10). The fulfilment of the king’s orders was entrusted to the Persian governor of Aber Nahara, who was obliged to guarantee that the work would not be hindered by the adversaries of the Jews. The governor or his representative could interfere in the Temple affairs and in the nomination of the High Priest. Thus, under Artaxerxes III (358–338 bce), we hear about Bagoses, the strategos of the king, intervening in the internal controversy concerning the high priesthood, and even defiling the sanctuary by entering it. He imposed tribute upon the Jews – a fine of 50 drachms to be paid against every lamb for the daily sacrifice (Tamid). The punishment was in effect for seven years (Ant. 9.297–301). The practice of facing the rising sun occurred in the Jerusalem Temple already in First Temple times. In Ezek 8:16 we read of twenty-five people standing in the Inner Court, at the door of the Temple, between the Porch and the Altar – an area permitted for priests alone – “with their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east (KJV).” Ezekiel had condemned them as idolatrous, but in a later period, in Second Temple times (infra), facing the sun was conceived as an ancestral liturgical practice, not idolatry. There are many other sources, related to earlier times, about sun adoration in the First Temple, perceived by the prophets (and by scholars as well), as idolatry, but others could perceive it as an expression of admiration of the God of Israel as the creator of the Sun.42 The Second Temple faced east, as is attested by many literary sources: the Bible, the Letter of Aristeas, Flavius Josephus and rabbinic sources.43 But as it is well known, the sun rises each day in a different azimuth, and the definition of East is wide; it does not refer to an azimuth of 90ᵒ alone. An azimuth of 99.7ᵒ is also East, and as we have seen, there was a full match between the Temple’s orientation, and the azimuth of the sunrise in the day of its dedication. Could the Jews predict in advance the day in which the sun would rise in the specific azimuth of the Temple’s orientation? As a matter of fact, the daily rite (and the entire festivals calendar) in the Temple was based on a daily inspection 42 See, for example, Hollis, “The Sun-Cult.” According to Hollis, Solomon’s Temple faced the summit of the Mount of Olives, the holy Muslim rock marks the location of the Holy of Holies, and this layout had originated in an earlier cultic site for the Sun. His assumptions about the orientation of the Temple and the location of the Holy of Holies are wrong. See supra, Chapter VI, n. 2. However, his discussion about the lines of sight through the portals of the Sanctuary, the Porch, Nikanor’s Gate and the Corinthian Gate on the eastern side of the Women’s Court are of interest. It is noteworthy to mention that the azimuth of the summit of the Mount of Olives with respect to the Temple is ca. 16° north relative to due east. For expressions of sun adoration in early Israel see: Morton Smith, “Helios in Palestine,” Eretz Israel 16 (1982): 199–214, with references to earlier studies. See also Ofir Jacobson, On the Significance of the Sun Cult in the Universal Myths and in Ancient Religions, PhD diss. (University of Haifa, Israel, 2015), who gives on pages 334–51 a fine survey about expressions of the adoration of the sun in ancient Israel. 43  For references see supra, Chapter VI and Patrich, “The Temple and its Mount.”

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

VII. “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever”

141

of dawn and sunrise; hence, it would indeed have been possible to fix the dedication feast, in advance, on the day the sun would rise perpendicular to the Temple’s façade. Detailed information about study of the course of the rising sun is preserved in the Mishnah, in connection to the daily Tamid sacrifice, as it was practiced in the late Second Temple period.

3. The Daily Tamid Sacrifice and the Morning Rites in the Temple44

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The commandment for the Tamid sacrifice is biblical, but the timeframe specified is broad: “two lambs of the first year without blemish, day by day, for a continual burnt offering. The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer at even” (Num. 28:3–5, KJV, NJPS). As for the Tamid incense: “And Aaron shall burn thereon sweet incense every morning: when he dresseth the lamps, he shall burn incense upon it. And when Aaron lighteth the lamps at even, he shall burn incense upon it, a perpetual incense before the Lord throughout your generations” (Exod 30:7–8, KJV); “And they burn unto the Lord every morning and every evening burnt sacrifices and sweet incense: the shewbread also set they in order upon the pure table; and the candlestick of gold with the lamps thereof, to burn every evening: for we keep the charge of the Lord our God …” (2 Chr 13:11, KJV).45 The times given in the Mishnah are more specific: Tractate Tamid gives a detailed description of the daily rite, the Tamid sacrifice, at the end of Second Temple times. The ritual seems to have undergone a long evolution and crystallization, the stages of which are not known to us. At the end of the Second Temple the ritual of the morning sacrifice had started at about 44  Detailed information about the daily Temple rites and its structure are to be found in tractates Tamid and Middot of the Mishnah, as well as in other tractates. There are scholars who maintain that since the Mishnah was redacted many years after the destruction of the Temple, the information given there about the cult in the days it was still standing is not trustworthy. Many other scholars maintain that the information is authentic, and that it was compiled shortly after the destruction, in hope of its close restoration. At the same time, it is evident that each issue requires a critical approach to the given information. These two contradicting approaches are to be found in the two chapters on the Temple cult in the Second Temple period, in Sefer Yerushalaim (in Hebrew). While Shmuel Safrai (“The Ritual in the Second Temple,” in Sefer Yerushalaim. The Nature, History and Evolution of Jerusalem from its Earliest to our own Days, ed. Michael Avi-Yonah, [Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik and Dvir, 1956], 369–91 [Hebrew]), relies heavily on rabbinic sources, Joshua Schwartz (“Temple Ritual in the Second Temple Period,” in Gafni, Reich and Schwartz, The History of Jerusalem [Sefer Yerushalaim], 237–62), goes as far as to entirely ignore this rich and detailed resource, rather than attentively scrutinizing the phenomena and processes of evolution they describe. Saul Lieberman, Greek and Greekness (infra note 57), indicates how precious is the information imbedded in the rabbinic sources, and likewise many other scholars. I have sided with these scholars in my various publications on the Temple and its Mount. 45  See also Exod 29:38–42; 2 Kgs 16:15; Ezek 46:13–15; Neh 10:34.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

142

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

cockcrow, many hours before sunrise; the officiating priests slept the night before in the House of the Hearth with their consecrated garments under their heads,46 immersing themselves before the arrival of the superintendent to begin the daily lottery of priestly tasks. The superintendent did not always come at the same hour: “sometimes he comes at cockcrow, or near then, earlier or later” (1:2, trans. J. Neusner). The superintendent came knocking on the gate of the House of the Hearth on the outside, and they would open it. He summoned those who had already immersed, in order to hold the first lot, to select the priest who would take up the ashes from the Altar. Those priests who had immersed would exit from the House of the Hearth to the Priestly Court (ʿAzarah), where they were divided into two parties, each marching in the colonnade (‫ )אכסדרא‬by the light of a torch, inspecting the Court all around. One group turned to the east, the other started its walk westward, thereby surrounding the Temple. The two groups would meet on the east, at the place where the baked cakes were made (1:3( )‫)בית עושי חביתים‬, where those in charge of preparing the baked cakes left for their work. Τhe priest whose lot it was to take up the ashes from the altar made his way to the laver in the darkness, in the light of the altar fire, to wash his hands and feet. The laver was empty of water during the night, and in order to fill it the priest had to operate a water wheel (mechane). The noise of the turning wheel let the other priests know where he was and what was he doing. After cleansing his hands and feet, the officiating priest ascended the ramp to the top of the altar and cleared away the cinders and the ashes of the previous day, using a silver fire shovel. The other priests followed, cleansing their hands and feet with the water from the Laver; ascended the altar to arrange the wood for the Tamid of the coming day, and kindled the altar fire. When done, they descended and went, all together, to the Chamber of Hewn Stone. There, the superintendent held a second lot; this determined who would execute the act of slaughter; who would toss the blood on the Altar base; who would remove the ashes of the Inner Altar (the Golden Altar, in the Sanctuary); who would remove the ashes of the Menorah; and who would carry up the ramp the various limbs of the sacrificial animal, the fine flour, the cakes (considered to be the personal offering of the High Priest), and the wine.

46  Tamid 1:1: “They [the priests] did not sleep in the consecrated garments. But they spread them out, doubled them over, and lay them down under their heads, and cover themselves with their own clothes” (trans. Jacob Neusner). Namely, during their sleep, the garments in which the priests are to officiate in the coming day, are already with them. In the Temple Scroll a different situation is described. The dressing place there is the House of the Laver; it is there that the priests took off their daily dress and put on the holy garments, which were stored in cupboards there. It seems that this change was one of the reforms associated with the Hasmoneans. Therefore, the daily sacrificial rite (Tamid) described in the Mishnah, postdates the emergence of the Hasmoneans (the days of John Hyrcanus).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

VII. “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever”

143

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Then the priests went out of the chamber, in order to check if the time for carrying out the act of slaughter had come (m. Tamid 3:2).47 If dawn had come (and according to Matthias ben Samuel, if “the whole eastern horizon is light”), the lookout (‫)הרואה‬, i. e. – the priest whose duty it was to announce it from the inspection point on the top of the Nitzotz Gate – announced “Barqai,” namely, “It is daylight” (trans. J. Neusner).48 Only then did the appointed priests make their way to bring a lamb from the Lambs Chamber to the House of Slaughter, while others were taking silver and gold utensils out from the Chamber of Utensils, still under the torches’ light (3:4). At the same time those whose lot it was to serve the Inner Altar and the Menorah, took their utensils and two keys. The priest whose duty it was to open the Sanctuary gate went and opened the northern wicket, and thereafter, through the cell, arrived at the rear side of the great gate of the Sanctuary, and opened it. The slaughterer did not perform the act of the slaughter until he heard the sound of the great gate opening (Tamid 3:7). The two priests whose lot it was to serve the Inner Altar and the Menorah entered the Sanctuary through the Porch gate,49 performed their duties and went out. When the slaughtering was concluded, and the limbs to be offered on the altar had been put “on the lower half of the altar ramp, on the west side of it” (4:12, trans. J. Neusner) and been salted, all participants went back to the Chamber of Hewn Stone to recite the Shema and say blessings and other prayers (5:1).50 47  This Mishnah recurs also with regards of the daily cult of the Day of Atonement in Yoma 3:1. Before sunrise there were two moments with a gap of one hour and more: In the JT (Venice), Ber. 1:1, 2c (trans. H. W. Guggenheimer, 64–65) we read: Rebbi Hinnena (Rome MS) said: “From the appearance of the “ayelet ha-shachar” (Psalm 22) until the first rays of light in the East a man can walk four mil. From the first rays of light in the East until sunrise four mil. From where do we know that from the first rays of light in the East until sunrise there are four mil? Since it is written (Gen. 19:15) “about when the morning came etc.” And it is written (v. 23) “the sun rose over the land and Lot arrived at Zoär.” From Sodom to Zoär there are four mil. It is farther than that. Rebbi Zeira said: the angel was flattening the road before them. And from where do we know that from the appearance of “the morning hind” until the first rays of light at the East there are four mil?” About when, “when” compares one thing to another. 48  On the possible meaning of this acclamation see: E. Meir, “Barqai’: An Explanation of an unclear term”, Judea and Samaria Research Studies 17 (2008): 93–101 [Hebrew]. Meir suggests that this indicates one of two geographical markers; two sites marking the two borders of Judaea: the northern – Barqai (Anuathu Boraceus of Flavius Josephus, War III, 51), and the southern – Hebron; the meaning of the expression is that light had reached over the entire region of Jerusalem, or Judaea. Resolving this issue is not at our concern here. 49  This implies that the folded curtain (katapetasma), was folded up at the beginning of the daily ritual. Later in the day the curtain was lowered. It remained open only in holidays. Of course, when the curtain was down, the sun’s rays fell directly on it, and it blocked their penetration into the Sanctuary. On the Sanctuary curtain see: t. Sheq. 3:13 (ed. Lieberman); The Letter of Aristeas 86; Ant. 15.394; War 5.211–214. 50  For the significance of this cultic act in the Temple, in which most of the rite was held in silence, see: Israel Knohl, “Between Voice and Silence: The Relationship between Prayer and Temple Cult,” JBL 115 (1996): 17–30; 22–3.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

144

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Hence, all these acts had to come to their end before sunrise, since the dawn Shema had to be said prior to sunrise. According to Rambam: “When is the proper time [for the recitation of the Shema] during the day? The commandment is that one should start to read before sunrise in order to conclude and recite the last blessing with the sunrise. This measure [of time] is one-tenth of an hour before the sun rises” (trans. Eliyahu Touger).51 Thus, we see that the morning Tamid ritual was associated with a punctual scrutiny of the course of the sun. This started near cockcrow when it was still dark outside. The slaughtering priest did not begin the slaughter before dawn was announced by the acclamation “Barqai”; the limbs of the sacrificed lamb were arranged on the lower half of the altar ramp and Shema and other prayers were recited towards sunrise; only thereafter were these limbs brought up to the top of the altar platform. In addition, three trumpet blows before sunrise daily announced the opening of the gates of the great court (m. Sukkah 5:5). As was indicated above, there are many biblical references to the adoration of the sun during First Temple times, acts conceived by the prophets as idolatrous. Others could perceive such acts as expressions of adoration of the God of Israel, the Creator of the major lights. It is not at our concern here to enter into this issue. But did anything similar occurred also in the Second Temple period? And more specifically, did the officiating priests faced the rising sun in the morning rite? Prior to the Hasmoneans, when the High Priesthood was held by the House of Zadok,52 the priests were “awakening” the Lord every day; Yoḥanan the Hasmonean High Priest forbade this practice (m. Maʻaser Sheni 5:15; m. Sota 9:10). It is reasonable to assume that this psalm was said while facing east, toward the rising sun, presumably after reciting the Shema, which had to be concluded before sunrise, and before bringing the sacrificial limbs up the ramp to the altar of burnt offerings. The prevalent opinion in the Talmudic sources and among scholars is that a “wakeup” psalm verse was recited – specifically Ps. 44:23: “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever (KJV)” by the 51  And he adds: “One who is overhasty and recites the Shema of the morning prayers after dawn, even though he finishes before sunrise, fulfills his obligation. In extraordinary circumstances – e. g., one who rises early in order to travel – one may recite it at the outset from dawn.” Rambam, “Regulations for reciting Shema (The Laws of Kri’at Shema)” 1:11–12 (https:// www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912952/jewish/Kriat-Shema-Chapter-One.htm [last accessed 01. 01. ​2022]). In m. Ber. 1:2 we read: “From what time do they recite the Shema in the morning? From the hour that one can distinguish between [the colors] blue and white. R. Eliezer says, “between blue and green.” And one must complete it before sunrise” (tr. J. Neusner). 52 Their traditional office had come to an end already at the beginning of the time of the Hasmoneans. In 152 bce Jonathan was appointed High Priest by the Seleucid regime (1 Macc 10:18–20; Ant. 13.45–46). In 140 bce the High Priesthood of Simeon and his descendants was approved “at a great assembly of priests and people and chiefs of the nation and the elders of the land” (1 Macc 14:28, ed. Goldstein, 486; ed. Rappaport, 311–27). The decision was incised on bronze tablets set up on stone stelai located in a conspicuous place on Mount Zion – the Temple Mount, and its copies were placed in the treasury of the Temple (1 Macc 14:26).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

VII. “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever”

145

priests in the Temple, and not a longer psalm, which is not extant, that might had included this or a similar verse. In this context, it is noteworthy that a Hymn for the Creator is preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QPsa Creator),53 originating, so it seems, in a pre-Hasmonean, non-sectarian, liturgical hymn of praise.54 Its fourth verse (lines 11–12) praises God: “He separated light from darkness, established dawn with the knowledge of his heart”.55 This verse is fitting to be said at dawn. Psalm 44 calls for God’s salvation at times of disasters.56 The Rabbis maintained that Yoḥanan’s injunction had pertained to recitation of the entire chapter.57 Zeitlin as well opined that the prohibition pertained to the entire chapter; he held that it had been recited during the times of war against the Seleucids, and that following the great triumphs of the Hasmoneans, there was no longer any  James A. Sanders, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan IV: The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), 89–91: Hymn to the Creator. I am indebted to Prof. Esther Chazon of the Hebrew University for this reference. 54  Eileen M. Schuller, “Prayers and Psalms from the Pre-Maccabean Period,” DSD 13 (2006): 306–18. She maintains (312) that the occurrence of the name ‫ יהוה‬there indicates that it was not a sectarian psalm. But this divine name in the square script does occur also in sectarian compositions, such as Isaiah Pesher (4Q161–165: 4QpIsaa–e), and hence, this feature cannot serve as a sole criterion in this case. In other words, this psalm might have been sectarian. I am indebted to the anonymous referee for this comment. 55  Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. Vol 1 (Leiden – New York – Cologne: Brill, 1996), 309. 56  In verse 11 we read: “Thou hast given us like sheep appointed for meat; and hast scattered us among the heathen” (KJV), indicating that it was composed later than the exile. I am grateful to Prof. Israel Knohl for illuminating this point. He is of the opinion that this chapter was composed during the Persian period. In spite of this, many commentators tend to set this psalm in the time of Antiochus IV’s persecutions (167 bce), and the wars of the Maccabees. See Zeev Weisman, ʻOlam HaMiqra (The Bible World): Psalms 1 (Tel Aviv: Davidson – Itai, 1998), 121 (Hebrew). This psalm is set in the “Second Collection” – the “Elohistic” – of the Psalter, redacted already before the time of the Hasmoneans. See Nahum M. Serna, ʻOlam HaMiqra (The Bible World): Psalms 1 (Tel Aviv: Davidson – Itai, 1998), 21 (Hebrew). 57  Saul Lieberman, Tosefta, Sota XIII, 9 and trans. Jacob Neusner, 203: “The awakeners [M. Sota 9:10b] – these are the Levites who say on the platform, Rouse yourself! why do you sleep, O Lord (Ps. 44:23). Said to them (Rabban) Yoḥanan (ben Zakkai), “Now is there such a thing as sleep before him? And has it not already been said, Lo, the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps (Ps. 121:4). But so long as Israel is immersed in pain and the nations of the world are allowing in prosperity, as it were, Rouse yourself! why do you sleep.” See also b. Sota 48a; y. Maʻaser Sheni (Vilna), chapter 5; Sota, chapter 9, and commentaries about Psalms 121:4 “Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep” (KJV), but at times when Israel are at sorrow, and the other nations are calm, it was said (in Psalms 44), “Wake up why sleepth thee o’ Lord” (Esther Rabba [Vilna] 10, 1); Sifre on Esther Legend- Midrash Panim Aherim (trans. M. Buber), Version B, 6). According to the Tosefta and the Babylonian Talmud, the Levites were those who recited this verse every day in the morning. They are not named in the Jerusalem Talmud. There it is just written: “Those who had said …”. Lieberman maintains that such was the original version, and that the “Awakeners” were priests. See Saul Lieberman, Greek and Greekness in Israel. Studies in lifestyles in Eretz Israel during the Mishnah and Talmudic period (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1963), 255–56 (Hebrew).

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

53

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

146

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

reason to include this psalm in the Temple rite.58 Was this the real reason for the ban? The Rambam, in his commentary on the Mishnah, maintained that the ban had pertained to verse 24 alone; that the Awakeners were those Levites who said this verse each day when the song over the morning Tamid sacrifice was said, R. Yoḥanan silenced them and forbade them to say it, since it was as if they were ordering the Lord, and shouting at him, and that this was not an appropriate way to address the Creator. The Rambam did not associate the verse with any time of disaster. Lieberman likewise does not associate it with any concrete historical event. He maintains that the reason for the prohibition was avoidance of any similitude to an alien cult such as was practiced by the Egyptian priests, who cried each morning to their deity to “arise-up in peace” while opening the temple gates.59 The later injunction against prayer facing east emerged out of a similar reason.60 The year in which Yoḥanan the High Priest issued his bans is unknown.61 His religious reform touched upon a variety of aspects pertaining to the Temple cult. These include the transfer of the High Priest’s garments to his possession in the Baris palace (and perhaps also other modifications related to the robing of the priests, like moving the dressing room of the officiating priests from the House of the Laver, in the walls of which were set cabinets for clothing,62 to the House of the Hearth). It is also noteworthy that during his high priesthood, two red heifers were burnt, the ashes of which were mandatory for proper purification rites in the Temple (m. Parah 3:5). It seems that the expansion of the Temple Mount to be 500 × ​500 cubits, as well as its enclosure by porticos, also took place during his office, and that the expanded area needed thus to be purified.63 A mention of the practice of facing the rising sun in the Temple in ancient times is also preserved in other rabbinic sources. In m. Sukkah 5:4 we read: “Our 58 Solomon Zeitlin, “Johanan the High Priest Abrogations and Decrees,” in Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman, eds. Meir Ben Horin, Bernard D. Weinryb and Solomon Zeitlin (Leiden-Philadelphia: Brill, 1962), 569–79. 59  Lieberman, Greek and Greekness, 255–256. Smith, “Helios in Palestine,” conceived this practice as evidence of portraying God as the sun. In this psalm, there is not a single reference to this aspect of God, nor is there in the rabbinic sources given above. But if the prohibition was directed against this verse alone, detached from the entire psalm, as Rambam and Lieberman maintain, such an interpretation is possible. 60  B. Baba Batra 25a: “R. Shesheth also held that the Shechinah is in all places, because [when desiring to pray] he used to say to his attendant: Set me facing any way except the east. And this was not because the Shechinah is not there, but because the Minim prescribe turning to the east” (ed. Soncino). 61  If the First Letter to the Jews of Egypt in 124 bce pertaining to celebrating Hanukkah was sent in his days, as some scholars maintain, this date may serve as a chronological anchor for dating his other reforms in the Temple cult. 62  Temple Scroll 31.10–33.7. 63 Joseph Patrich and Marcos Edelcopp, “Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount,” RB 120 (2013): 321–61. See supra, Chapter II.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

VII. “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever”

147

fathers who were in this place turned with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east, and they worshipped the sun toward the east (Ezek 8:16). But as to us, our eyes are to the Lord” (trans. J. Neusner).64 This was said by the priests, two in number, at the beginning of the procession of the water libation that went out of the eastern gate to the Siloam, in the Intermediate Days (Ḥol HaMoed) of Succoth. The priests, holding trumpets, had started their walk already at the night of Simchat Beit HaShoeivah, after the cockcrow, marching facing east, while blowing trumpets, from the Great Court (ʿAzarah) through the Women’s Court, to its eastern gate. This phrase was uttered by them at sunrise, while they were turning their faces westward, to the Temple.65 From there they went to the Siloam spring to bring water for the libation ceremony, held on the altar of burnt offerings. It is a prevalent opinion that the verse “Our fathers who were in this place” refers to that same sentence in Ezek 8:16 mentioned above. Ezekiel conceived this practice as idolatry that infiltrated into the Temple cult on the eve of its destruction, while the Mishnah speaks about an ancestral practice that was changed. The Essenes, in their dwellings, faced the sun each morning before getting to their daily tasks: “Before the sun is up they utter no word on mundane matters, but offer to him certain prayers, which have been handed down from their forefathers, as though entreating him to rise (trans. Henry St. J. Thackeray).”66 That is, this was an ancestral custom. They also used a solar, rather than a lunar calendar.67 A similar practice of facing the rising sun is to be found in the words of Philo of Alexandria concerning the Therapeutai (De Vita Contemplativa § 27), in their lodging places: Twice each day they are accustomed to pray, at sunrise and at sunset. When the sun is rising, they ask for a “fine day,” by which they mean a really “fine day,” that their understanding be filled up with heavenly light, while in the setting of the sun they ask that the soul be completely relieved of the crowd of the senses and objects of sense, coming to be in her own council and court to apprehend truth.  See also b. Sukkah 51b; y. Sukkah 54d.  M. Sukkah 5:4: “And two priests stood at the upper gate which goes down from the Israelites’ court to the women’s court, with two trumpets in their hands. [When] the cock crowed, they sounded a sustained [blast], a quavering [tone], and a sustained [blast] on the shofar. [When] they got to the tenth step, they sounded a sustained [blast], a quavering [tone], and a sustained blast on the shofar. [When] they reached the courtyard, they sounded a sustained [blast], a quavering [tone], and a sustained blast on the shofar. They went on sounding the shofar in a sustained blast until they reached the gate which leads out to the east. [When] they reached the gate which leads out toward the east, they turned around toward the west, and they said …” (trans. J. Neusner). On Simchat Beth HaShoeva and the libation of water, see Tabory, Jewish Festivals, 194–200. 66  War 2.128 in Henry St. J. Thackeray, The Jewish War, Volume I: Books 1–2 (London and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 370–73. 67  The Essenes also used to hide their performance of bodily functions from the sight of the sun. 64

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

65

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

148

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

And at the end of the feast held among them every seven weeks, at dawn, “(§ 89) they stand with their eyes and their whole bodies facing the east, when they see the sun rising, lifting up their hands to heaven they pray for a fine day and truth and clear-sightedness of reasoning.”68 It thus transpires that a daily watch over the rising sun was an essential component in the Temple rite as well as in the personal prayer of at least some non-Temple groups, and there were times when facing the rising sun was the normal procedure in the Temple cult.

4. Conclusions

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The orientation of the Temple according to the position of water cistern no. 5–99.7ᵒ (Fig. V.1, p. 99) was in accord with the azimuth of the sunrise at the day the Temple was dedicated by the returnees in the Achaemenid period. As indicated above, the Sanctuary doors opened every morning prior to sunrise, and its curtain was folded up. Hence, at the said time the rising sun was lighting the entire length of the House, from the Porch gate, through the Sanctuary gate down to the curtain of the Holy of Holies (see Appendix C, the purpose of which is didactic).69 This cannot be just a coincidence. It rather seems that this was the very reason for setting the inauguration on the date when they knew, according to their daily inspections, that the sun would rise in the same azimuth as that of the longitudinal axis of the Temple. This date was not determined casually. The inauguration celebration was set on a day of no particular astronomical or prior religious significance. It is not at our concern here to discuss the religious significance of this fact. It may reflect Achaemenid influence. However, this unexpected result provides another piece of evidence for the claim that water cistern no. 5 truly preserves the orientation and location of the Temple.70 68 De Vita Contemplativa 27, 89 in Joan E. Taylor and David E. Hay, Philo of Alexandria: On the Contemplative Life. Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 79, 89. God was conceived by them as the spiritual Sun. See Leges I, 279; Virtues 164. 69  The Altar, 10 cubits high and 22 cubits distant from the Porch façade, was not an obstacle to the sightline of human eyes at a height of 1.6 m above the Temple floor, beholding the rising sun, standing either at the Porch entrance, or at the Sanctuary entrance. See Fig. VII.1. The sightline of a person standing at the Porch entrance falls on the Sanctuary floor 5.25 m away from the curtain of the Holy of Holies. The sightline of a person standing at the Sanctuary entrance falls upon the curtain some 20 cm above the floor. 70 Many colleagues were consulted on a variety of topics while writing this paper: Mr. Ram Avizur concerning sunrise azimuth; Dr. Leah Di Segni about calendar issues and the dedication of temples; Prof. Reḥav Rubin and Dr. Benjamin Arubas concerning True North, Magnetic North and Map North; Dr. Michael Shenkar, Dr. Arlette David and Prof. Uri Gabbay, concerning the customs of other peoples and religions – Persians, Egyptians and Mesopotamians – in relation to temple orientation and temple inauguration. The excellent PhD dissertation of Dr.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

VII. “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever”

149

5. Appendix A: Sunrise Azimuth and Temple Light – Data and Results 5.1 Data – The date the Temple of the Returnees to Zion was dedicated – Adar 3rd, the sixth regnal year of Darius I, corresponds to March 12th 515 bce according to the Julian Calendar. – Azimuth of Temple orientation according to water cistern no. 5: 99.7ᵒ. – Coordinates of the Sanctuary portal in the New Israeli Grid (ITM): Latitude – 631.681ᵒ; Longitude  – 222.436ᵒ; in WGS84 Grid: Latitude  – 31.7781ᵒ; Longitude – 35.2360ᵒ. – Temple floor elevation: 746 m a.s.l.; top of the Mount of Olives in the said azimuth: 792.57 m a.s.l. – Distance between the Mount of Olives and the curtain of the Holy of Holies: 817.97 m; elevations difference: 46.57 m. – Geometric elevation angle of the rising sun: 3.258ᵒ; astronomical elevation angle of the rising sun: 2.765°. 5.2 Results

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

See Table in Appendix B. Lines 1–4 relate to the date the Temple of the Returnees was inaugurated, on the 3rd of Adar 515 bce. Since according to the digital application for coordinating between Babylonian and Julian calendar dates, this was a Saturday (Sabbath), we have checked the sunrise results for the following day as well, although it is quite plausible that Saturday in Babylon was actually Sunday in Jerusalem. The Table indicates that there is an excellent match between the sunrise azimuths in the two astronomical applications applied: Skyfield and HORIZONS. In the said dates the sun had reached the azimuth of 99.7ᵒ just ca. 9 minutes after sunrise – an appropriate time interval for a sunrise ceremony. These results are astonishing in their precision. Lines 5 and 6 indicate that in year 515 bce, the sunrise azimuth on the 7th Tishrei was pretty remote from the Temple’s orientation – 99.7ᵒ.

Ofir Jacobson (On the Significance of the Sun Cult), was also in front of my eyes. For historical issues I consulted Prof. Daniel Schwartz and Prof. Israel Lee Levine, and concerning the Temple cult, Prof. Israel Knohl. I received useful comments and advice concerning the Babylonian calendar from Dr. Yigal Bloch and Dr. Eshbal Ratson, a member of the editorial board of the Hebrew version of this article, and from the anonymous readers of a previous version of this Hebrew article. My thanks are extended to them all. I also owe much to my co-authors – Dr. Jonathan Devor, astronomer, and architect Roy Albag, for their assistance in calculating sunrise times and azimuths, and assessing sun lighting in the Temple. See Appendixes B and C. And last and not least, to Mrs. Ruth Clemens, for style editing this paper.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

150

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

As for lines 7–18, since there is no agreement among scholars as to the year Solomon’s Temple was inaugurated, three proposed years were addressed: 960, 957 and 955 bce. However, synchronizing tables for the lunar and Julian calendars for these remote years do not exist, and matching dates cannot be configured. Hence, it is impossible to calculate the Julian date that would have corresponded to the 7th of Tishrei in any of these years. But since the Tishrei holy days always fall in the range of the months September–October, we found it appropriate to check on which dates in these three years the sun would have risen at an approximate azimuth of 99.7ᵒ within the range of these months. The results indicate that sunrise occurred slightly before reaching this azimuth on Oct. 18th 960 bce, Oct. 18th 957 bce and on Oct. 17th 955 bce. Did the 7th of Tishrei ever fall on one of these days? This was checked for both Julian and Gregorian calendars in the present era, for the years from 2020 backward; we found that for every nineteen-year cycle,71 the 7th of Tishrei never occurs later than 10th October in the Gregorian calendar (and on this date just once during the cycle), or later than the end of September according to the Julian calendar; never in October. Hence, it seems that if the orientation of the First Temple was the same as that of the Second Temple, then on the date of its inauguration – 7th Tishrei, the sun never rose in an approximate azimuth of 99.7ᵒ. The day Solomon’s Temple was inaugurated was deliberately set in connection with the festival of Tabernacles (Succoth); it had no association with the azimuth of the rising sun. Another possibility is that there was some deviation between the orientation of the two Temples, and hence – the orientation of Solomon’s Temple is not known.

6. Appendix B: Sunrise Times (Dr. Jonathan Devor, astronomer)

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

6.1 Introduction Sunrise time varies from day to day throughout the year. On some days it is early and on other days it is late, and it is this timing that determines the length of the day and night. The shortest day of the year, generally around December 21st, is the winter solstice; the longest day, around June 21st, is the summer solstice. The dates when the day and night are of equal length, generally around March 20th and September 23rd, are the equinoxes. When calculating the times of sunrise and sunset, to a good approximation, one can simply copy the times from previous years, since it is nearly cyclical. However, if very accurate times are required, or times distant in the future or in the past, one must take into account astronomical effects that cause deviations from this cycle. Some of these deviations are transient, for example atmospheric refraction, stellar aberration, the light time 71  Every nineteen years the lunar year and the solar year come into synchronization, so that every nineteen years lunar and solar dates coincide.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

VII. “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever”

151

effect, and gravitational deflection. Some of the deviations accumulate over time, and therefore have a long-term effect. Such are, for example, changes in the angle and tilt of the Earth’s axis of rotation, and the deceleration of the Earth’s speed of rotation. These latter phenomena are very slow, but being accumulative, their effect can become dominant over thousands of years. In the computational models we have used for this article, all the aforementioned effects have been taken into consideration; however, three of them are dominant, and they will be described in more detail. The dominant effects are the optical refraction of the atmosphere, the slowing down of the Earth’s rotation, and changes in Earth’s axis of rotation.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

6.2 Atmospheric Refraction The atmosphere acts as a lens and curves the Sun rays in such a way that the Sun looks to the beholder a little higher in the sky than it really is. When the Sun is at the zenith (i. e., directly overhead) there is no refraction, but as the Sun approaches the horizon, the refraction angle increases. Thus, both at sunrise and sunset, the Sun is physically below the horizon. Therefore, the atmospheric refraction causes the moment of the sunrise to occur a few minutes earlier, and the sunset to be delayed by few minutes, compared to how they would have been with no atmosphere. In this article we will be specifically interested in the exact time when the Sun is seen above the Mount of Olives by a beholder standing at the Temple entrance. The topographic data dictates an apparent elevation angle of 3.258° above the horizon. If we subtract the effect of the atmospheric refraction, we get that the astronomical elevation angle is slightly lower than that, i. e. – still below the mountain ridge. Two models were used for calculating the atmospheric refraction. One is Bennett’s empirical model,72 and the other is the standard atmospheric model of NASA. According to Bennett’s model, the sunrise atmospheric refraction described above is expected to be 0.2263°, while the NASA model predicts a slightly larger refraction of 0.2395°. The difference between these two models translates to a time difference of about 3 seconds when calculating the moment of the sunrise. 6.3 Rotational Deceleration The motion of the tides brings about currents in the oceans, and these currents cause friction both within the water and between the water and the shore, thus causing a small but consistent conversion of kinetic energy into heat. This 72  George G. Bennett, “Calculating Astronomical Refract in Navigation,” Journal of Navigation 35 (1982): 255–59.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

152

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

energy loss very gradually slows down the Earth’s rotation. Indeed, there is observational evidence73 that 300 million years ago, in the Paleozoic Era, Earth spun significantly faster, having only 22.5 hour per day and 390 days per year. The incremental lengthening of the day is slow – just about 22 microseconds each year. However, this small difference will accumulate to an absolute offset of more than 7 hours in 2500 years. Needless to say, people who lived in the past did not notice this offset, since they calibrated their clocks to their local daynight cycle, and any deviations were far too small for them to detect. However, when we are making calendar calculation relative to our modern day-night cycle, this time offset must be taken into account. 6.4 Changes in Earth’s Axis of Rotation Earth acts like a giant spinning pot that rotates on its axis. And like a spinning pot, Earth’s axis of rotation wobbles due to external and internal forces. The external forces are dominated by the gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon on the ellipsoidal shape of Earth, while the internal forces are due to inhomogeneous flows within Earth’s mantle and core (the core flows being also responsible for the magnetic field). The external forces are well understood and can be computed accurately, in contrast to the internal forces that are far more complex and unpredictable. The motion of Earth’s axis due to these forces is generally modeled as having two parts: precession and nutation. The precession motion is a rotation around an axis perpendicular to the ecliptic plane, at a rate of about 0.01396 degrees per year. In other words, the period of a precession cycle is approximately 25,788 years. The nutation is a small sinusoidal deviation from the circular motion of the precession and has a period of about 18.61 years.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

6.5 Determining Time Defining a standard clock for use in astronomical calculations of ancient times is a non-trivial task. This is because the cumulative slowdown of the rotation of Earth over thousands of years is not negligible. Therefore, we must have one of the following: a clock that does not match the position of the Sun in the sky, changing the definition of the second/minute/hour, or varying the number of hours in the day. The generally accepted choice, which we have adopted as well, is the latter. In other words, since Earth’s rotation was faster in the past, we set each day as having slightly less than 24 hours, though the exact number varies over time. This is effectively an inverse of the modern leap second mechanism and is based on a long-term model of Earth deceleration rate. Specifically, we 73  George E. Williams, “Geological Limitations on the Precambrian History of Earth and Moon Rotation Track,” Reviews on Geophysics 38 (2000): 37–59.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

VII. “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever”

153

use the universal time standard known as UT1. The UT1 standard is commonly applied to all dates prior to 1962. Later dates use the UTC standard, whereby leap seconds are added as needed, following ultra-precise atomic clock measurements of Earth’s rotation.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

6.6 Analysis We begin our calculation by assuming that the observer is located at the Temple entrance, whose coordinates are: North 31° 46’ 41.2”, East 35° 14’ 9.6” in the WGS84 geodetic system (in decimal notation: N 31.7781, E 35.2360). We also set a sunrise angle (apparent elevation) of 3.258 degrees above the horizon. This angle is determined by the fact that first light occurs as the Sun is seen rising over the Mount of Olives. Next, we determine the radius of the solar disk at the time of observation. This is needed because the location of the Sun describes the center of the solar disk, while the moment of the sunrise (first light) is defined as the moment where the edge of the solar disk is first seen. Therefore, a larger solar disk would prompt an earlier sunrise. The radius of the solar disk, as it appears on Earth, varies from about 0.2621° to 0.2711°, because Earth’s orbit is slightly elliptical (eccentric). The solar disk is largest when Earth reaches its closest point to the Sun (perihelion) and is smallest when Earth is at its farthest point from the Sun (aphelion). This phenomenon is automatically taken into account by our Skyfield-based script. However, when using the HORIZONS website, we fix the disk size to the middle of its range: 0.2666°. This inaccuracy translates to a sunrise time error of about one second. Finally, we use these parameters to determine the observed time and azimuth of the Sun’s first light, as well as its subsequent path across the sky. We determine the time according to the UT1 standard, with an additional two-hour shift to match the modern time zone (UT1 + 2). We performed the analysis on two separate programs, which calculated all the physical phenomena described above, though both programs used the same raw NASA data. This duplication was done both to verify the correctness of the analysis and to quantify the result error. The two programs used were: 6.6.1 Skyfield This is a Python software library74 written by Brandon Rhodes, which translates spatial locations in space into the locations in the sky that they would be seen by an observer on Earth. Specifically, the library reads a database of positions of various celestial bodies over a period of time (ephemerides) and uses that to create a local map of the sky at a given place and time. NASA’s Jet Propulsion  https://rhodesmill.org/skyfield (last accessed 01. 01. 2​ 022).

74

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

154

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Laboratory (JPL) created several such databases,75 of which we used “de431,” since it contains accurate location data dating back to 13,000 bce.76 We wrote a Python script77 that runs the Skyfield library and uses it to track the historical locations of the Sun in the sky. Furthermore, the script both calculates the apparent size of the Sun’s disk and corrects for the atmospheric refraction using Bennett’s formula. 6.6.2 HORIZONS HORIZONS is the name of a website78 created by NASA JPL, which performs astronomical calculations like those of Skyfield. The site is convenient and reliable but is limited in its capabilities. The site can correct for atmospheric refraction using a built-in model that is similar but not identical to Bennett’s formula. It should be noted that when entering dates occurring after October 15, 1582 ce the site assumes a Gregorian calendar, and for earlier dates it assumes a Julian proleptic calendar.79 6.7 Results The following table lists the results of our calculations for time and azimuth of the sunrise on various dates of interest, based on the Skyfield software and the HORIZONS website. Following a comparison of these results, we estimate an azimuth angle uncertainty of 0.01 degrees, and a time uncertainty of 5 seconds.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Table of Results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Hebrew Date

Julian date

Astronomical Sunrise time Sunrise Application (UT1 + 2) azimuth

Time of sun azimuth at 99.7ᵒ

Adar 3rd* Adar 3rd* Adar 4th Adar 4th Tishrei 7th Tishrei 7th ?

515 bce ,12 March 12 March, 515 bce 13 March, 515 bce 13 March, 515 bce 9 Oct., 515 bce 9 Oct., 515 bce 960 bce ,18 Oct.

Skyfield HORIZONS Skyfield HORIZONS Skyfield HORIZONS Skyfield

6:28:14 6:28:11 6:30:18 6:30:16 6:17:38 6:17:37 6:02:01

6:19:52 6:19:46 6:18:33 6:18:28 5:53:08 5:53:03 5:59:01

98.582° 98.575° 98.128° 98.122° 96.397° 96.389° 99.300°

75  The JPL planetary ephemerides website: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_eph_export (last accessed 01. 01. ​2022). 76  The “de431” ephemerides documentation: https://ipnpr.jpl.nasa.gov/progress_report/42– 196/196C.pdf (last accessed 01. 01. ​2022). 77  Available at: https://github.com/ydevor/temple-sunrise (last accessed 01. 01. 2​ 022). 78  The JPL HORIZONS on-line solar system data and ephemeris computation service: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi (last accessed 01. 01. 2​ 022). Documentation: https://ssd.jpl. nasa.gov/?horizons_doc (last accessed 01. 01. 2​ 022). 79  See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proleptic_Julian_calendar (last accessed 01. 01. 2​ 022).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

VII. “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever” Hebrew Date

Julian date

Astronomical Sunrise time Sunrise Application (UT1 + 2) azimuth

155

Time of sun azimuth at 99.7ᵒ

8

?

960 bce ,18 Oct.

HORIZONS

5:58:57

99.293°

6:02:00

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

960 bce ,19 Oct. 960 bce ,19 Oct. 957 bce ,18 Oct. 957 bce ,18 Oct. 957 bce ,19 Oct. 957 bce ,19 Oct. 955 bce ,19 Oct. 955 bce ,19 Oct. 955 bce ,20 Oct. 955 bce ,20 Oct.

Skyfield HORIZONS Skyfield HORIZONS Skyfield HORIZONS Skyfield HORIZONS Skyfield HORIZONS

5:59:51 5:59:47 5:59:14 5:59:09 6:00:04 5:59:59 5:59:41 5:59:36 6:00:31 6:00:26

99.769° 99.762° 99.427° 99.419° 99.896° 99.887° 99.672° 99.664° 100.139° 100.131°

5:59:20 5:59:19 6:01:16 6:01:15 5:58:36 5:58:35 5:59:54 5:59:52 5:57:14 5:57:12

* Assuming it was a Sunday in Jerusalem, see supra, in the text.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

7. Appendix C: Comments Concerning the Sunlight in the Temple (Roy Albag, architect) The initial step for this study required the creation of an accurate georeferenced 3D model of the Second Temple in Jerusalem with its Courtyards, Altar, the Nicanor Gate, and the surrounding walls. The reconstruction follows the specifications given in m. Middot as suggested by Patrich, with an orientation of 9.7˚ south of due east.80 The exact topographical elevation of the Temple Mount and its surroundings, including the Mount of Olives, was inserted into the digital model. This model was drafted using Autodesk-Revit 2021, a BIM (Building Information Modeling) program. This software allows the inclusion of many parameters, including climate, acoustics, building solidity, solar exposure, and lighting. After the construction of the model was completed, a cross-section was created along the 99.7˚azimuth, running from the Mount of Olives west through Nicanor Gate and across the Altar (Fig. VII.1). Two diagonal lines were added to this section, representing the sightlines of a beholder (set at eye-height of 1.6 m) standing at the gates to the Temple. The dimensions of the Porch Gate were 40 × ​ 20 cubits, and those of the Sanctuary Gate – 20 × ​10 cubits. These lines indicate that neither Nicanor Gate nor the Altar brock the sightline at sunrise along this azimuth, since according to tractate Middot the Temple stood upon a foundation six cubits high above the floor level of the Courtyard, and the Altar, 22 cubits distant from the Temple façade, was just 10 cubits high.  See supra, Chapter VI.

80

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

Fig. VII.1b Sightlines from the Porch and Sanctuary gates at sunrise (Architect Roy Albag).

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Fig. VII.1a Sightlines from the Porch and Sanctuary gates at sunrise (Architect Roy Albag).

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

156

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

VII. “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever”

157

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. VII.2. Light and shadow on the Temple façade, the Porch and Sanctuary gates and the Holy of Holies curtains at sunrise on March 25th (which corresponds to March 12th in the Julian calendar); the shadow on the stairs ascending to the Porch are of the Altar (Architect Roy Albag).

The geometric sun elevation alternates between 3.240˚ and 3.276˚ above the Mount of Olives, but due to the atmospheric refraction of the sun rays, the measured angle is just 2.765˚. This difference is equivalent to a 7.15 m height difference, and hence, the elevation of the Mount of Olives in the virtual model was lowered accordingly. The first rays of sun reaching the Temple façade are illustrated in Fig. VII.2. Sunrise can be defined as the moment the rays of light reach the eye of the beholders standing in the Temple Gates. These are the two figures depicted, on scale. Fig. VII.3 didactically illustrates sunrise time by watching the patch of sun light cast upon the curtain of the Holy of Holies or on the floor and walls inside the Temple, in specific dates at our concern, from the point of view of a camera fixed at the entrance of the Sanctuary. The horizontal line at the bottom of the curtain represents the sightline from this point. The second line on the floor of the sanctuary, at some distance from the curtain, represents the sightline of one

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

158

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

5:50

5:52

5:54

5:56

5:58

6:00

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

6:02

6:04

Fig. VII.3. Light and shadow in the Sanctuary at sunrise on different dates (a. March 25th, which corresponds to March 12th in the Julian calendar; b. on the 15th of each of the other months). The sun rays fall on the two curtains of the Holy of Holies at the depth of the sanctuary (Architect Roy Albag).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

VII. “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever”

15.01 – no

15.02, at 6:39

15.04, at 6:18

15.05, at 6:26

15.06, at 7:00

15.07, at 7:00

15.08, at 6:43

15.09, at 5:39

15.10 – no

15.11, at 7:45

15.12 – no

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

159

160

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

standing at the entrance of the Porch. Even though the first rays of light are cast high on the walls, sunrise could not be announced until the rays are witnessed by the beholding priest. Sunrise time can thus be determined as occurring when the cast rays are visible by him. The four rectangles of light are of rays entering through the four windows located above the Sanctuary portal. The application permits to follow, image after image, the position of the lighted area, pre and post sunrise. The images which make up Fig. VII.3a, display the lighting at sunrise on March 12 according to the Julian calendar, which is equivalent to March 25 in the Gregorian calendar. The various frames are spread at intervals of 2 minutes, starting with sunrise hour. Fig. VII.3b illustrates the temple lighting as occurring on the 15th of the remaining months of the year. Each frame depicts the first rays of the sun reaching the Temple at sunrise, and the hour. In December and January, the rays of sun do not penetrate the Temple at sunrise. This series of frames illustrates the connection between the Temple orientation and the sunrise azimuth throughout the year. In most of the months rays are cast upon the walls of the temple at sunrise, and not directly on the curtain of the Holy of Holies. We can also see that in the yearly cycle, the situation in October is nearly identical to that in March.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Post script After the Hebrew article was already published and the English one submitted, Prof. Menaḥem Kahana of the Talmud department at the Hebrew University drew my attention to another important reference indicating a modification in the temple cult; another reaction against facing the sun: According to m. Tamid 4:1 the foreleg and hind leg of the dawn lamb were bound to the second ring at the northwestern corner, and the twilight whole offering was tied and slaughtered at the second ring at the northeastern corner – opposite to the sun course. But according to an earlier mishnah, given in Sifre BaMidbar, paragraph 142 (ed. Kahana, 67–68), the lamb of dawn was bound to the second ring at the northeastern corner and that of the evening, to the second ring at the southwestern corner – the corners facing sunrise and sunset. There, and according to a baraita given in b. Tamid 31b and Yoma 62b, the biblical injunction of two lambs per day (Numb. 28:3 – “‫ )”שתים ליום‬means: “as against the day”, namely – in accord to the sun course. See the discussion and conclusion of Kahana in his commentary, Vol. 4, 1178–1180. The early practice of facing the rising sun in the Temple cult is discussed also by Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages. Their Concept and Beliefs (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, the Hebrew University, 1975), 46–47 (Hebrew). (I am indebted to Prof. Kahana for this reference as well).81 81  Urbach, The Sages, had addressed Ezek 8:16, m. Sukkah 5:4, the practice of the Essenes and the Therapeutai to face the sun in the morning, but not the practice of the awakeners in the Temple cult, indicated above.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-06 18:31:11.

VIII. The Chambers of the South and of the North: Mishnah Middot 5:3–4 and BT Yoma 19a. The Contribution of Archeology to Settle a Disaccord Between Two Rabbinic Versions.*

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

In the rabbinic sources there are two contrasting versions concerning the names of the northern and southern chambers of the Inner Court (ʿAzarah). According to m. Mid. 5:3–4, “Six offices [=chambers] were in the courtyard, three in the north and three in the south. Those in the north: the office in charge of salt, the Parwah office, the office for rinsing …. Those in the south: the office made of wood (‫…)לשכת העץ‬, the office for the Exile (Gullah /‫)גולה‬,1 … the office made of hewn stone (Gazith)” (tr. J. Neusner)]. Such is the order in all available manuscripts.2 According to the Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 19a: “R. Papa said: … Six cells were in the Temple Court, three to the north, three to the south. Those to the south3 were the Cell of the Salt, the Cell of Parwah, the Rinsing Cell.… . The * Paper read at the XV World Congress for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 4th, 2009. The Hebrew ‫ לשכה‬is rendered “office” or “cell” in some English translations (infra). Here the term “chamber” is preferred throughout. 1  The non-punctuated word ‫ גולה‬should be read ‫ גֻ ּלה‬rather than ‫גֹולה‬, meaning “exile”, and the chamber being interpreted by many “that it was so called because it was constructed by the returned exiles from Babylon” (see infra Zahavy’s e-text for the BT, note 7). But the more appropriate reading ‫ גֻ ּלה‬is to be translated as “bowl”, or rather “a small water source”, “a fount”. See chapter IX. 2  Budapest, Akademia, Kaufmann A 50, folio 70v (h​t​t​p​s​:​/​/​w​w​w​.​n​l​i​.​o​r​g​.​i​l​/​h​e​/​d​i​s​c​o​v​e​r​/​m​a​n​ u​s​c​r​i​p​t​s​/​h​e​b​r​e​w​-​m​a​n​u​s​c​r​i​p​t​s​/​v​i​e​w​e​r​p​a​g​e​?​v​i​d​= ​M​A​N​U​S​C​R​I​P​T​S​&​d​o​c​i​d​= ​P​N​X​_​M​A​N​U​S​C​R​I​P​ T​S​9​9​0​0​0​1​9​1​0​4​7​0​2​0​5​1​7​1​-​1​#​$​F​L​1​6​0​7​4​0​0​6​, p. 437); Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, T-S E 1.118, frag. 001r (https://www.nli.org.il/he/discover/manuscripts/hebrew-manuscripts​/​v​ i​e​w​e​r​page?vid=MANUSCRIPTS&docid=PNX_MANUSCRIPTS9900511594702051​7​1​-​1​#​$​F​ L​1​6​9679838); Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, 3173 – de Rossi 138 (h​t​t​p​s​:​/​/​w​w​w​.​n​l​i​.​o​r​g​.​i​l​/​h​e​/​d​i​s​ c​o​v​e​r​/​m​a​n​u​s​c​r​i​p​t​s​/​h​e​b​r​e​w​-​m​a​n​u​s​c​r​i​p​t​s​/​v​i​e​w​e​r​p​a​g​e​?​v​i​d​= ​M​A​N​U​S​C​R​I​P​T​S​&​d​o​c​i​d​= ​P​N​X​_​M​A​ N​U​S​C​R​I​P​T​S​9​9​0​0​0​0​7​0​6​8​0​0​2​0​5​1​7​1​-​1​#​$​F​L​3​2​3​6​2​1​9​0​, pp. 299–300, folios 146r–147; Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek 95, folios 500v and 500r (https://www.nli.org.il/he/discover/manuscripts/hebrew-manuscripts/viewerpage?vid=MANUSCRIPTS&docid=PNX_M​A​N​U​SC ​ ​R​IP ​ ​T​ S​9​90001265430205171-1#$FL50151167. (All MSS were accessed on Feb. 22–23, 2023). Such is also the location of the chambers in the version of the Mishnah on which the Palestinian Talmud rests (‫)מתניתא דתלמודא דבני מערבא‬, edited for the syndics of the University Press from the unique manuscript preserved in the University Library of Cambridge Add. 470.1 by William Henry Lowe, Cambridge 1883. Tractate Middot is given there in pages 185a–188a, before tractate Tamid. The text at our concern is in page 187b. 3  The digital English translation renders here “north”, like London, British Library, Harley MS 5508. This is of course a mistake. The translation of the MSS listed below (infra, note 5), was preferred here.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:49:32.

162

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

three to the north were: The Wood-Cell, the Exile Cell,4 and the Cell of Hewn Stone (ed. Soncino, https//: halakhah.com by Tzvee Zahavy).5 In two of the BT MSS the text is corrupted: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod.hebr. 95, folio 90r, the word “on the south” was left out before listing the Salt, Parwah and Rinsing chambers, while the Wood, Gullah and Gazith chambers are mentioned as located on the north; and the London, British Library, Harley MS 5508 is listing twice the northern chambers under different names. This MSS differs indeed in only one point from the Mishnah version, while in the Vatican, Bibliotheca Apostolica, and the Jewish Theological Seminary MSS there are two differences, but from the arguments about the location of the Chamber of the Counsellors (‫ לשכת פרהדרין‬/ Parhedrin) and of Abtinas House (‫לשכת בית‬ ‫ )אבטינס‬in the BT, it is clear that the Amorites already had a contradictory version than that of the Mishnah concerning the chambers of the north and of the south. The discussion in the gemara seeks to assert R. Pappa’s statement that both served the High Priest; one on the north, the second on the south. It is assumed that both were located in the Inner Court, and the objective of the discussion is to identify which of them was on the north and which on the south. M. Mid. 5:3–4, listing the chambers of the north and of the south, is cited in support for the northern chamber, but they are listed in an opposite order than that in the Mishnah. While in support for the southern chamber, m. Mid. 1:4–5 is cited, in which the Inner Court gates on the south, east and north are listed (in a somewhat disrupted manner), as well as m. Yoma 3:3 and the baraita of the b. Yoma 31a, speaking about the five immersions of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (all of them being held in the Holy precinct, in the miqveh located on the roof of the Parwah Chamber, except the first one, that was held in the miqveh on the roof of the Water Gate, next to his chamber). In the conclusion of the said argumentation it is said that the House of Abtinas Chamber was the southern chamber of the High Priest, located near the Water Gate, and that the Counsellors Chamber was the northern chamber of the High Priest, to be identified with the Wood Chamber, which the BT lists among the northern chambers. However, according to other sources it is clear that the Counsellors Chamber was not at all located in the Inner Court, and likewise the House of Abtinas Chamber.6  But see the reservation concerning the translation “Exile”, supra, note 1.  Thus in the prints and in MSS Vatican, Bibliotheca Apostolica, Ebr. 134, folio 79v (https:// digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.134); Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod.hebr. 6 (h​tt​p​ ​s​:​ /​/​w​w​w​.​n​l​i​.​o​r​g​.​i​l​/​h​e​/​d​i​s​c​o​v​e​r​/​m​a​n​u​s​c​r​i​p​t​s​/​h​e​b​r​e​w​-​m​a​n​u​s​c​r​i​p​t​s​/​v​i​e​w​e​r​p​a​g​e​?​v​i​d​= ​M​A​N​U​S​C​R​I​P​ T​S& ​ d​ ​o​c​id​ ​=P ​N ​ ​X​_​M​A​N​U​SC ​ ​R​IP ​T ​S ​ 9​ ​9​0​0​0​1​2​6​4​6​4​0​2​05​ ​1​7​1​-1​ ​#​$​FL ​ 1​ ​6​6​6​6​9​7​5​, p. 220) and in the New York, Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS) MS Rab. 1623, top of folio 139r (h​tt​p​ ​s​:/​/​w ​ ​w​w​.n​ ​l​ i​.​o​r​g​.​i​l​/​h​e​/​d​i​s​c​o​v​e​r​/​m​a​n​u​s​c​r​i​p​t​s​/​h​e​b​r​e​w​-​m​a​n​u​s​c​r​i​p​t​s​/​v​i​e​w​e​r​p​a​g​e​?​v​i​d​= ​M​A​N​U​S​C​R​I​P​T​S​&​d​o​c​i​ d​=P ​N ​ ​X​_​M​A​N​U​SC ​ ​R​IP ​T ​S ​ 9​ ​9​0​0​0​0​5​4​5​8​3​0​2​0​5​1​7​1​-1​ ​#​$​FL ​ 2​ ​9​5​4​8​8​3​6​. (All MSS and the English digital translation were accessed on Feb. 22–23, 2023). 6  Concerning the location of the Counsellors  / Parhedrin Chamber see supra, Chapter V, where it is also indicated where the House of Abtinas Chamber should be looked for. 4 5

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:49:32.

VIII. The Chambers of the South and of the North

163

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

But lo and behold, the Rambam, in his version of the Mishnah and in his Commentary, brings the BT version, and at the end of his Commentary on tractate Middot he also gives a drawing of the Temple and its Court, reflecting this version (Fig. VIII.1).7 The first printed version of the Rambam’s Commentary, Neapolis 1492, brings the version of the Mishnah next to his Commentary. The Mishnah in this print is generally in accord with the Rambam’s Mishnah (labelled “R. Moses Version”, or “‫)”משניות הר״ם‬,8 but in case of the Mishnah at our concern the version of m. Mid. is given, not that of BT Yoma which the Rambam adopted in his Commentary.9 Likewise in the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, The Book of Service, Beit Habechirah 5.17: “The Courtyard of the Israelites had eight chambers: three in the north and three in the south. In the south were the Chamber of Salt, Parve’s Chamber, and the Washing Chamber …. The three [chambers] in the north were the Chamber of Hewn Stone, the Chamber of the Bowl (‫)גלה‬, and the Chamber of Wood” (translated by Eliyahu Touger).10 In the drawing accompanying Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishnah, the Chamber of Hewn Stone, the Chamber of the Bowl (‫)גלה‬, and the Chamber of Wood are grouped together near the NE corner, within the confines of the Israel Court, 11 cubits wide, and  7  Maimonidis Commentarius in Mischnam. Ed. Solomon D. Sassoon (Corpus Codicum Hebraicorum Mediiaevi Pars 1. v. 3). Vol. 1: Introductio. Zeraim et Moed (Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1956); Vol. 3. Neziqim, pars II, et Qodaschim (Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard 1966). This is the Rambam’s autograph. The text at our concern is given there in folio 770. The composition of the Commentary, in Arabic, he began in Spain, at the age of 23. It was concluded in Egypt on his 30th anniversary, in year 1168 ce. Later he inserted some emendations, and in his Mishneh Torah he follows the amended version of the Commentary. See Ḥanoch Albeck, Introduction to the Mishnah (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik and Dvir, 1959), 238, 244–45 (Hebrew). The Mishnah at our concern is marked 8:4 in the Commentary, unlike the markers in the prints and in the said MSS (if indicated at all), where it is marked as 5:3–4. This variance in the division of tractate Middot to chapters between the Rambam’s and the other MSS is not indicated in Jacob Naḥum Epstein’s Introduction to the Mishnaic Text. Vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press – The Hebrew University, 1948), 996–98 (Hebrew).  8  On the Rambam’s selection which version of the Mishnah to choose in his Commentary see Epstein, Introduction, 1276–79 as well as Sassoon, Maimonidis Commentarius 1: Hebrew introduction, 35; English Introduction, 53. According to Epstein (1276–77), the Rambam’s Mishnah version was selected from writings that were available to him in Spain at the time, and he had to select between differing versions. The result is a redacted version, labelled in the prints as said.  9  According to Epstein, Introduction, 1275 and Albeck, Introduction, 123, the first print of the Mishnah, Soncino: Neapolis 1492 is based on a MS of a Hebrew translation of the Rambam’s Commentary, together with the version of the Mishnah. On page 264 of the print, the chambers are listed according to Middot, and not according to the Rambam’s version (derived from y. Yoma). (Remarkably, one can see that someone was trying to erase the lower parts of the word “on the south” [“‫ ]”שבדרום‬and the last letter (“‫ )”ם‬by a sharp instrument (2nd line from the top), and also to rub the word “on the north” [“‫( ]”שבצפון‬line 6), in order to fit the text to the Rambam’s version. 10 https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1007198/jewish/Beit-Habechirah-C​h​a​pt​ e ​​ r​-5​ ​.​ht​m (accessed on Feb. 22, 2023).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:49:32.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

164

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Fig. VIII.1. The layout of the Temple, the Inner Court and the Chambers according to the Rambam / Maimonides.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:49:32.

VIII. The Chambers of the South and of the North

165

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

the Chamber of Salt, the Parwah’s Chamber, and the Rinsing Chamber are grouped, likewise, near the SE corner (Fig. VIII.1). The Rambam’s drawing and interpretation were adopted by later commentators, going as far as to reject the very version of the Mishnah as erroneous. Thus in R. Yom-Tov LipmanHeller’s commentary (Tosafot Yom-Tov, 1st print, Prague 1617) to the beginning of m. Mid. 5, concerning the northern chambers: “…. and it seems to me that the book’s version was corrupted to say ‘on the north’….”, and in the drawing accompanying this commentary.11 Later commentators that illustrated the layout of the Inner Court also adhered to the interpretation of Maimonides. Thus in Tiferet Israel commentary of R. Israel Lipshitz (1st print Hannover – Kenigsberg 1850) (Fig. VIII.2), that was reproduced in many other publications,12 including in Elḥanan Aibeschuetz’s book (Jerusalem 1996),13 in the Encyclopedia of the Talmud,14 in R. Adin Steinsaltz’s edition of the BT tractates Yoma (Jerusalem 1977) and Middot (Jerusalem 2007),15 in the publications of The Temple Institute by R. Israel Ariel (Jerusalem 2005),16 and in many other publications.17 In Qoren’s book there are several modifications, but with regard to the location of the northern and southern chambers he also adheres to the BT, like Maimonides and his followers.18 Exceptional are the illustrations in The Book of the Temple Inauguration, Venice 1696, with two drawings of the ʿAzara by R. Jonathan son of Joseph of Raseiniai (Lithuania), first appended to the Mishnah printed in Frankfurt am-Main 1720 (Fig. VIII.3). Both follow the version of m. Mid.19 Hence, which were the northern chambers of the Inner Court, and which were the southern ones? Is m. Mid. the correct version, or is it b. Yoma? More11  This drawing is reproduced also by Zalman Qoren, Ve-Asu Li Miqdash (Jerusalem: The Wailing Wall Heritage Foundation, 2007), 53 (Hebrew). The words of R. Yom-Tov are reiterated by Shalom Dov Bear Steinberg in his book – The Shape of the Second Temple based on tractate Middot and other references in the Talmud, with appended drawings (Jerusalem: H. Vegshel 1994), 56 (Hebrew). 12 Mishnaiyot with 71 commentaries, Vilna 1909 (Hebrew). The plan of the Inner Court in this book, inspired by Tiferet Israel commentary, was drawn by the artist Eliyahu Romanov. See Qoren, Ve-Asu Li Miqdash, 55 and 100. 13 E. Aibeschuetz, The Second Temple in its Splendor. Herod’s Building (Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Cook, 1996), 199–268, with a map between pages 10 and 11, and a reconstructed model built accordingly on pages 523–33 (Hebrew). 14 Vol. 3, art. ‘The Temple’ (‘‫)’בית המקדש‬, between pages 231 and 232. 15  Middot, in the margins of page 24. The Rambam’s plan is reproduced in page 28. The detailed plan of The Temple Institute, following Israel Ariel (next note), is given on pages 18–9 of the Appendix of Drawings and Illustrations at the very end of the book. 16  The Holy Temple of Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Carta 2005), 38–9 (Hebrew). 17  For example: Mishnah Qodashim, Vol. 2, with a commentary by Pinchas Kehati,4 (Jeru­ sa­lem: Heikhal Shlomo, 1973), 290–91 (Hebrew). 18  Qoren, Ve-Asu Li Miqdash. 19  Both drawings are given in Qoren, Ve-Asu Li Miqdash, 54–5. A modified version based on an illustration of Jonathan son of Joseph of Raseiniai (Lithuania), labelled ‘The Shape of the Second Temple’, is given in the BT edition of Steinsaltz, tractate Middot (Jerusalem: The Israel Institute for Talmudic Publications, 2007), 29.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:49:32.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

166

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Fig. VIII.2. The layout of the Temple, the Inner Court and the Chambers accompanying Tiferet Israel commentary on the Mishnah.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:49:32.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

VIII. The Chambers of the South and of the North

167

Fig. VIII.3. The layout of the Temple, the Inner Court and the Chambers according to R. Jonathan son of Joseph of Raseiniai (Lithuania).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:49:32.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

168

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

over, does any of these versions reflect an actual reality that existed in Second Temple times? Is it possible to restore this reality and suggest the actual location of these chambers on present Temple Mount / Ḥaram al-Sharif? Are there any extant remains that may point upon their location? Its seems that archaeology may solve the dispute and provide answers also to the other questions; it indicates that the version of the Mishnah is the correct one, and that it reflects indeed an existing reality of which impressive remains are still extant. The water cistern that fed the great Laver that was standing next to the Altar is the clue for solving this puzzle. It pin-points upon the exact location of the Altar and the Temple on the Temple Mount, and permits to suggest a more accurate location for the Gates and the Chambers that had surrounded the Temple.20 It indicates that the Bowl (‫גֻ ּלה‬ / Gullah) Chamber was in the south, as is said in m. Mid. According to m. Tamid 1:4 and 2:1, the priests were washing their hands in the Laver before ascending the altar at the beginning of the daily rite, before dawn. The Laver got its water by means of a geared water wheel (labelled mechane or muchni in the Mishnah). The Laver was located between the Porch and the Altar, shifted towards the south (Mid. 3:6). It is there where the water cistern that fed it should have been located. Water cistern no. 5 in Charles Wilson’s map (1876),21 well cut and of an exceptional shape, is the only possible one. It looks like a long, narrow gallery (54.5 m long, 4.6 m wide and 15 m deep), with two arms extending out, perpendicular, from its eastern end to the north, and one arm to the south (Fig. VI.1, p. 112). Another arm, curved in shape, extends from its western end to the south. This exceptional shape of the water cistern, permitting the installation and operation of water wheels, is not accidental. According to my proposal, the two arms projecting north point upon the location of the Altar’s ramp, 32 cubits long and 16 cubits wide, ascending from the south (m. Mid. 3:3); the water wheel that fed the Laver was installed above the more western one among the two; the southern arm on the east points upon the location of the Water Gate, and the western arm points upon the location of the Gullah Chamber. “There was a permanent cistern, and a wheel was placed on it, and from there they did draw water for the whole courtyard” (m. Mid. 5:4, tr. J. Neusner).22 The longitudinal axis of the Temple and the Inner Court should be placed parallel to the 20 For a detailed elaboration of the arguments and considerations underlying these conclusions see supra, Chapter VI. 21 Charles W. Wilson, Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem in the Years 1864 to 1865, rev. ed. (Southampton: Ordnance Survey Office, 1876) and Sheet 1: Haram Grounds &c. 22 The Gullah cistern is mentioned also in m. ʿErub. 10:14. On the water wheels in the service of the Temple see infra, Chapter X with a map indicating the water cisterns on the Temple Mount / Ḥaram al-Sharif. For the layout of Water Cistern no. 5, The location of the Altar and Temple relative to the water cistern and the layout of the various chambers and gates in the Inner Court see supra, Figs. VI.1, VI.2 and IV.3.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:49:32.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

VIII. The Chambers of the South and of the North

169

longitudinal axis of the cistern (Fig. VI.2, p. 115). Locating thus the Altar and the Temple, we find out that water cistern no. 5 is the only one found in the confines of the ʿAzarah. Hence, this is the “Gullah Cistern”, and the Gullah Chamber was located in the south, and likewise the other chambers listed with it. The Mishnah version is the correct version! And, with awe and compassion it has to be concluded that Maimonides adopted a wrong version, being followed by most commentators and authors who since then to present days wrote about the layout of the Inner Court, with an appended drawing. The southern arm of Water Cistern no. 5 on the west indicates that the Gullah Chamber was located approximately in the middle of the southern side of the Inner Court. What about the other two southern chambers – The Wood Chamber and the Chamber of the Hewn Stone? Where was the Wood Chamber located and what was its function? “R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: I have forgotten what it was used for” (m. Mid. 5:4). One should therefore conclude that it was not a chamber for storing wood for the service of the Altar, but rather an ancient chamber built of wood, following the plain meaning of its name (and thus it was conceived by Neusner in his translation, as cited above). According to Abba Saul “It was the Cell of the high priest” (ibid.). It seems that such indeed was its function in earlier times, otherwise one cannot understand how its function was forgotten by R. Elizer son of Jacob (still alive at the end of the Temple era, and to whom the compilation of tractate Middot is attributed). This chamber was located near the Water Gate, on top of which there was a ritual bath (miqveh) for the High Priest (b. Yoma 31a). In this miqveh he took his first immersion in the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), before he entered the ʿAzarah. After his immersion he could retire to an adjacent chamber – the Wood Chamber. As was indicated above, according to the present proposal, the south-eastern arm of Water Cistern no. 5 points upon the location of the Water Gate. This Gate was thus located near the SE corner of the Court. The dimensions of the gate houses of the Herodian Temple were 30 × ​30 cubits according to Flavius Josephus (War 5.201–204). Since there is no place to the east of this gate, the Wood Chamber should have been attached to the Water Gate on the west. The relative location of the Wood and the Gullah Chambers indicates that the southern chambers were listed from east to west. The Chamber of the Hewn Stone was hence located to the west of the Gullah Chamber.23 Is it possible to suggest for it a more precise location along the southern side of the Inner Court? According to m. Mid. 5:4: “… there the Great Sanhedrin of Israel was in ses23 Its location relative to the ʿAzara was also addressed supra, Chapter IV. Leen Ritmeyer, Ehud Netzer and others, adhered to the version of the Mishnah, but placed it to the east of the Gullah Chamber. See: Leen P. Ritmeyer, The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006), 345; Ehud Netzer, The Architecture of Herod the Great Builder (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 144, Fig. 33.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:49:32.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

170

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

sion, and it judged the priesthood” (tr. J. Neusner). According to the discourse in b. Yoma 25a: “Said R. Shesheth: … The Cell of the Hewn Stone was [built] in the style of a large basilica. The count took place in the eastern side, with the elder sitting in the west. [.…] Abaye said: We can infer from this the Cell of Hewn Stone was [situated] half on holy ground, half on non-holy ground; that the Cell had two doors, one opening on holy ground, the other opening on non – holy ground”.24 From this discourse it infers that the location of the elders’ seats, that comprised also of non-priests, was on the non-holy ground, and on the west. Namely, this part of the chamber projected westward from the wall of the ʿAzarah, and it had a separate opening from the non – holy.25 The location of the count was in the eastern part of the Chamber, and it had an opening from the holy, namely – from the Inner Court. Hence, the Chamber of the Hewn Stone must have been located in the SW corner of the Inner Court, as is depicted in Fig. IV.3, p. 84.26 Hence, the proposal given here for the location of the chamber differs from the drawing of the Rambam (and his followers) also in the distribution of the chambers along the sides of the Court. Since the chambers of the south were counted clock-wise, from east to west, its seems that the chambers of the north were likewise counted clock-wise – the Chambers of Salt, Parwah and Rinsing, namely: from west to east. Thus, the Salt Chamber was the western most among the three, and the Rinsing Chamber was the Eastern most. We do not have precise indicators for their location, but there is no written indication for the Rambam’s proposal, that grouped them together in the narrow space allotted for the Court of Israel, just 11 cubits wide. According to their function, it is reasonable that they were placed near the House of Slaughtering, that extended to the north of the Altar. Thus, it is said about the Rinsing Chamber: “… there did they rinse the innards of the Holy Things”. Therefore it must have been located near the shambles and the short pillars (Nanasin / ‫)ננסין‬, with iron hooks and marble tables between them – components of the place of slaughtering and flaying. According to our proposal, the Parwah Chamber was located to its west, and “.. there did they salt the Hides of the Holy Things” (m. Mid. 5:3, tr. J. Neusner). On its roof there was a second house of immersion (miqveh) for the service of the High Priest in the Day of Atonement. One could ascend from the Rinsing Chamber to this miqveh via a stair-tower 24 The discourse in the BT is based on what is said in m. Maʿaser Sheni 3:8, and in t. ibid, 2:13–15 (pages 89–90 in Zuckermandel’s edition; page 254 in Liberman’s edition and in his Tosefta Ki-Fshuṭah, 742–44 [Hebrew]). 25 This was perhaps the Upper Gate (‫ )השער העליון‬mentioned in the southern side in m. Mid. 2:6. 26  Qoren, Ve-Asu Li Miqdash, 117–21, rightly concludes that the Chamber of the Hewn Stone partially projected to the west. But since he had adhered to the version of y. Yoma, following the Rambam and most commentators, according to whom the Chamber of the Hewn Stone was on the north, he locates it in the NW corner.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:49:32.

VIII. The Chambers of the South and of the North

171

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

(messibah);27 hence, they must have been attached to each other. In the Salt Chamber “they put salt on the offering” (ibid.). Hence it is reasonable to locate it near the Parwah Chamber where the Hides were salted, but farther west. It is impossible to be more precise. Maimonides and his followers, by adopting the version of the BT, located in the south the chambers associated with the rinsing and salting the innards and the hides of the offering animals, remote from the place of slaughtering. The plans they provided are wrong. Water Cistern no. 5 – a huge relic of the Second Temple – pointing upon the exact location of the Altar, the Temple and some of the Chambers and Gates, also enables to decide between two contradicting rabbinic versions. That of m. Mid. 5:3–4 is the correct one, not that of the baraita in b. Yoma 19a, which was adopted by Maimonides, leading many commentators and authors since his time to present days to an error.

 On messibah as a stair-tower see the discussion in Chapter XIII.

27

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:49:32.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved. Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:49:32.

IX. The Pre-Herodian Temple: Reassessing the House of the Laver and the House of Utensils of the Temple Scroll 1. Introduction

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The proposed reconstructions of the Herodian Temple are numerous,1 and rely on the extant remains of the surrounding precinct, on the writings of Flavius Josephus (mainly Ant. 15.395–425 and War 5.184–247),2 and on tractate Middot of the Mishnah.3 Many of the water cisterns below the compound of Ḥaram alSharif were already in use in the Herodian period.4 1  The literature is immense; principal studies, where more references are to be found, are: Michael Avi-Yonah, “The Second Temple,” in Sefer Yerushalayim: The Nature, History and Development of Jerusalem from its Beginning to the Present, ed. Michael AviYonah (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik and Yad Izhak Ben-Tzvi, 1956), 392–418 (Hebrew); LouisHugues Vincent and Ambroise-Marie Steve, Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament, 2e Partie (Paris: Gabalda, 1956), 373–610; Theodore A. Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem, von Salomon bis Herodes: Eine archaeologisch-historische Studie unter Berücksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempelbaus: Vol. 1: Der Tempel Salomons (Leiden: Brill, 1970); Vol. 2: Von Ezechiel bis Middot (Leiden: Brill, 1980); Leen P. Ritmeyer, The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006); Ehud Netzer, The Architecture of Herod, The Great Builder (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 136–78. For more see supra, Chapter VI, with references. 2 It has been suggested that the differences between these sources reflect an architectural evolution in the decades that elapsed between the inauguration of the Temple and its destruction in 70 ad. The description in Antiquities pertains to the structure inaugurated by Herod; that in War – to the structure that was demolished. See: Lee Israel Levine, “Josephus’ Description of the Jerusalem Temple: War, Antiquities, and Other Sources,” in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, eds. Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 233–46. 3  Oscar Holtzmann, Middot (Von den Massen des Tempels): Text, Übersetzung und Erklärung (Giessen: Topelmann, 1913); Asher Zelig Kaufman, The Temple of Jerusalem: Tractate Middot (Jerusalem: Har-Yeraeh, 1991 [Hebrew]). On the purpose of this tractate see: Ḥanokh Albeck, The Six Orders of the Mishnah: The Order of Holy Things (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1957), 313 (introduction to tractate Middot) (Hebrew). The tractate addresses mainly the Herodian Temple as it looked before its destruction. It is attributed to Rabbi Eliezer son of Jacob, who knew the Temple before its destruction, and it was composed not long afterwards, when hopes to rebuild it seemed to be at hand. Hence the detailed description of its components, including dimensions. It is evident, of course, that the redaction of the tractate is later. Its stages of redaction are traced in Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Holy Things (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 207–10. 4 These water cisterns had already been surveyed and mapped in the 19th century. See Charles W. Wilson, Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem 1865 (facsimile edition; Jerusalem: Ariel, 1980), “Sheet 1: Haram Grounds & c.” Wilson’s map is based on surveys carried out in the years 1864–1865. Some of the cisterns were assigned a date by Simeon Gibson and David M. Jacobson, Below the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. A Sourcebook on the Cisterns, Subterranean Chambers and Conduits of the Haram al-Sharif. BAR International Series 637 (Ox-

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

174

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

There are far fewer studies about the shape of the pre-Herodian Temple and its precinct.5 The archaeological remains are scantier and likewise the literary sources. In the eastern wall of the Ḥaram there is a long pre-Herodian segment. Some of the water cisterns below the compound might have been pre-Herodian as well. Other than these cisterns, comparison with the remains of the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim may provide significant indirect evidence, since this edifice was intended to imitate the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (Ant. 11.310).6 It had both a Persian and a Hellenistic pre-Hasmonaean phase, and the remains uncovered thus far are mainly of the compound wall and its gates. These were chambered gateways, resembling the gates of the courts mentioned in Ezekiel, the Temple Scroll, and Ant. 15.418.7 The Temple rebuilt by Zerubbabel was inaugurated in 515 bce.8 Later, at the beginning of Seleucid rule over Judaea and Jerusalem, came the works for which the high priest Simeon II (d. ca. 196 bce; identified in the prevailing opinion with Simeon the Just) was praised.9 The Hasmonaeans reconstructed the altar and the Temple after a three-year break in the ritual caused by the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Macc 6:2–9; Dan 12:11–12). Later on, Temple and ritual were further adapted to the needs of an expanding Jewish kingdom, as ford: Tempus Reparatum, 1996). Cistern no. 5 (see below), was left undated by them. Its number is 28 in their system. 5 See mainly Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem, 776–903; Vincent and Steve, Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament, 608–10. Michael Chyutin, Architecture and Utopia in the Temple Era (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 114–42, is of the opinion that the Temple Scroll, although describing an apocalyptic, ideal, non-historical Temple, is based on the appearance of the Hasmonaean Temple. 6  This point was elucidated by Yizhak Magen, “Mount Gerizim  – A Temple City.” Qadmoniot 120 (2001): 74–118 (Hebrew); idem, “The Temple of Yahveh on Mount Gerizim and in Jerusalem.” Eretz Israel 29 (Ephraim Stern Volume) (2009): 277–97 (Hebrew). 7  See supra, Chapter VI and Fig. IV.1. 8  The altar was originally inaugurated in the first year of the return from Babylon. The foundations of the Temple itself were laid by Sheshbazzar in the second month of the second year of the return (536 bce). But further works were hindered, and recommenced only in the second year of Darius I (bce 486–522) (Ezra 4:24; 5:16). The inauguration of the rebuilt Temple took place in the sixth year of Darius’ reign (Ezra 6:15), more than twenty years after the inauguration of the altar, and almost seventy years after the First Temple had been destroyed. See also Joseph Patrich, “538 bce–70 ce: The Temple (Beyt Ha-Miqdash) and its Mount,” in Oleg Grabar, Benjamin Zeev Kedar and Sari Nuseiba (eds.), When Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade (Jerusalem and Austin, TX: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi and University of Texas Press, 2009), 37–71 (ed.). See also supra, Chapter I. 9  A contemporary source, Ben Sira 50:1–3 (in particular the Greek version, cited here), praises his building project in the Temple: “Simeon, son of Onias, was the high priest, Who in life patched up the house, And in his days made firm the Temple; And by him was laid the foundation of height of the court, The high underwork of the enclosed precinct of the Temple. In his days was hewn out the reservoir for the waters, A cistern like the circumference of the sea” (tr. Charles Thomas Robert Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook [London: Routledge, 1996], 73). Simeon the Just was “from the remnants of the Great Ecclesia” (m. Abot 1:2). On his building project see supra, Chapter III.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

IX. The Pre-Herodian Temple .

175

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

the high priesthood passed from the House of Zadoq to the Hasmonaean rulers. In this period other liturgical changes were introduced, but these are not at our concern here. The literary sources on these pre-Herodian phases are few:10 biblical sources, the Wisdom of Ben Sira, the Letter of Aristeas, the books of Maccabees, the writings of Flavius Josephus, and isolated notes in pagan authors. Some early material is also embedded in m. Mid.11 To these we can add the Temple Scroll (11Q19).12 This scroll is a heterogeneous source with several literary components, compiled during the early Hasmonaean regime  – in ca. 150 bce, or slightly later.13 The oldest extant copy of the Temple Scroll is dated palaeographically to the years 150–125 bce.14 Hence attributing its composition to the time of Al10  See the survey, pertaining mainly to the Temple courts, in Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983), 1:194–96. 11  Yizhak Magen, “On the Gates of the Temple Mount in the Writings of Flavius Josephus and in Tractate Middot,” Cathedra 14 (1980): 41–53 (Hebrew). 12 Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll; Elisha Qimron, The Temple Scroll: A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions (Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1996), 1–91. Another English translation was published by Johan Maier and Richard T. White, The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation and Commentary. JSOTSup 34 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1985). For good surveys on the scroll’s contents, sources, and date, see Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 b.c.–a.d. 135), eds. Géza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Martin Goodman. 3 Vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 3.1: 406–20; Florentino Garcia Martinez, “The Temple Scroll and the New Jerusalem,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, eds. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. 2 Vols (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 2:431–60; idem, “Temple Scroll,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 Vols (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2:927–33. 13 Yadin suggested, cautiously, that the scroll be attributed to the Teacher of Righteousness – the founder of the Dead Sea sect (Temple Scroll, 1:394–95; idem, The Temple Scroll: The Hidden Law of the Dead Sea Sect [London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1985], 226–28). This seemed reasonable to others as well. Yadin held the opinion that the scroll reflects the reality of the second half of the second century bce – the Early Hasmonaean era; that “with a considerable degree of probability the scroll was composed in the days of John Hyrcanus or shortly earlier …, but it is entirely possible that certain sections of the scroll were composed previously and that some of the traditions embedded in it originated in an earlier period” (Temple Scroll, 1:390). See also Garcia Martinez (“Temple Scroll,” 930), who (in “The Temple Scroll and the New Jerusalem,”442–45), basically accepts Yadin’s date. Ben-Zion Wacholder (The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness [Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983], 204–12) had suggested that a date ca. 200 bce should be assigned to the composition of the scroll (labeled by him 11Q Torah), while he set the date of the Teacher of Righteousness to the years 240–170 bce. 14 Emil Puech, “Fragments du plus ancien exemplaire du Rouleau du Temple (4Q524),” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten, eds. Moshe J. Bernstein, Florentino Garcia Martinez, and John Kampen. STDJ 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 19–64, esp. 47–50; idem., “524. 4QRouleau du Temple,” DJD XXV: Qumran grotte 4, XVIII: textes hébreux (4Q521–4Q528, 4Q576–4Q579) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 85–114, Pl. VII–VIII; Figs. 1–2.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

176

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

exander Jannaeus,15 or to the Herodian period,16 seems futile. Its major component, comprising a description of the Temple and its precincts, is known as the Temple Source. The date suggested for the creation of this source is 190 bce, or seemingly even earlier.17 This dating allows us to assign a pre-Hasmonaean date to the House of the Laver, the House of Utensils, and the Stairhouse,18 installations within the Temple precincts mentioned in the scroll (see below). To what extent does the scroll reflect historical or architectural reality? As an answer, Yadin’s conclusion should be cited: “… the elements and terminology of the plan in the scroll – however imaginary it be – reflect the reality of the period, in my opinion the latter half of the second century bce.”19 In the present article the focus will be mainly on two structures named in the Scroll, which stood near the Temple: the House of Utensils and the House of the Laver (Fig. IX.1).20 But before getting there, I will make a short survey of some other matters, pertinent to the later discussion. 15 Martin Hengel, James H. Charlesworth and Doron Mendels, “The Polemical Character of ‘On Kingship’ in the Temple Scroll: An Attempt at Dating 11QTemple,” JJS 37 (1986): 28–38, republished in Doron Mendels, Identity, Religion and Historiography: Studies in Hellenistic History. JSPSup 24 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 365–78; Ernest Marie Laperrousaz, “Does the Temple Scroll Date from the First or Second Century bce?” in Temple Scroll Studies, ed. G. J. Brooke. JSPSup 7 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 91–98. 16  Barbara Elizabeth Thiering, “The Date of Composition of the Temple Scroll,” in Brooke, Studies, 99–120. 17  On the Temple Source see: Michael O. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 19 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990), 61–99, with the date given on 99; Florentino Garcia Martinez, “Sources et composition du Rouleau du Temple,” Henoch 13 (1991): 219–32; idem, “Temple Scroll,” 929 and 932; Andrew M. Wilson and Lawrence Wills, “Literary Sources of the Temple Scroll,” HTR 75 (1982): 275–88. Yadin had already identified five different divisions in the Scroll, according to their subject matter, the largest among them dealing with the structure of the Temple, adjacent buildings, and courts. 18  Hartmut Stegemann, “The Origins of the Temple Scroll,” in IOSOT Congress Volume, Jerusalem 1986, ed. John A. Emerton. VTSup 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 235–56; and idem, “The Literary Composition of the Temple Scroll and its Status at Qumran,” in Brooke, Studies, 123– 48, suggested a fifth or fourth century bce date for the composition of the Temple Scroll. This seems much too early. 19  Yadin, Temple Scroll, 1:197. The scroll does not deal with the Temple of the End of Days (ibid., 182–87). For a different opinion, i. e., that the Temple plan of this scroll is a utopian document, see L. H. Schiffman, “Descriptions of the Jerusalem Temple in Josephus and the Temple Scroll,” in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 27–31 January 1999, eds. D. Goodblatt, A. Pinnick, and D. R. Schwartz. STDJ 37 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 69–82, 70. See also idem, “The Construction of the Temple According to the Temple Scroll,” RQ 17 (1996): 555–71. 20  As for a third structure which stood near the Temple, the Stairhouse (Beit HaMesibbah), see: Yizhak Magen, “Bet Ha-Mesibbah in the Temple Scroll and in the Mishnah,” Eretz Israel 17 (Brawer Volume) (1984): 226–35 (Hebrew); Joseph Patrich, “The Mesibbah of the Second Temple in Jerusalem according to the Tractate Middot,” IEJ 36 (1986): 215–33, reproduced infra, Chapter XIII.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

IX. The Pre-Herodian Temple

177

Fig. IX.1. The Inner Court according to the Temple Scroll. The figure reflects the new proposal for locating the House of the Laver (4), the House of Utensils (5) and the enlarged Altar (6) (after Yadin, Temple Scroll, 1:Fig. 5, with modifications and adaptations).

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

2. The Altar of Burnt Offering The altar was the first element restored by those who returned from the Babylonian Exile. It was inaugurated on the 1st day of the 7th month (Tishre), in the first year of Cyrus’ reign (538/7) (Ezra 3:2–3; but cf. 5:13–16). It was set upon its previous foundations.21 The offerings on the altar were recommenced in spite of the fact that the foundations of the Temple itself had not yet been laid. The 21 “‫”ויכינו המזבח על מכונותיו‬. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah 8:2, 4 (Jerusalem: Machon Ḥatam Sofer, 1963). The English translations does not render here the exact sense of the Hebrew, “the previous foundations”: “They set the altar in its place” (Ezra 3:3 RSV); “They set up the altar on its site” (NJPS).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

178

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

dimensions of Solomon’s brazen altar were 20 × ​20 cubits, and it was 10 cubits high (thus 2 Chr 4:1).22 Concerning the dimensions of the Second Temple altar, in m. Mid. 3:1 it is said: The altar was thirty-two by thirty-two [cubits] [at the base]. It rose by one cubit and drew in by one cubit [on every side]. This is the foundation. Thus was left [an area] thirty cubits by thirty. It rose by five cubits and drew in by one cubit. This is the circuit. Thus was left [an area] twenty-eight by twenty-eight. The area of the horns is a cubit on this side and a cubit on that side. Thus was left [an area] twenty-six by twenty-six. The place for the passage of the priests is a cubit on this side and a cubit on that side. Thus was left [an area] twenty-four by twenty-four [as] the place for the [altar] fire. Said R. Yose, “At the outset it was only twenty-eight by twenty-eight. It draws in and rises in this same measure, so that the area for the altar fire turns out to be twenty by twenty [2 Chr 4:1]. But when the men of the Exile came up, they added four cubits at the south and four cubits at the west, in the shape of a gamma.”23

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The enlarged altar was twenty-two cubits distant from the Porch (Vestibule), towards the east (m. Mid. 3:6; 5:1 etc.). Were “the men of the Exile” indeed the ones who enlarged the altar? According to Hecataeus of Abdera, writing in ca. 300 bce, in his day the altar was still 20 × ​20 cubits, and 10 cubits high (Josephus, Against Apion 1.198).24 If this is an authentic description, rather than a literary construction, then the enlargement of the altar by four cubits to the south and to the west occurred later; not during the period of the Restoration, but rather after the time of Hecataeus of Abdera. The dimensions of the altar were not preserved in the Temple Scroll; however, they would have been at least 20 × ​20 cubits.25 As will be indicated below, the 22  For a suggested reconstruction and discussion see Yigael Yadin, “The First Temple,” in Avi-Yonah, Sefer Yerushalayim, 183–85. King Aḥaz ordered that a larger altar be erected, in the shape of the one he had seen in Damascus. It was built to the north of Solomon’s brazen altar (2 Kings 15:10–15). As for the altar in Ezekiel’s Temple and its graded ledges, see Ezek 43:13–16. 23  Trans. J. Neusner, pp. 877–78. 24  Josephus, Against Apion, ed. Aryeh Kasher, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1997), 1: xxxiv, 201–2 (Hebrew); Menaḥem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences, 1974), 35–39 (no. 12). The English translation used in this paper is that of Henry St.J. Thackeray, LCL 1:242–43). Yet there are scholars who maintain that these descriptions attributed to Hecataeus should be attributed rather to a Jewish author (pseudo-Hecataeus), and that this text was written in a later period. See the discussions in Stern and in Kasher, as well as in: Bzalel Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, On the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora. Hellenistic Culture and Society 21 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). 25 Thus Yadin, Temple Scroll, 1:240–41. But see ibid., 206, Fig. 5, drawn as 20 × ​20 cubits. In a fragmentary Aramaic description of the altar found in one of the New Jerusalem scrolls (Maurice Baillet, Josef Tadeusz Milik and Roland de Vaux, eds., Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumran [DJD 3; 2 vols., Oxford: Clarendon, 1962], 88–89), the word ]‫ עשרי[ן‬was preserved as a measurement of the altar. Wise had suggested that the sources of this composition are pre-Hasmonean (Critical Study, 98). According to another opinion, the text was composed in the days of John Hyrcanus. See Avi Salomon, “The New Jerusalem Scroll from Qumran: A Critical Reconstructed Version” (PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 2006), 81 (Hebrew). According to Josephus,

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

IX. The Pre-Herodian Temple

179

Temple Source of the Temple Scroll already reflects the historical phenomenon of an enlarged altar, twenty-two cubits distant from the Porch. Hence it seems that the altar was enlarged during the Hellenistic period, perhaps under the Hasmonaeans, or even earlier, in the time of Simeon the Just. The Second Temple altar was not of brass, like that of Solomon; according to Hecataeus, the square altar was built of “heaped up stones, unhewn and unwrought” (Josephus, Against Apion 1.198). Similarly, m. Mid. 3:4 states that it was built of whole unhewn stones, untouched by iron tools, from the valley of Bet Kerem (in accordance with Deut 27:5–6; Exod 20:22). Its surfaces were cleaned and whitewashed twice a year, at Passover and at the Festival of Tabernacles.26 The altar built by the men of the Exile had been defiled by the Greek kings, and the Hasmonaeans had put away the altar stones in the northeastern office of the House of the Hearth (‫( )בית המוקד‬m. Mid. 1:6). Perhaps the desecrated stones were stored in a large depression in the natural rock, an artificial fosse, or an ancient water cistern, since the altar stones would have occupied ca. 500 m3 (20 × ​20 × ​10 cubits, the cubit being ca. 0.5 m long).27 In the southwestern corner of the altar, where it was enlarged, drainage pits conducted the sacrificial blood to a channel leading east to the Qidron brook (m. Mid. 3:2).

3. The Enlargement of the Temple to the North and to the South

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Solomon’s Temple had a Great Hall (‫ )היכל‬and a Holy of Holies (‫)דביר‬. To the front, on the east, there was a Portico (‫ )אולם‬with two columns, Jachin and Boaz, and opposite this stood the altar. On the other three sides a narrow structure was leaning against the outer walls, which were graded. This appended structure may have been added at a later date. It had three stories (‫)יציעים‬, each five cubits high, of variable width: the lowest was five cubits wide, the one above – six, and the top one – seven cubits wide.28 Each story (‫ )יציע‬was divided to side chambers by War 5.225, the altar was 50 × ​50 cubits in its dimensions, and 15 cubits high. Perhaps cubits and feet were confused here. If this is the case, then the absolute dimensions given by Josephus are close to those given in m. Mid. 3:1: 32 × ​32 cubits. 26  And according to Rabbi, m. Mid. 3:4, this was done every Friday. 27  Opinions vary about the length of the cubit employed in the construction of the Temple. For references see Patrich, “The Second Temple and its Courts,” n. 17; idem, “Location and Layout,” n. 20; Johann Maier, “The Architectural History of the Temple in Jerusalem in the Light of the Temple Scroll,” in Brooke, Studies, 23–62 and supra, Chapter VI. n. 20. 28 Opinions vary as to whether the annexed, three-storied structure was part of the Solomonic Temple or a later addition. On the first Temple see: Yadin, “The First Temple,” 176–90; Vincent and Steve, Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament, 373–431; Shmuel Yeivin, “Solomon’s Temple,” Encyclopedia Miqrait (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialiq, 1968), 5:328–46; Busink, Der Tempel Salomons; Zeev Herzog, “Solomon’s Temple: Its Reconstructed Plan and Archaeological Parallels,” in Sefer Yerushalayim: The Biblical Period, eds. Shmuel Ahituv and Amiḥai Mazar, (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2000), 155–74 (Hebrew).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

180

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

partition walls (‫)צלעות‬, equivalent to the cells (‫ )תאים‬that feature in the mishnaic temple (m. Mid. 4:3). But in the Mishnah, the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies have additional enveloping structures on the north and south: a passageway (mesibbah / ‫)מסיבה‬, and the “House for draining off water” (‫)בית הורדת המים‬ respectively (m. Mid. 4:5; 4:7).29 Such enveloping structures are not mentioned in the Temple Scroll. It seems that these structures were Herodian additions.30 In seeking to reconstruct the process of the Herodian rebuilding, one may suggest that first these outer structures were constructed around the Hasmonean Temple in order to guarantee that the refurbishing of the earlier main components would be hidden from view. The construction of this outer belt seems to have been completed before the dismantling or reshaping of the ancient building was begun. The passageway / mesibbah, comprising a staircase leading up, and the “House for draining off water” in which a sloping channel seems to have been installed, enabled the worker an easy ascent, for carrying up building materials while erecting the walls of the outer envelope. After these were put in place, it was easier to rebuild the inner structures, from the inside. The pre-Herodian Porch was shorter and lower than the Herodian; the latter was made higher and longer, enlarging the facade to 100 × ​100 cubits in its outer dimensions (m. Mid. 4:6). The outer dimensions ascribed to Solomon’s Temple are 100 × ​50 cubits, with an inner(?) height of 30 cubits.31 The length of the Second Temple according to m. Mid. (4:7) was 100 cubits as well. The breadth of the Temple behind the Porch, however, was 70 cubits, and without the outer (Herodian) additions of the mesibbah and the “House for draining off water” – just 54 cubits. However, in the Aramaic memorandum of king Cyrus (Ezra 6:2–5), a width and height of 60 cubits is given. It is thus quite possible that the Second Temple from its inception was larger than Solomon’s Temple in its outer dimensions, both height and width. Herod made the structure even larger.32 But the inner dimensions of 29 For a detailed reconstruction of the Temple according to tractate Middot, along with its various components see Joseph Patrich, “Reconstructing the Magnificent Temple Herod Built,” Bible Review 4/5 (1988): 16–29; idem, “The Structure of the Second Temple – A New Reconstruction,” in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, eds. Hillel Geva and Joseph Shadur (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994), 260–71, reproduced here as Chapter XI. 30 Josephus, Ant. 8.70 describes an ascent in the thickness of the wall while describing Solomon’s Temple. It seems that this reflects the Mesibbah of the Herodian Temple he knew. See infra, Chapter XIII. 31  See Yadin, “The First Temple,” 183. On the dimensions see the detailed discussion in Chyutin, Architecture and Utopia, 66 (length and width), 71–77 (height). 32 According to the Temple Scroll as well (4:10), the portico of the temple was 60 cubits high. And see Yadin’s commentary ad loc., Temple Scroll 2:14–15, and his discussion at 1:179–80. The question of the Upper Chamber and its date of construction is beyond the scope of the present article. The 60 cubits width mentioned in the memorandum, when implemented, seems to refer to the podium. The rear external width of the standing structure, including the cells, was just 54 cubits according to m. Mid. 4:7. On either side there was an extra free strip of the podium,

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

IX. The Pre-Herodian Temple

181

the Sanctuary (40 × ​20 cubits) and of the Holy of Holies (20 × ​20 cubits) were not changed.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

4. Water Cistern no. 5 (Fig. VI.1, p. 112) This cistern is a huge relic of the Second Temple era, indicating by its own position the exact location of the altar, the Temple, and some of its gates and priestly chambers (Fig. IX.2).33 The cistern, located below the upper esplanade, is about 15 m deep, and of unusual shape. It is evident that the cistern was carefully cut: all its walls are perpendicular; opposite walls are parallel to each other, adjacent ones are set at right angles to one another. Its main gallery is shaped like a long narrow corridor (4.6 × ​54.5 m), from the eastern end of which two arms (9 m long, 3.5–4 m wide) extend at right angles to the north. The altar ramp stood on ground level, between these two arms. The more eastern arm also extends some 18 m to the south, on the other side of the main gallery. This arm points to the location of the Water Gate (Fig. IV.3, p. 84). At the western end of the main gallery another arm of irregular shape, 17 m long and 2.5 m maximal width, extends southward, indicating the location of the Golah (or Gullah) chamber (see discussion below). A well-cut staircase descends into the main gallery from the east, turning right along the eastern wall of the northeastern arm. Cistern no. 5 is the only water cistern within the Priestly Court, and therefore it should be identified with the Golah / Gullah cistern (m. Erub. 10:14; m. Mid. 5:4), which provided by a waterwheel for all the water needs of the Priestly Court – drinking, washing and rinsing. Cistern 5 is also the sole candidate to have served the Laver, which supplied the water for washing the hands and feet of the officiating priests at the beginning of the daily rite. The Laver got its water by means of a waterwheel that had a mechanical transmission (called muchni in m. Tamid 1:4) – seemingly of the sakiya type. The arms projecting to the north and south at the eastern end of the cistern permit the operation of a water wheel above, and it seems that they were so cut from the beginning, in order to fulfill this purpose. It would also have been possible to set water wheels above the long gallery, but hardly so above the irregular arm on the west side. Waterwheels were invented in the Hellenistic period. It is therefore clear that the water cistern was not rock-cut before the late third or early second century bce, when this device was invented.34 3 cubits wide. These strips were later occupied by the Mesibbah and the “House for draining off water” of the Herodian temple, each protected by a 5-cubit wide wall, thus bringing the external rear width to be 70 cubits, as given in m. Mid. 33  See supra, Chapter VI. 34  See supra, Chapter VI and infra, Chapter X.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

182

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Fig. IX.2. Location of the Temple and its adjacent structures in relation to cistern 5 (the Golah / Gullah Cistern). The House of the Laver (1) is standing above the western arm of this cistern, to be identified as the “pit (‫ )מחילה‬extending downwards into the land, which the water will be flowing into it and will be lost in the land,”that is, into which the water of the Laver was drained (Temple Scroll 32:13–14). The House of Utensils (2) occupies the site of the later Herodian House of Slaughter-knives. To the north and to the south of the Temple are marked the lines of the later Herodian enlargement. No. 3 marks the House of the Messibah.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

IX. The Pre-Herodian Temple

183

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Unfortunately at present it is impossible to descend into the cistern and examine its shape and structure closely. An inspection of its published plan allows us to define three parts. The first – the irregular arm on the west – seems to be a natural underground Carstic space in the mizzi-ḥilu geological formation.35 The second and third parts comprise the rock-cut cistern. In the southern wall of the main rock-cut gallery there is a vertical recess to the south, so that the corridor extending from there farther to the west is slightly wider than the eastern part. It is possible cautiously to suggest that this recess marks the original southwestern corner of a smaller cistern (the outlines of which embraced the altar ramp that stood above it). This U-shaped structure is the second part of cistern no. 5. The north-extending “arms” enabled the operation of waterwheels above them, on either side of the altar ramp. The slightly wider corridor, extending from there westward, is the third part of cistern no. 5. If the first part of the cistern is indeed a natural geological fissure, this is then the earliest part. The name by which the larger cistern came to be known is ‫בור‬ ‫הגולה‬. If Golah (Exile) is the right reading, it may suggest that this crevice was first used in the Restoration period, by the men of the Exile. However, some commentators have suggested that the name was derived from the term for the circular water wheel (‫)גלגל‬.36 But perhaps we should rather read Gullah (‫)גֻ ׇׇּלה‬, meaning a spring37 or a vessel for holding liquids,38 following still other commentators.39 If the name had originally referred only to the geological crevice, 35  Mizzi ḥilu (“sweet”) is a hard, Turonian ledge-forming lithographic limestone member of the Judea Group. All the surface of the Temple Mount / Ḥaram al Sharif is of the mizzi ḥilu formation. Such are also the Muslim rock under the Dome, as well as the rocky escarpment delineating the Ḥaram on the north. Underground spaces or cavities are rare in such formations, yet they are known. In these geological observations I was assisted by an interim geological report prepared for me by the geologist Dr. Dubi Levitte. I am indebted to him for this assistance. 36  Thus, for example, Albeck, The Six Orders of the Mishnah, in his commentary to m. Mid. 5:4. 37  Like ‫ גֻ ׇׇּלה‬in Josh 15:19 and Judg 1:15. 38  A similar meaning, as a bowl, or as a vessel for pouring water, should be attributed to the ‫ גֻ ׇׇּלה‬on top of the lampstand (menorah / ‫ )מנורה‬in the vision of Zechariah 4:2–3, if it had the shape of a bowl of oil, rather than the shape of a globe. Such is, inter alia, the interpretation of Michael Kokhman for the ‫ גֻ ׇׇּלה‬in the vision of Zechariah – a circular receptacle for oil. See Olam HaTanakh – Trei Assar (Tel Aviv: Davidson- Itai, 1996), 202. One should note the association of ‫ גֻ ׇׇּלה‬in this sense with one of the meanings of the Akkadian gullatu (CAD 5:129, gullatu, c), where it is mentioned together with narmaku, which means a bath basin (a sink? J. P.). In the dictionary it is translated as ewer ‑a pouring jug. This might be the meaning of ‫ גֻ ׇׇּלה‬in the vision of Zechariah. I am indebted to my colleague Prof. Gershon Galil of Haifa University for his assistance in this matter. It would be good to investigate other Akkadian texts, not included in that dictionary, to see if the word gullatu ever occurs in the sense of a basin or sink. If positive, then the Gullah Chamber actually preserves the name of the House of Laver of the Temple Scroll. 39  For various interpretations by rabbinic commentators see, inter alia, Zalman Qoren, VeAsu li Miqdash (Jerusalem: The Wailing Wall Heritage Foundation, 2007), 123 (Hebrew), and the dictionaries.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

184

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

the shape of which gives no indications that it was adapted to permit the operation of a water wheel, clearly the name did not derive from ‫ גלגל‬. Therefore, we should rather read ‫גֻ ׇׇּלה‬, and interpret it as a spring, or a small source of water. If Gullah is indeed the right name, the meaning spring or water source suggests some relation to the water issuing from below the Temple threshold mentioned in the vision of Ezekiel (47:1).40 Ezekiel speaks about a tiny spring flowing eastward adjacent to and alongside the Temple, on its southern side, which in the End of Days will become a strong stream of water. The geological fissure of Cistern 5 is located to the south of the Temple; if a small spring issued from inside it, then flowed to the east, the water would indeed pass to the south of the altar, as described by Ezekiel. Were the later cistern and chamber called after this spring? In the Second Temple period, this prophecy was interpreted in relation to Cistern  5, the southeastern arm of which projected into the Water Gate.41 The second part of Cistern 5 was added only in the Hellenistic period, since only then, at the end of the third or the beginning of the second century, was a waterwheel invented in Alexandria. Later on the cistern was elongated to the west by cutting a corridor to reach the geological fissure. For some reason this corridor was cut slightly wider on the south. The gallery in its entire length was cut in the strip which separated the pre-Herodian Temple wall from the southern wall of the Priestly Court. In this strip the House of the Laver and the House of Utensils originally stood (see below). It was necessary to dismantle these structures before the Temple could be enlarged by Herod. The third stage in the evolution of Cistern 5 can be assigned to the beginning of the Herodian works; before the Temple was widened by encasing the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies on the north and south, and elongating the Porch to 100 cubits.

40 “‫ים י ְֹר ִדים‬ ִ ‫וה ַּמ‬ ְַ ‫ית ָק ִדים‬ ִ ‫ימה ִּכי ְפניֵ ַה ַּב‬ ָ ‫ית ָק ִד‬ ִ ‫ים י ְֹצ ִאים ִמ ַּת ַחת ִמ ְפ ַּתן ַה ַּב‬ ִ ‫ּנה ַמ‬ ֵ ‫וה‬ ִ ְ ‫ויַ ְ ִש ֵבניִ ֶאל ֶּפ ַתח ַה ַּבית‬ ‫זְּב ַח‬ ְֵ ‫ימניִ ת ִמּנגֶ ֶב ַל ִּמ‬ ְָ ‫ית ַה‬ ִ ‫”מ ַּת ַחת ִמ ֶּכ ֶתף ַה ַּב‬: ִ “Then he brought me back to the door of the Temple; and behold, water was issuing from below the threshold of the Temple toward the east (for the Temple faced east); and the water was flowing down from below the south end of the threshold of the Temple, south of the altar” (RSV). 41  A tradition interpreting the meaning of the gate’s name is given in m. Mid. 2:6, in the name of Rabbi Eliezer son of Jacob – a tradition dated to the Second Temple period: “And why was it called the gate for water?… R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: And through it the water trickled forth (Ezek 47:2) and in the future will issue out from under the threshold of the house (Ezek 47:1)” (trans. J. Neusner). This tradition identifies the source of water beneath the Water Gate – which is the cistern under discussion here – with the spring in Ezekiel’s prophecy. One should also bear in mind that several hundred meters farther south the Gihon spring emerges from a similar mizzi-ḥilu geological formation, and from a similar depth below ground level. See also supra, n. 35.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

IX. The Pre-Herodian Temple

185

5. The House of the Laver and the House of Utensils

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Two structures are mentioned in the Temple Scroll: The House of the Laver (31:10–33:7) and the House of Utensils (33:8–13); they were components of neither the Solomonic temenos, nor of the Herodian, nor are they mentioned in Ezekiel.42 As for the House of the Laver, it does not resemble in its shape or location the Laver described in the Mishnah, the Sea of the Temple of Solomon, or the Laver of the Tabernacle.43 It is therefore evident that the location, structure and function of these buildings of the Temple Scroll are not merely literary allusions.44 The House of the Laver was a square structure, 21 × ​21 cubits, 20 cubits high, with walls 3 cubits thick and three openings to the east, west, and north, 7 × ​ 4 cubits in their dimensions. The Laver stood inside, in its center;45 all around its walls, 4 cubits above the floor, were “niches” or receptacles for holding the priestly garments. The building functioned as a place for the priests to wash and dress themselves before and after serving at the altar. The scroll does not say from where the Laver got its water, but around it there was a channel to drain the water: “[And] you shall make a conduit around the Laver, near its house. And the condui[t] / shall lead [from the house of] the Laver into a pit (‫)מחילה‬, [extend] ing downwards into the land, which / the water will be flowing into it and will be lost in the land” (Temple Scroll 32:12–14).46 42  For discussions of these structures in the Temple Scroll, see Yadin, Temple Scroll, 1:217– 230. Concerning their relationships to biblical passages, see also: Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The House of the Laver in the Temple Scroll,” Eretz Israel 26 (1999): 169*–175*. See further idem, “The Structures in the Inner Court of the Temple according to the Temple Scroll,” in Fifty Years of Dead Sea Scrolls Research: Studies in Memory of Jacob Licht, eds. G. Brin and B. Nitzan (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2001), 171–80 (Hebrew). 43  This stood between the Tent of Meeting (‫ )אהל מועד‬and the altar (Exod 30:18–21; 40:31– 32). 44  The case of the Stairhouse (Beit HaMesibbah), not discussed here, is similar. See supra, n. 20. Another structure – the House of the Vestments, is suggested by Chyutin, Architecture and Utopia, 140–42, Figs. 4.7, 4.8. He suggests that this building might have stood 7 cubits to the west of the House of the Laver, and had similar dimensions. But see below, note 48. 45  The Laver’s diameter is not specified; according to Yadin it was 10 cubits (Temple Scroll, 1:219). 46  “‫[ו]עשיתה תעלה סביב לכיור אצל ביתו והתעל[ה] הולכת [מבית] הכיור למחילה יורדת ופושטת אל‬ ‫תוך הארץ‬.” Such is Yadin’s reading (Temple Scroll, 1:223; 2:139). According to Qimron (Temple Scroll, 47), the reading should be modified (“‫ועשיתה תעלה סביב לכיור אצל מזבח העולה הולכת‬ ‫לתחת הכיור ומחילה יורדת למטה אל תוך הארץ אשר יהיו המים נשפכים והולכים אליה ואובדים בתוך‬ ‫)”הארץ‬. Namely, the conduit is to be made around the laver, at the altar of burnt offering, and thence going under the laver, into a pit (‫ ;)מחילה‬from there the conduit goes down into the land, so that the water will flow into it and be lost in the land. Qimron remarks that the reading “altar of burnt offering” (‫ )מזבח העולה‬is not certain. And indeed, in a private communication (June 5th, 2008), he suggested to me another possible reading: ‫ ;סביב לכיור אצל מכונתו‬that is, the conduit is to be made around the laver, at its foundation. (For ‫ מכונתו‬as a foundation cp. “‫ויכינו‬

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

186

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The House of Utensils had dimensions similar to those of the House of the Laver, and two openings, on the north and on the south, likewise of similar dimensions to those in the other building. Niches were installed on the inside of all its walls to house the altar utensils. It was 7 cubits distant from the House of the Laver, to the east (33:8–13). The House of the Laver was located to the southeast (‫( )נגב מזרח‬31:10), 50 cubits distant from the Altar (31:11). Its distance from the southern wall of the Temple is not given (or perhaps it was not preserved); this might have been 7 cubits, like the distance of the Stairhouse (Beit HaMesibbah, not to be confused with the Herodian Mesibbah) from the northern wall of the Sanctuary. Prima facie, ‫ נגב מזרח‬indicates the southern end of the eastern side of the Temple. In that place stood the Sea of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 7:39).47 In that same place – between the altar ramp and the Porch – stood the Laver of m. Mid. (3:6). But placing the Temple Scroll’s House of the Laver there would require moving the altar 50 cubits farther east, and this does not seem to be reasonable. Yadin considered this possibility and opted for placing the House of the Laver to the south of the Temple, rather than to its east. This conclusion seems to me to be correct.48 Yadin understood ‫ נגב מזרח‬as the eastern end of the southern side, and placed the House of the Laver to the south of the Porch, and the altar 50 cubits farther east. The House of Utensils was placed by him in between, 7 cubits to the east of the House of the Laver (as prescribed in the Temple Scroll 33:8–9), and thus to the southeast of the Porch. However, there is a problem with Yadin’s proposal: the locations of the altar and of the Porch were sacred, and their relative distance was a constant, not a variable. It is doubtful that the author of the Temple Scroll, or rather of the Temple Source, would recommend shifting one of these sacred structures from their actual location, the foundations of which had been laid already in the First Temple period.49 As indicated above, the enlarged altar was 22 cubits distant ‫ ”המזבח על מכונותיו‬in Ezra 3:2–3, and see supra, note 21). This reading makes more sense, since the channel cannot both circle around the laver, at the altar of burnt offering, and run under the laver at one and the same time. The conduit was draining the laver alone. 47  “And he set the sea on the southeast corner of the house” (RSV), and similarly in 2 Chr 4:10. 48  Yadin, Temple Scroll, 1:217–18. It seems that in present linguistic usage as well, a general southeastern location can be understood as falling either on the south of the eastern side, or on the east of the southern side, not necessarily merely as facing the corner. Chyutin (Architecture and Utopia, 139–142, Figs. 4.7, 4.8), is of the opinion that the designation ‫ נגב מזרח‬is intended relative to the altar, and places the House of the Laver and the House of the Utensils accordingly. This interpretation of the text is untenable. 49 As indicated above, the altar had been located to the east of the Temple from the time of Solomon; therefore I suggest here (Fig. IX.1), that the altar of the Temple Scroll should be shifted to the north relative to the location proposed by Yadin, and be positioned opposite the Sanctuary entrance. The 50 cubits distance between the altar and the House of the Laver should be understood as given along an east–west axis of an orthogonal system.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

IX. The Pre-Herodian Temple

187

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

from the Porch (m. Mid. 3:6). Such is the distance in the Scroll between the Altar and the House of Utensils, since the House of the Laver was 50 cubits away from the altar (31:11), and 7 cubits from the House of Utensils. The dimensions of the House of Utensils were 21 × ​21 cubits, and thus we may calculate that the distance between this House and the Altar was 22 cubits [50 − (7 + 21)].50 Consequently, the House of Utensils is to be located to the south of the Porch, on the site of the future southern House of the Slaughter-knives of the elongated Herodian Porch. Hence, the House of the Laver should be shifted 28 cubits farther west relative to Yadin’s placement. This location is still on the southeast of the Sanctuary in the strict sense of that term (see Fig. IX.1).51 This shift brings the House of the Laver above the undulating western arm of Cistern no. 5! (see Fig. IX.2), which, as I have suggested above, is a large, natural geological fissure. If all this is indeed the case, then this arm of the cistern is the pit (‫)מחילה‬, [extend] ing downwards into the land, which the water will be flowing into it and will be lost in the land. This vertical pit is still extant to present day, below the upper esplanade of the Dome of the Rock. It is the sole relic of the pre-Herodian House of the Laver. It therefore seems that the passages about the House of the Laver and the House of Utensils (as well as the Stairhouse / Beit HaMesibbah – another building in the inner court), reflect a pre-Herodian situation – Hasmonaean, or even earlier. As for the water poured into the pit, the author commands: “And it (the water) shall not be touched by anyone, for it is mixed with the blood of burnt offering” (Temple Scroll 32:14–15),52 and his polemical tone is evident. The text implies that these waters were actually being used, and the author reproached this practice. 50  And therefore, the Temple Scroll reflects the real situation of an altar which had already been enlarged to the south and to the west. Hence, the altar was enlarged some time between the writing of Hecataeus of Abdera and the Temple Source of the Temple Scroll, perhaps under Simeon the Just. 51 The question of whether, in the passage describing the location of the Stairhouse (Beit HaMesibbah) (Temple Scroll 30:5 and 7), the hekhal is mentioned in its more limited sense, namely, denoting the Sanctuary as one of the three parts of the Temple (to be differentiated from the ulam [Porch / Vestibule], and the qodesh [Holy of Holies]), or with more general connotations, standing for the entire Temple building, was examined by Yadin (Temple Scroll, 1:211–12). He had opted for the second, more general sense. But nevertheless, it is quite possible that hekhal is to be understood here in the more delimited sense. In this case the Stairhouse (Beit HaMesibbah) should be shifted farther east relative to the location given by Yadin, bringing it to the north of the western part of the Sanctuary proper. Hekhal is not mentioned in the lines giving the location of the House of the Laver. 52  Yadin, Temple Scroll 1:224; 2:139. A different approach, according to which the water mixed with blood of the house of slaughter in the temple court are pure, is presented in m. ʿEd. 8:4. This saying is attributed to the sage Yose ben Yoezer, who flourished before the Hasmonaean reform in the temple rite. See also m. Kelim, 15:6.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

188

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

The Gullah Chamber was among the southern chambers of the Priestly Court (m. Mid. 5:4). The southern tip of the Carstic crevice under consideration, located underneath, indicates the Chamber’s exact location against the outer wall of the Court (Fig. IV.3, p. 84), slightly to the south of the pre-Herodian House of the Laver (Fig. IX.2).

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

6. Conclusions The identification of the western part of Cistern no. 5 with the “pit (‫)מחילה‬, [extend]ing downwards into the land,” that had drained the Laver, indicates that the House of the Laver (and the other appended structures), were real components of the pre-Herodian Temple. The following stages can be proposed pertaining to the location of the Laver and the House of Utensils. A. In the pre-Herodian stage, perhaps as early as the period of the Restoration, the temple had a House of the Laver. It was installed above a natural Carstic fissure – which comprises at present the western arm of Cistern no. 5; this was also the pit into which the Laver’s water was drained. In this huge underground space there was also a tiny spring – ‫גֻ ׇׇּלה‬ – which gave the cistern its name.53 Its water, then drawn by buckets, could supply the Laver; perhaps by then it had already also served the other needs of the Priestly Court (rinsing the pieces of the offerings, washing off the blood from the altar base etc.). This large Carstic space, which simultaneously fed and drained the Laver, dictated its location in that particular place, which stands at variance with the location of the Tabernacle’s Laver and of the Sea of Solomon’s Temple; these were located on the east. B. Later on, after a waterwheel with a mechanical transmission was invented in Alexandria,54 the rock-cutting of Cistern no. 5 was started. This was done in two stages. First its arms were dug to encompass the altar ramp, and another arm projected to the south, into the Water Gate. Waterwheels could have been installed above these arms, for an effective washing off of the altar, and for the other needs of the Court. (At that stage the altar had already been enlarged; the arms of the cistern encompassed the ramp of this enlarged altar). No gallery has yet connected the rock-cut cistern and the natural crevice below the House of the Laver and the Gullah Chamber. What date should be assigned to this stage? The Letter of Aristeas (88–90) presents a picture of an abundance of flowing water, as if emerging from a spring located within the precinct. The Temple was surrounded by a floor paved with  See discussion supra, and nn. 37, 38, and 40.  This transmission technology was apparently invented only in the 2nd c. bce. Philo of Byzantium, the Hellenistic engineer who wrote Pneumatica in the 3rd c. bce (a composition preserved only in an Arabic translation), was unaware of it yet. See supra, Chapter X. 53 54

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

IX. The Pre-Herodian Temple

189

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

sloped stones to permit easy drainage of the water used for cleansing the blood of the sacrifices. Hidden openings installed in the base of the altar also assisted the drainage. There were also magnificent underground, well-leaded and plastered reservoirs placed around the foundations.55 This description is pre-Hasmonaean.56 It may be possible to attribute this stage to Simeon the Just’s building project, which also included an expansion of the water supply system for the Temple (see below). However, this attribution is not absolutely certain, since this passage does not speak explicitly about a water cistern that fed the Laver, but about the water stream near the altar. The emphasis is on the drainage of the water which washed off the sacrificial blood, around the foundations of the altar. It is rather more plausible that the cutting of the cistern and the installation of water wheels were a Hasmonaean project.57 At this stage, before the Temple was enlarged to the south, and before the cistern was elongated westward, it was not yet necessary to dismantle the House of the Laver and the House of Utensils; but it seems that already in that period, the Laver was transferred to its new location – between the ramp and the Porch, nearer to the altar and the elaborate cistern. These changes were part of the Hasmonaean liturgical reforms. In its new location the Laver stood under the open sky, rather than within a house as before. When the House of the Laver was dismantled, its other functions as a dressing room and storage space for garments were transferred to other locales. This implies major changes in the ritual routines. C. The expansion of the Temple by Herod to the north and to the south, and the elongation of the Porch to 100 cubits, made it necessary at this stage to dis-

55  Letter of Aristeas 84–91 (ed. Moses Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates: The Letter of Aristeas [New York: Harper, 1951], 132–37). The passage on an abundance of streaming water seems to be a paraphrase of Ezek 47:1–5, as is also the clause of m. Mid. 2:6, which speaks of the Water Gate (the saying of R. Eliezer b. Jacob cited above). See also supra, n. 41. 56  There are opposing opinions about the date of this composition. See the survey in Schürer History, 3.1:677–87. The various opinions presented tend to date the composition to the second century, earlier than 170 bce (ibid., 684). This date was first suggested by Harry Meyer Orlinski, “Review of Hadas’ Aristeas to Philocrates (1951),” Crozer Quarterly 29 (1952): 201–5; he was followed by Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 48, n. 1. Rowland J. H. Shutt, “Letter of Aristeas,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James H. Charlesworth; Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1985), 9, also adopts this dating. Accordingly, Menaḥem Stern, History of Eretz Israel: The Hellenistic Period and the Hasmonaean Period (332–37 bce) (Jerusalem: Keter, 1981), 98 –105, 124, 138 and 140–41 (Hebrew), addresses this literary source only in the chapter on the period that preceded the Hasmonaean revolt. Rappaport was of the opinion that the composition should be dated to an even earlier period – the end of the third century, the end of the Ptolemaic regime in Eretz Israel. See Uriel Rappaport, “When was the Letter of Aristeas composed?” Studies in the History of the People of Israel and the Land of Israel 1 (1970): 37–50 (Hebrew). 57  And if the Letter of Aristeas reflects a Hasmonaean reality, as some scholars maintain, this will concur with such a proposal.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

190

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

mantle the House of Utensils that stood in that area. The southern House of the Slaughter-knives took the place of the House of Utensils; like the earlier structure, it served to store the altar utensils, including the knives (as did its counterpart to the north). The date ascribed to the Temple Source of the Temple Scroll corresponds to the period of restoration and elaboration conducted by the high priest Simeon II (the Just). This building project, which might have started at the end of the Ptolemaic era, was resumed when Jerusalem passed to Seleucid rule. It was an important building project, mentioned in the letter of Antiochus III to his governor concerning the Jews, and in his decree about the Temple and Jerusalem (Ant. 12.138–144; 145–146): “And it is my will that … the work on the Temple be completed, including the porticoes and any other part it may be necessary to build. The timber, moreover, shall be brought from Judaea itself and from other nations and Lebanon without the imposition of a toll charge. The like shall be done with the other materials needed for making the restoration of the Temple more splendid” (Ant. 12.141).58 The few sentences of praise to the high priest Simeon in the Wisdom of Ben Sira59 indicate that it was a most impressive building project. It seems that it included the leveling of the Temple Mount, and shaping it as a square esplanade, as well as expanding the water supply system to the Temple. Perhaps it also included the cutting of the first phase of Cistern no. 5 around the altar ramp, if the author of the Letter of Aristeas was referring, inter alia, to this cistern. In that case, it is quite possible that the Temple Source of the Temple Scroll was composed in reaction to, and even as protest against this building project.60 The Temple Scroll was edited ca. 50 years later, as a reaction and protest against the reforms of the Hasmonaeans in the Temple. The House of the Laver and the House of Utensils were real structures; they were not inventions of the author. It seems that they were already standing in the Priestly Court prior to the Hasmonaeans. The House of the Laver seems to have been dismantled by them, the Laver being set under the open sky, nearer to the altar and to the cistern hewn around the altar ramp, which was equipped with a water wheel. The other functions of the House of the Laver as the storage for the priestly garments, and as a dressing room were moved elsewhere.61 The House

58  The English translation is that of Ralf Marcus, LCL 5:72–73. Concerning these two documents see also Menaḥem Stern, The Documents for the Hasmonaean Revolt (Tel Aviv: HaKibbutz ha-Meuḥad, 1973), 32 (Hebrew). 59  Supra, note 9. 60 Supra, note 17, and see also Maier, “The Architectural History,” in Brooke, Studies, 23–62. 61  Places associated with the donning of priestly vestments in the Temple described in tractate Middot are the office of Pinḥas, the keeper of the vestments (m. Mid. 1:4; m. Sheq. 1:5), the Room of the Hearth (‫( )בית המוקד‬m. Mid. 1:8; m. Tamid 1:1), and the Office made of Hewn Stone (‫( )לשכת הגזית‬m. Mid. 5:4). See also supra, n. 44.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

IX. The Pre-Herodian Temple

191

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

of Utensils was seemingly dismantled only during the Herodian enlargement, being replaced by the southern House of the Slaughter-knives.62

62  Chambers of utensils other than slaughter-knives are mentioned in m. Tamid 3:4; m. Sheq. 5:6. For a more condensed Hebrew version of this article see Joseph Patrich, “Differences between Herod’s Temple and that of the Hasmonaeans: Reflections on the ‘House of the Utensils’ and the ‘House of the Laver’ of the Temple Scroll,” in New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region: Collected Papers 1, eds. Joseph Patrich and David Amit (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2007), 41–53 (Hebrew). The present revised and enlarged version was written while spending a term of my sabbatical (February – June 2008) at The Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies (NIAS). I am grateful to its entire staff for the excellent working conditions provided there. The article was style edited by Dr. Ruth Clements of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I am grateful for her excellent work.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved. Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:50:07.

X. Water-Wheels at Service in the Second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem 1. The Water-Wheels Several rabbinic passages allude to waterwheels at service in the temple of Jerusalem: M. Mid. (tr. H. Danby): 5:4. The Golah1 cistern was there [in the Golah Chamber], and a wheel was set over it, and from thence they drew water enough for the whole Temple Court. M. ʿErub. (tr. Danby): 10:14. … they may draw water with a wheel on the Sabbath from the Golah Cistern and from the Great Cistern, and from the Hakar Well on a Festival-day.

Three other passages refer to yet another water lifting device, that provided water to the Laver that served the priests for washing their hands and feet before ascending the Altar early each day, when there was still dark outside:

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

M. Tamid (tr. H. Danby) 1:4. He whose lot it was to clear the Altar of ashes went to clear the Altar of ashes, while they said to him, ‘Take heed that thou touch not the vessel before thou hast sanctified thy hands and feet in the Laver; and lo, the firepan lies in the corner between the Ramp and the Altar, on the western side of the Ramp’. None went in with him and he carried no lamp, but he walked in the light of the Altar fire. They neither saw him nor heard sound of him until they heard the noise of the wooden device (mechane) which Ben Katin had made for the laver; and then they said, ‘The time is come!’ He sanctified his hands and feet at the laver, took the silver firepan and went up to the top of the Altar and cleared away the cinders to this side and to that, and scooped up the innermost burnt [cinders] and came down again. 2:1. When his brethren saw that he was come down they came running and hastened and sanctified their hands and their feet at the Laver, and they took the shovels and the rakes and mounted to the top of the Altar. M. Yoma (tr. H. Danby): 3:10. Ben Katin made twelve stop-cocks for the Laver which before had but two; and he also made a device (mechane) for the laver that its water should not be rendered unfit by remaining overnight. M. Mid. (tr. H. Danby): 3:6 The Laver stood between the Porch and the Altar, towards the south.  The correct reading should be Gullah (‫)גֻ ׇׇּלה‬. See supra, Chapter VIII.

1

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:01.

194

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

2. The Greek Term Mechane In Greek literary sources, including papyri, Mechane  / μεχανή is a common technical term denoting a geared water wheel, even if the exact device to which this term refers is not always clear.2 According to Oleson, this geared technology was a 2nd c. bce invention. Philon of Byzantion, a Hellenistic engineer writing in the late 3rd c. bce, did not mention it yet.3 A mural of a geared lifting device of a type called in Arabic Sakiya, in a 2nd c. bce tomb in the Wardian quarter of Alexandria, corroborates this date.4 A Bucket-chain device without a gear is a lifting device with an upper and lower wheels, described by Philon of Byzantium in his Pneumatica, chapter 65 (a composition preserved only in Arabic), or an upper wheel with bronze or wooden compartments hanging down by chains, described by the Latin architect Vitruvius in his De Architectura 10.4.4, written in the last quarter of the 1st c. bce.5 Some wheels were operated by treading on the wheel – the “trod type”.6 Devices of the trod-type were found in Pompeii – in the Stabian Bath, the Forum Bath, the Republican Bath, and Casa del Cambio, all dated to the 2nd and 1st c. bce;7 in Ostia – Terme dela Trinacria, dated to the 2nd–3rd c. ce;8 and in Abu Mina, Egypt, “Das große Doppelbad”, dated to the 5th–6th c. ce.9 Other, more elaborate water wheels were geared; a technology which appeared only in the first half of the 2nd c. bce. These are: Cosa, the spring house near the harbor, dated to the 1st quarter of 1st c. bce and 2nd half of the 1st c. ce;10 Hermopolis, dated to the 1st–2nd ? c. ce;11 and Abu Mina, “Der Palast”, dated to

 See Joseph Peter Oleson, Greek and Roman Mechanical Water-Lifting Devices: The History of a Technology (Toronto-Buffalo-London: University of Toronto Press, 1984); John William Humphrey, Joseph Peter Oleson and Andrew N. Sherwood, Greek and Roman Technology. A Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1998), 309–22; John Gray Landels, Engineering in the Ancient World (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1978), 63–66, 68– 70; Thorkild Schiøler, Roman and Islamic Water Lifting Wheels (Odense: Odense University Press, 1973).  3  Oleson, Mechanical Water-Lifting Devices, 378.  4  Marjorie Susan Venit, “The Painted Tomb from Wardian and the Antiquity of the Saqiya in Egypt,” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 26 (1989): 219–22.  5  Oleson, Mechanical Water-Lifting Devices, 75–9 and figs. 23, 33, 44.  6  For a reconstruction, without a gear, see Oleson, Mechanical Water-Lifting Devices, fig. 29.  7  Oleson, Mechanical Water-Lifting Devices, figs. 102–9. For the finds from Campania see also: Joseph Peter Oleson, “Water-Lifting Devices at Herculaneum and Pompeii in the Context of Roman Technology,” in Cura Aquarum in Campania, eds. Natalie de Haan and Gemma C. M. Jansen (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 67–75.  8 Oleson, Mechanical Water-Lifting Devices, fig. 97.  9  Op. cit., fig. 38. 10  Op. cit., figs. 52–64. 11  Op. cit., figs 75–76.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

 2

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:01.

X. Water-Wheels at Service in the Second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem

195

the 5th–6th c. ce.12 A similar device fed a Byzantine bath-house from a circular well in Marea, Egypt.13 Oleson mentions other sites where sakiya vessels were found in wells, but the lifting (with or without a gear) device is uncertain: Cosa, the Acropolis Baths, dated to 150–125 bce; and later installations in Madinat Habu, Armant, Kafr Manda, Faium etc. Sakiya vessels were also found in Caesarea Maritima, Israel, in the bathhouse of the 6th c. palatial mansion to the south of area KK. The lifting device was set there on top of a circular well, rather than above a rectangular shaft.14 Also known is manually operated bucket-chain in use in a ship for pumping out rear waters, found in Nemi, Italy, dated to the second quarter of the 1st c. ce.15 In water wheels of the sakiya type the water were drawn by pairs of clay vessels fastened to ropes that were hanging on a vertical wheel, and were let down into a well, or a cistern. The space in which the ropes revolved was sometimes shaped like a rectangular shaft, the dimensions of which were in accord with the width and the diameter of the wheel set above the shaft; at times it was shaped like a round shaft. Sometimes a horizontal wheel operated by a man or a beast of burden, was connected by a gear to the vertical one. This gear was the mechanical device that gave its name to the entire installation. The term mechane does not refer to a sucking pump of the box-pump type, operated by atmospheric pressure, described in chapter 64 of Philon’s Pneumatika, that was operated by an upper tooth wheel. It is also doubtful if such a pump could lift water from a depth of 15 m. For the same reason it is also doubtful that the Mishnah refers to “Archimedes Screw” (kochlia in the Greek; kvulin in t. Miqw. 4:2). A pushing pump, set inside the water (to be differentiated from a sucking pump), was first invented by Ktesibius of Alexandria (mid 3rd c. bce). The words udatwn mechanhs are mentioned in a Greek inscription found in the Negev, denoting a hydraulic apparatus attached to a water-carrying system.16

 Op. cit., figs. 38–39.  Hanna Szymanska, K. Babraj, “Marea: Season 2002,” Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean XIV, Reports 2002 (2003): 40, 45–46. 14  Yoseph Porath, HA 105 (1996): 39–41. It seems that the water-lifting device was a geared wheel operated by a beast. 15  See Oleson, Mechanical Water-Lifting Devices, figs. 89, 90 (but he comments of this reconstruction as uncertain). 16 See: Mosheh Schwabe, “A Jewish Sepulchral Inscription,” IEJ 1 (1950–51): 52; Barukh Lifshitz, “Notes d’épigraphie grecque,” RB, 70 (1963): 255–57, Pl. 12; Leah Di Segni, “The water supply of Roman and Byzantine Palestine in literary and epigraphical sourced,” in The Aqueducts of Israel. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 46, eds. David Amit, Joseph Patrich and Yizhar Hirschfeld (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2002), 63.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

12 13

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:01.

196

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

3. Cistern no. 5 on the Temple Mount

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

All water cisterns on the temple platform  / Ḥaram esh-Sharif were surveyed already in the 19th c (Fig. X.1).17 Cistern no. 5 on Wilson’s map of 1876 (Fig. VI.1, p. 112), is the only candidate that can be identified with the cistern that fed the laver; it is the Gullah Cistern of the Mishnah.18 The Laver, located between the Altar ramp and the Temple Porch, serve the priests for washing their hands and feet before ascending to the Altar early in the morning. It seems that the mechane that served the Laver was part of a water wheel of the bucket- chain type, or of the pot-garland type, appropriate for deep lifting. According to the mishnaic text cited above (Tamid 4:1), it can be concluded that the mechane of the temple could be operated by a single person. Cistern no. 5 is the clue for locating precisely the Altar, the Temple and some of the gates and chamber that surrounded it (Figs. VI.2 and V.1, pp. 115 and 99 respectively).19 According to our proposal the altar ramp was located to the north of the main gallery of cistern no. 5, in the area 11 m wide, delineated by it and by two arms extending to the north. According to the information at hand, there is a rock ceiling above the southern end of the south-eastern arms, but most of the ceiling is plastered. The cistern, when cut, was thus open to the sky, so that a water wheel, or several wheels, could have been set along the main corridor and along the perpendicular arms. The relative location of the Laver indicates that the mechane feeding it by fresh water was a water wheel that was set above the arm that delineated the ramp on its west. Cistern no. 5 can be identified with the “Cistern of the Gullah”, above which a wheel was in operation according to m. ʿErub. 10:14, cited above. According to our proposal, the southern arm on the western end points to the exact location of the Gullah chamber (Fig. IV.3, p. 84). A water wheel could have been placed also above the southern arm on the east, pointing to the exact location of the Water Gate according to our proposal. Several wheels, not named in the rabbinic passages, could have also been set along the main gallery, and when being operated simultaneously one could get a great flush of water for washing the court, especially its place of slaughtering. Water was also needed 17 Charles W. Wilson, Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem in the Years 1864 to 1865 (Southampton: Ordnance Survey Office 1866), 43; Charles W. Wilson, Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem 1865, Sheet 1: Haram Grounds & c. Facsimile Edition (Jerusalem: Ariel Publishing House, 1980); Konrad Schick, Die Stiftshütte, der Tempel in Jerusalem und der Tempelplatz der Jetztzeit (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1896), 293–304, Pl. IX. This is cistern no. 28 in Simon Gibson and David M. Jacobson, Below the Temple Mount. A sourcebook on the cisterns, subterranean chambers and conduits of the Haram al-Sharif. BAR International Series 637 (Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, 1996). Unfortunately, it is impossible at present to descend into the cisterns and explore them any farther. 18  For a detailed argumentation concerning this interpretation see supra, Chapters VI and IX. 19  Op. cit.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:01.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

X. Water-Wheels at Service in the Second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem

Fig. X.1. The water cisterns below the temple platform (after Wilson’s map of 1987).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:01.

197

198

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

in the Rinsing Chamber, on the northern side of the inner, priestly court, where they rinsed the inwards of the animal-offerings” (m. Mid. 5:3).20 In Passover, when there were many individual and public offerings, the court was washed by the priests not only on each working day of the holyday, but in the Sabbath as well (m. Pesaḥ. 5:8). It is reasonable to assume that it was washed regularly also throughout the year every day, or once a week, perhaps on the eve of Sabbath, when the Altar was also white-washed with a piece of cloth, against the blood (m. Mid. 3:4). The washing could have been done, by using buckets, but using a flush of water emerging from a wheel seems to be more efficient. Not only the floor of the court had to be washed regularly, but also the offerings blood drained under the foundation of the Altar into a conduit running to the Kidron (m. Yoma 5:6; m. Mid. 3:2), had to be washed away.21 To the best of my knowledge, such a water system for providing the needs of the rite and for cleansing and draining the Altar and its surroundings are unique in antiquity. Cisterns and wells are known in other sacred precincts, but not such an elaborate system as the one in use in the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. In the Hellenistic temples of Hermopolis (Ashmonein) and Kom Umbo in Middle Egypt, shafts serving lifting devices of the sakiya type were identified, but they fed water pools where the sacred crocodiles of the god Sebek (in Kom Umbo) or the sacred ibises of the god Thot (in Hermopolis) were fed and resting.22 In the temple of Bel in Palmyra, Syria, almost contemporary to the Herodian Temple, there was a water basin near the altar that served for purification. A mechanism of the kind at our concern was not there. Likewise in the temple of Jupiter at Baalbek in Lebanon. Other than in agriculture, water wheels of the sakiya type were also used in bath houses.23 The other cisterns with a wheel mentioned in m. ʿErub. – the Great Cistern, and the Hakar Well, should be looked for on the southern side of the Temple Mount, the principal approach to the temple for worship. The Great Cistern, or 20 The injunction to wash in water the inwards and the legs of the burnt offering is written in Lev 1:9, 13. In Solomon’s Temple the ten basins served this purpose. These were bras bases, each with four wheels that carried the lavers; they were standing in two parallel rows on either side of the sanctuary entrance, on the right and on the left. The lavers were four cubits in diameter and in height (1 Kgs 7:27–29; 2 Chron 4:6). The large dimensions indicates that their move from one place to another was not a simple task. It was impossible to use them without climbing a ladder, or using a similar device, unless here as well (as in case of the Sea), there were some faucets, that permitted a controlled flow. But this is not mentioned in the bible. For discussions see supra, Chapter IX, with farther references. 21  For the water supply and drainage of the altar described in the Letter of Aristeas, see supra, Chapters VI and IX. 22  Alexandre Badawy, “Au grand temple d’Hermoupolis-ouest: l’installation hydraulique,” RA 48 (1956): 140–54. A similar well also existed in the temple at Edfu. 23  For examples of water-wheels of bucket-chain and pot-garland devices, see Oleson, Mechanical Water-Lifting Devices, 174–80 and the alphabetical site catalogue that follows. Many are also listed supra.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:01.

X. Water-Wheels at Service in the Second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem

199

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Big Cistern can be identified with cistern no. 8 on Wilson’s map, due to its huge dimensions. It was the terminal of the Lower Level Aqueduct that provided water to the temple from springs in the Hebron Hills, via “Solomon’s Pools”. Hakar Well, called perhaps after the Hellenistic citadel Aakra that was located above, can be identified with the E shaped cistern no. 11 on Wilson’s map. It was permitted to operate the wheels set above these cisterns on Sabbath, presumably due to their function as major water supply for the pilgrims.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:01.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved. Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:01.

XI. The Structure of the Second Temple. A New Reconstruction

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction For generations, numerous commentators and scholars have attempted to reconstruct the appearance of the Second Temple built in Jerusalem by Herod the Great toward the end of the 1st century b.c.e. Particularly well known are drawings attached to the commentaries of Maimonides (13th century ce), R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller (17th century), R. Jonathan b. Joseph of Raseiniai, Lithuania (early 18th century) and R. Israel Lipschutz (19th century). We will not concern ourselves here with drawings of the Temple which took their inspiration from the Dome of the Rock standing on the site of the ancient Temple, and will focus on reconstructions based upon ancient literary sources. As regards modern scholarship, we must mention the reconstructions and plans proposed by Melchior De Vogüé, Gustav Dalman, Frederick J. Hollis, Carl Watzinger, Louis-Hugues Vincent, Michael Avi-Yonah, S. Shefer and Elḥanan Aibeschütz, and, of course, the monumental work of Theodore A. Busink. Among the more important discussions of this question are those of Ezriel Hildesheimer, who compared the descriptions of the Temple in the Mishnah with those in Josephus’s works, and that of Oscar Holtzmann. The reconstruction proposed here (Fig. XI.1 and Pl. I.1)1 includes two innovations: the structure of the mesibbah (Stepped Passageway) and the Golden Vine above the portal of the Sanctuary and the columns over which it hung; and the attention to detail, particularly the scale drawings of the various Temple components. I have attempted to remain as faithful as possible to the literary sources, avoiding conjectures unsupported by written material. I shall therefore discuss the two new features mentioned, and present a detailed description of the Temple and its components based upon the present reconstruction (Fig. XI.2). The most detailed description of the Temple is that in tractate Middot of the Mishnah. One of the oldest tractates in the Mishnah, it is attributed to R. Eliezer b. Jacob, a Tanna who lived during the last years of the Second Temple and had first-hand knowledge of the building before its destruction. His description is generally considered as a realistic one, though some scholars claim it to be idealized. The Temple described in Middot is the one built by Herod the Great in 1  The drawings reproduced in this article are by architect Leen P. Ritmeyer, who also conceived some of the graphic solutions, following my instructions.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:16.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

202

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Fig. XI.1. Reconstruction of the Herodian Temple in Jerusalem according to Mishnah Tractate Middot. Fig. Legend (according to Steinsaltz, BT)   1. Stairs to the Porch. 13. Roof of Holy of Holies. 25. Opening from cell to   2. Porch entrance. 14. Roof of Sanctuary. Sanctuary.   3. Porch. 15. Mosaic strip (rashei 26. Opening from cell to the   4. Chamber of the pesifasin). adjacent one. Slaughter Knives. 16. Upper Chamber. 27. Opening from cell to the   5. Foundation (’otem). 17. Lulin. one above.   6. Sanctuary entrance. 18. Cedar posts (ladder). 28. Graded wall between the   7. Oak beams (maltera’ot). 19. Wall of Porch. Sanctuary and the Cells.   8. Spikes (kalah ‘orev). 20. Wall of messibah. 29. Sanctuary windows and   9. Wicket. 21. Wall of Sanctuary. crowns. 10. Roof of Upper Chamber. 22. Messibah. 30. Beams connecting the 11. Ceilings. 23. Cells. Porch and Sanctuary 12. Roof of Cells. 24. Wall of Cells. walls.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:16.

XI. The Structure of the Second Temple. A New Reconstruction

203

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. XI.2. Plans and sections of the Temple according to tractate Middot.

20–19 b.c.e., completed, according to Josephus, over a period of one year and seven months. There are several discrepancies between tractate Middot and Josephus’s description of the Temple, and there are even differences in certain details reported in Josephus’s two works – The Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews.2 The discrepancies relate mainly to the dimensions of the doorways and a few parts of the Temple. However, the sources agree as to the overall structure. Thus, both Middot and Josephus describe the Portico (ulam), the Sanctuary (heikhal) and the Holy of Holies (qodesh ha-qodashim) as constituting the core of the Temple. Both also refer to the Upper Chamber (aliyah), Cells (taim) and Stepped Passageway (mesibbah). The discrepancies are minor; moreover, wherever one of the sources omits some detail, I have completed the missing data from another source. Many scholars, including Emil Schürer, Carl Watzinger, Avraham Schalit and Michael Avi-Yonah, favor the Mishnah’s description over that of Josephus.

2  Israel Lee Levine, “Josephus’ description of the Jerusalem Temple; ’War’, ‘Antiquities’, and other sources,” in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, eds. Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 233–46.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:16.

204

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

2. The Splendor of the Temple The Temple made a profound impression on all who saw it: “Our Masters taught: Whosoever has not seen Jerusalem in its splendor has never seen a beautiful city; and whosoever has not seen the Temple standing has never seen a magnificent building” (Baraita, b. Sukkah 51b); “Whosoever has not seen Herod’s Temple has never seen a beautiful building” (b. Baba Batra 4a). What was the essence of the Temple’s splendor? The Talmud states that it was built of “stones of yellow and white marble” or “stones of yellow, black and white marble” (b. Baba Batra 4a). We are also told that Herod intended to plate the Temple with gold, and Josephus relates that its entire façade, which faced east, was covered with heavy gold plates. At sunrise, the reflection of the sunlight was so brilliant that it could blind unwary onlookers. The other walls were also plated with gold, though only in their lower parts; their upper parts were the pure white color of the stone of which they were built, perhaps whitewashed each year before Passover, causing the Temple to resemble a snow-clad mountain from afar. The parapets around the edges of the roofs were fitted with golden spikes. Such was the external appearance of the Temple. No mention is made of columns, capitals or friezes adorned with reliefs in the façade of the building or on its other sides.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

3. Dimensions and General Form of the Temple “The Sanctuary (the Mishnah uses the word here in its general sense, as a synonym for the Temple, which consisted of the Portico, the Sanctuary proper and the Holy of Holies) was a hundred cubits square and a hundred cubits high” (m. Mid. 4:6). Above the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies was the Upper Chamber, and these were surrounded on the north, west and south by three tiers of Cells. Along the northern side of the Temple, beyond the Cells, was the Stepped Passageway, and parallel to it on the south was the Water Drain (bet horadat ha-mayim). The Portico was wider than the other parts of the Temple: “The Sanctuary (=  Temple) was narrow behind and wide in front, and it was like to a lion” (m. Mid. 4:7). The Cells encompassed the walls of the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies only, but not the Upper Chamber; in this area, therefore, the lower level of the Temple was wider than its upper level, making it rather similar to the Royal Stoa at the southern side of the Temple Mount. Thanks to the exact dimensions specified in the Mishnah, we can draw a scale plan of the Temple, together with cross-sections. All the dimensions are in

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:16.

XI. The Structure of the Second Temple. A New Reconstruction

205

cubits.3 The measurements of the Temple from east to west and from north to south are given at the level of the second tier of Cells; hence the plan drawn according to these figures depicts the situation at that level.

4. The Portico 4.1 The Steps Twelve steps led up to the entrance of the Portico. Since each step was half a cubit high, the floor of the Portico was 6 cubits higher than that of the Court of the Priests (the exterior courtyard surrounding the Temple). Therefore, this was also the height of the solid substructure or foundation (’otem, in the Mishnah) which supported the Temple walls.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

4.2 Façade of the Temple and Entrance of the Portico (Figs. XI.3a–b) Aside from the gold plating of the façade and the ornamentation of the lintel, we have no information about additional decoration. The entrance of the Portico was 40 cubits high and 20 cubits wide. This large portal was provided with neither doors nor a curtain. The doorposts were gilded, and the lintel was made of five oak beams (called maltera’ot in the sources – a word deriving from the Greek μέλαθρον), each 1 cubit thick. Each beam was separated from the one beneath it by a course of stones 1 cubit high. The lowest beam was 2 cubits longer than the width of the portal, that is to say, 22 cubits long, extending 1 cubit on either side of the entrance. Εach of the following beams was 2 cubits longer than those beneath it, extending 1 cubit on each side. Thus the length of the uppermost beam was 30 cubits. Summarizing, we see that the façade of the Portico was a plain, unadorned surface, 100 cubits wide and 100 cubits high. At its center was a portal of impressive dimensions, topped by a lintel with diagonally stepped ends. A similar portal is depicted on some rather rare silver di-drachm coins of the Bar-Kokhba Revolt (Fig. XI.3b). I agree with the suggestion that the design on these coins depicts the entrance to the Portico.4 The two columns flanking the entrance in the coin are not mentioned in the sources and therefore have no place in our reconstruction. The Mishnah describes the structure of the lintel in considerable detail but says nothing of the doorposts. It seems doubtful, therefore, that the doorposts were actually fashioned in the form of columns. It was above this portal – the entrance to the Portico – that Herod affixed the golden eagle, which pious Jews removed only at the end of his reign.  One cubit = 52.5 cm. = 20.7 inches  I am grateful to Dan Barag who called my attention to these rare coins.

3 4

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:16.

206

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

a.

b.

c. Fig. XI.3a. Façade of the Portico; b. Didrachm of Bar-Kokhba; c. Section through the Portico (D–D), looking west.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:16.

XI. The Structure of the Second Temple. A New Reconstruction

207

4.3 Measurements of the Portico The wall of the Portico was 5 cubits thick. As the Portico measured only 11 cubits from east to west, it was actually little more than a narrow antechamber built across the entire width of the Temple (from north to south) and rising to the latter’s full height. It was 30 cubits wider than the rest of the Temple, extending for an additional 15 cubits on either side of the Sanctuary. In the protruding sections of the Portico were two rooms, known as the Chambers of the Slaughter Knives (bet ha-ḥalifot) and used, as their name implies, to store the knives used in the sacrificial service. Thus, assuming that the inner walls of the Chambers were 5 cubits thick like the outer walls of the Temple, the length of the Portico between the two rooms was 60 cubits. The full height of the Portico, from floor to ceiling, was 85 cubits. To prevent possible collapse of its wall, which together with the parapet rose to a height of 94 cubits above the substructure, it was buttressed with cedar beams set between it and the wall of the Sanctuary.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

5. Dimensions of Architectural Elements of the Temple as Recorded in Mid Vertical dimensions

North-south measurements

Substructure 6 Sanctuary 40 Sanctuary roof:   Molding (coffers) 1   Water Drain 2

Stepped passageway wall Stepped passageway Cell wall Cell Sanctuary wall

  Ceiling 1   Plasterwork 1   Total --- 5

Sanctuary 20 Sanctuary wall 6 Cell 6 Cell wall 5 Water Drain 3 Drain wall 5 --------------------------------- 70

Upper Chamber 40 Roof of Upper Chamber:   Molding (coffers) 1   Water Drain 2   Ceiling 1   Plasterwork 1 ---  Total: 5 Parapet 3 Spikes 1 --------------------------------- 100

East-west measurements (in cubits) 5 3 5 6 6

Portico wall 5 Portico 11 Sanctuary wall 6 Sanctuary 40 ’amah traqsin (dividing square) 1 Holy of Holies 20 Sanctuary wall 6 Cell 6 Cell wall 5 ---------------------------- 100

(all dimensions are in cubits: 1 cubit = 52.5 cm = 20.7 inches)

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:16.

208

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

6. Facade and Portal of the Sanctuary (Fig. XI.3c) 6.1 The Windows Fixed in the Portico ceiling were gold chains which young priests used to climb in order to inspect the ornaments above each of the window lintels. These decorations, referred to in the Mishnah as “crowns,” were made of silver or gold fashioned into wreaths or crowns. They commemorated the four crowns made of silver and gold collected from the returnees from Babylon and placed on the head of Jehozadak the High Priest (Zech 6:9–14). On the basis of this biblical reference, I have reconstructed four windows; the sources contain no other indication of windows anywhere in the Temple. 6.2 Portal of the Sanctuary The portal of the Sanctuary was 20 cubits high and 10 cubits wide. On each side was a small wicket. The southern (i. e., left-hand) wicket was sealed and never used. The northern wicket led into a Cell from which the Sanctuary itself could be entered. In addition, this wicket provided access through a passage in the wall to the gap between the two sets of doors to the Sanctuary. The thickness of the wall containing the portal was 6 cubits. The facade of the Sanctuary around the entrance, the frame of the portal itself and the doors, were all overlaid with gold. Altogether there were four door panels, two inner and two outer. Each panel was 5 cubits wide. The outer doors opened inward, almost covering the thickness of the wall, while the inner doors opened into the Sanctuary, folding back onto the inner side of the Sanctuary wall (this part of the wall was known as “behind the doors”). A dissenting opinion cited in the Mishnah holds that each of the four doors folded in half, thus occupying a width of 2.5 cubits. When open, all of the door panels folded inside the entry; their combined width, together with that of the wooden doorposts (half a cubit each), covered the entire depth of the entrance, 6 cubits in all.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

6.3 The Golden Vine See Chapter XII. 6.4 The Veil, Golden Lamp and Tables at the Entrance to the Sanctuary Suspended in the Sanctuary portal was a Veil of Babylonian tapestry, woven of four different colored materials: azure, light brown, scarlet and purple. These colors were symbolic. The scarlet fabric symbolized fire; light brown, the natural color of fine linen, represented the earth from which the fiber grew; scarlet

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:16.

XI. The Structure of the Second Temple. A New Reconstruction

209

represented the sky; and purple, a dye extracted from a marine snail, stood for the sea. On the Veil was depicted a panorama of the heavens and the heavenly bodies, excluding the signs of the Zodiac. The historian Florus also alludes to this design on the Veil. The Veil hung outside the Sanctuary and was thus constantly visible (if drawn down), even when the doors to the Sanctuary were closed. During the Hellenistic period, before the erection of Herod’s Temple, the Veil was suspended on a long golden rod concealed in a wooden beam. In 53 b.c.e. the priest responsible for the Veils handed this rod over to Crassus, who succeeded Gabinius as procurator of Syria, as a ransom in a vain attempt to avert the sacking of the other Temple treasures (Ant. 14.105–109). Also hanging in the Sanctuary portal was a Golden Lamp – the gift of Helena, queen of Adiabene. Two Tables stood at the entrance to the Sanctuary, one of marble and the other of gold. Both were used for the Showbread: the priest bringing the new Showbread to the Temple placed it on the marble Table, while the old Showbread was placed on the golden Table. The decorations adorning the Sanctuary portal and its appurtenances were visible to the people through the broad portal of the Portico.

7. The Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The length of the Sanctuary was 40 cubits, and of the Holy of Holies 20 cubits. Both were the same width and height: 20 cubits wide by 40 cubits high. Separating the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies were two curtains, 1 cubit apart. This gap of 1 cubit has a special name in the Mishnah, ‘amah traqsin; the meaning of the word traqsin, probably of Greek derivation, is obscure. The eastern curtain was slightly open at its southern end, the western curtain at its northern end. Anyone desiring access to the Holy of Holies had to pass between them. The beautifully worked curtains were displayed to the public before being hung in the Temple. As the Mishnah tells us: “The veil (curtain) was one handbreadth thick and was woven on (a loom having) seventy two rods, and over each rod were twenty-four threads. Its length was forty cubits and its breadth twenty cubits; it was made by eighty two young girls and they used to make two in every year; and three hundred priests immersed it [to purify it before hanging]” (m. Sheq. 8:5).

The curtains were embroidered with lions and eagles. The interior of the Sanctuary was overlaid with gold, except for the area “behind the doors.” The overlay consisted of gold panels 1 cubit square. It was customary to remove these panels from the walls during the three pilgrimage festivals and display them for all to see at the ascent to the Temple Mount.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:16.

210

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Standing in the Sanctuary were the seven branched Candelabrum (menorah), the Showbread Table and the Incense Altar, all made of gold. The seven branches of the Candelabrum recalled the seven planets known in antiquity, and the twelve loaves of Showbread on the Table symbolized the signs of the Zodiac and the months of the year. On the altar were thirteen different kinds of incense, from the sea, the desert, and the earth. The Holy of Holies was devoid of furnishings, and it was forbidden to enter or even look into it. The only exception to this rule was the High Priest, and he too was permitted entry only one day a year – on the Day of Atonement, when the sacred service required him to enter the Holy of Holies just four times (t. Kelim, Baba Qama 1:7). The artisans responsible for the maintenance of the Temple were lowered into the Holy of Holies in special cages, through openings (lulin) in the floor of the Upper Chamber; the cages were closed on three sides and open only to the walls, so that the artisans would not be tempted to steal a glance into the Holy of Holies. In the Holy of Holies was a stone, three fingerbreadths high, known as even hashetiyah (meaning Foundation Stone), on which the High Priest would make incense offerings. Contributions of gold made to the Temple in fulfillment of vows were used exclusively to fashion beaten gold sheets for covering the walls of the Holy of Holies. Above the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies was the Upper Chamber. The Cells encompassed only the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies in the lower story – the most sacred parts of the Temple.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

8. Structure of Ceiling and Roofs The description of the structure of the roofs of the Sanctuary and of the Upper Chamber, as given in the Mishnah, is sufficiently detailed to permit a precise reconstruction. The innermost level of the ceiling, facing the interior of the Upper Chamber, was fashioned with molded coffers; it was 1 cubit high. Above it were the main roof beams, which spanned the entire width of the building from north to south  – a total of 20 cubits. Each beam was 2 cubits thick; possibly, two beams, each having a square 1 × ​1 cubit cross-section, were placed on top of one another. In the reconstruction proposed here, each beam was 1 cubit wide and gaps of 3 cubits each were left between the beams. These gaps could collect and perhaps even drain the water dripping in from the roof; therefore, this part of the roof was known as bet dilfah, “dripping place.” Resting on these beams at right angles were additional beams, each 4 cubits long and 1 × ​1 cubit in cross-section. This rectangular network of crisscrossing beams formed the ceiling. The plaster work (maʿazivah) above the ceiling consisted of several layers. The lowest was a layer of rods, above which, on a suitable bedding, the roofing was laid. The

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:16.

XI. The Structure of the Second Temple. A New Reconstruction

211

total height of the plaster work was 1 cubit. The overall thickness of the roofs of the Sanctuary and of the Upper Chamber, allowing for all its various constituents, was thus 5 cubits.

9. Building Materials The Temple was built of large stones, some of them as much as 45 cubits in length, 5 cubits high and 6 cubits wide. Although the sages of the Talmud believed that different hues of marble were used  – “stones of yellow, black and white marble” – it is more likely that local limestone was employed, as we have no evidence for the utilization of marble masonry in the Herodian period. Perhaps the stones were of different hues. However, Josephus stresses their pure white color, saying that from afar the Temple looked like a snow-clad mountain. Nevertheless, as we have already seen, this may have been achieved by whitewashing the upper parts of the building. The façade of the Temple, the lower parts of its outer side walls and the inner walls were all plated with gold. The structural use of wooden beams in the Temple at Jerusalem is paralleled in contemporary Nabatean temples, such as Qasr Bint Farʿun – the main Nabatean temple at Petra, and the Temple of Allat at er-Ramm.

10. The Cells The Mishnah gives the following account of the Cells:

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

“And there were thirty-eight cells there, fifteen to the north, fifteen to the south, and eight to the west. Those to the north and those to the south were (built) five over five and five over them; and those to the west, three over three and two over them. And to every one were three entrances, one into the cell on the right, and one into the cell on the left, and one into the cell above it. And in the one at the north-eastern corner were five entrances: one into the cell on the right, and one into the cell above it, and one into the passage-way (mesibbah), and one into the wicket, and one into the Sanctuary” (m. Mid. 4:3).

This last-mentioned Cell was of course the one in the lowest tier of Cells, whose floors were flush with that of the Sanctuary and the Portico, accessible through the wicket. Thus the Cells stood directly upon the solid substructure of the Temple, like the walls of both the Sanctuary and Portico. Josephus, too, refers to Cells arranged in three stories, around the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies only, not the Upper Chamber: “Around the sides of the lower part of the sanctuary were numerous chambers, in three stories, communicating with one another; these were approached by entrances from either

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:16.

212

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

side of the gateway. The upper part of the building had no similar chambers, being proportionately narrower” (War 5.220–221).

Although Josephus mentions neither the number of Cells nor their arrangement around the sides of the building, his description of Solomon’s Temple refers to thirty Cells encompassing the building (Ant. 8.65) – a detail mentioned nowhere in the Bible. Perhaps he counted only the Cells to the north and south of the Temple of his own day. Most probably, the Cells were used to store ritual vessels, materials needed for the ritual (e. g., oil, wine and spices), and the Temple treasures. These functions could also have been filled by many of the chambers in the courtyards roundabout the Temple. There is an interesting parallel to these Cells in the crypts surrounding the Temple of Hathor at Dendara and the Temple of Horus at Edfu in Egypt. Both were erected in the Hellenistic period and were completed in the first half of the 1st century bce. The ceilings of the first and second tiers of Cells were not bonded with the walls of the Sanctuary; instead, they rested on 1-cubitwide ledges. The outer face of the Sanctuary wall thus had a stepped appearance because of its varying thickness. At the level of the lowest tier of Cells the wall was 7 cubits thick; at the level of the middle tier it was 6 cubits thick; and at the level of the upper tier, 5 cubits thick. Accordingly, each tier of Cells had a different width, varying from 5 cubits on the lowest level to 7 cubits on the highest. The length of the Cells is not specified in the Mishnah. Our reconstruction assumes that there was a dividing wall 4 cubits thick between adjoining Cells, and that the overall length of the Cells on the northern and southern sides was equal to the length of the building’s interior, i. e., 61 cubits. The Cells on the west, however, were bounded on the north and south by the Cell walls, and their total length was 44 cubits. This would make the Cells 9 cubits long in the north and south, while the Cells on the lowest and second tier on the west would have been 12 cubits long. Just how the space available on the third tier in the west was divided into two Cells is unknown; these Cells may have been of unequal size. The height of the Cells is also unknown. We may infer from m. Mid. 4:5 that the Cells encompassed the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies to their full height, as the surface of the Cell roofs was flush with the floor of the Upper Chamber. In other words, the roof of the third tier of Cells formed an extension of the roof of the lower story of the Temple; hence it was 5 cubits thick. Assuming that each tier of Cells was separated from the one above by a ceiling 2 cubits thick, we deduce that the inner height of each tier was 12 cubits, as drawn in the reconstruction. These ceilings, which rested on the Sanctuary walls, were in all probability built of wooden beams spanning the width of the Cells.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:16.

XI. The Structure of the Second Temple. A New Reconstruction

213

11. The Stepped Passageway and the Water Drain As indicated above, between the Cells and the outer wall on the northern side of the Temple there was a space, 3 cubits wide, known as the mesibbah. The corresponding space on the south of the building, also 3 cubits wide, was known as bet horadat ha-mayim, literally, the “place for bringing down (draining) the water” or simply the Water Drain. For details see Chapter XIII.

12. The Upper Chamber

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

As we have seen, the Upper Chamber, which was 40 cubits high, formed a second story above the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. A strip of mosaic paving (rashei pesifasin), 1 cubit wide, separated the part of the Upper Chamber above the Sanctuary from that above the Holy of Holies, like the ‘amah traqsin on the ground floor. Curtains hung here too, as in the Sanctuary. The entrance to the Upper Chamber, on the south, certainly opened into the area above the Sanctuary rather than above the Holy of Holies. Near the entrance stood two cedar posts that served as a ladder to the roof of the Upper Chamber, which was 45 cubits above its floor. Breached in the floor of the area above the Holy of Holies were the openings (lulin), mentioned above. My reconstruction assumes that these openings were 2 cubits square. They were 1 cubit distant from the walls, and the openings were 2 cubits apart. These dimensions would have given the artisans enough room to work, with a slight overlap between the working areas of adjacent openings. This arrangement of the openings was also correlated with the layout of the primary beams of the “dripping place” and the secondary beams of the ceiling forming squares of 3 × ​3 cubits, within which the openings could have been breached. In other words, the position, size and spacing of the openings, as implied by their special function, dictated the structure of the whole network of beams supporting the ceiling of the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies; the solution proposed in our reconstruction is based upon this interplay.

13. Temple Roofs, the Parapet and the Spikes As stated, the Temple had roofs on two levels, the lower one over the Cells flush with the roof of the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies, and the upper one comprising the roofs of the Upper Chamber and the Portico. Built around both levels of roofs was a parapet 4 cubits high. Installed on top of the parapet were golden spikes, 1 cubit high, intended to prevent ravens and birds of prey from perching there, soiling the walls and disturbing the sacrificial ritual. The Mishnah calls these spikes kalah ‘orev, literally “keeping off the raven.” The

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:16.

214

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Sages were divided on the question whether the height of the spikes was or was not included in the 4 cubits of the parapet. Similar devices to ward off birds of prey are known from pagan temples in which sacrificial rites played a central part. In our reconstruction, the top of the parapet consists of stone pyramids 1 cubit square at the base and 1 cubit high. This shape of the parapet, combined with the golden spikes, would make it difficult for birds to find a foothold. The crenellation generally adorning temple roofs could not, to my mind, have effectively prevented birds from perching on them. As against Josephus’s reference to golden spikes, the Babylonian Talmud (Shabb. 90a; Menaḥ. 107b) seems to indicate that these devices were made of iron plates. Possibly, therefore, they consisted of iron plates and spikes which were plated with gold. We may assume that in order to keep birds away from the Temple precincts it was also necessary to install spikes near the altar, on top of the Royal Stoas and on the roofs of the various chambers in the courts.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

14. Literary Sources for Details of the Temple Reconstruction – General: m. Mid. 3:6–4:7; War 5.184–247; Ant. 15.380–425. – Splendor: b. Sukkah 51b; b. Baba Batra 4a; t. Menaḥ 13:19; b. baraita in Pesaḥ 57a; War 5.208–213, 222–227. – Whitewashing: m. Mid. 3:4; b. Sukkah 51b; b. Baba Batra 4a. – Dimensions and External Form: m. Mid. 4:6,7; War 5.208–221; Ant. 15.391, 393. – Portico Steps: m. Mid. 3:6; Wars 5.207. – Facade and Portico Portal: m. Mid. 2:3, 3:7. In War 5.208 the height of the Portal is 70 cubits and its width, 25 cubits. – Golden Eagle: War 1.648–653; Ant. 17.149–155. – Portico Dimensions: m. Mid. 4:7. In War 5.207–209 the excess is given as 20 cubits on either side; the Portico measurements are 20 cubits (depth) × 50 cubits (width) × 90 cubits (height). – Cedar Beams between Portico and the Sanctuary Walls: Mid. 3:8. – Gilding of Portico Walls: t. Menaḥ 13:19. – Window Crowns on Sanctuary Facade: m. Mid. 3:8. Windows are mentioned in Codex Kaufmann; Cambridge; Parma-De Rossi 138; Paris 328–329; as well as in the Mishnah Commentary of the Rambam (Kappaḥ ed.); and 1 Macc. 1:22 and 4:57. – Sanctuary Portal: m. Mid. 4:1; War 5.211 (the height of the Portal is 55 cubits and its width, 16 cubits); Ant. 15.394 (Latin version); b. ʿErub. 2a. – Golden Vine: m. Mid. 3:8; War 5.210; Ant. 15.394–395 (Latin version); Tacitus, Historiae 5.5.5; Florus, Epitoma 1.40:30. – Wickets: m. Tamid 3:7–8; m. Mid. 4:2; b. Yoma 39b.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:16.

XI. The Structure of the Second Temple. A New Reconstruction

215

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

– Door Panels: (Gilded) War 5.208; m. Tamid 3:7; m. ʿErub. 10:11; b. ʿErub. 102a. – Veil: War 5.212–214); Ant. 15.394 (Latin Version); Letter of Aristeas 86; 1 Macc. 1:22; Ant. 14.105–109; m. Tamid 7:1; t. Sheq. 3:13; b. Yoma 54a; b. Ketub. 106a; Matt. 27:51. – Gold Lampstand (‫)נברשת‬: m. Yoma 3:10 and parallels; b. Yoma 37b and baraita in y. 41a. – Tables: m. Sheq. 6:4; b. Menaḥ. 99a,b; b. Tamid 31b; y. Sheq. 6,3. – Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, Dimensions: m. Mid. 4:6, 7; War 5.215 (60 cubits in height). – Curtains of Holy of Holies: m. Yoma 5:1; m. Sheq. 8:4, 5 (for the correct version of m. 8:5, see: Naḥum Epstein, Introduction to the Mishnaic Text (Jerusalem: Magnes Press – The Hebrew University, 1948 [Hebrew]), 952); t. Sheq. 3:15; y. Sheq. 51b; b. Yoma 51b–52a; The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch 10:19; Pesikta Rabbati 26 (ed. Ish-Shalom 131a); Protevangelium Iacobi 10:1. – Gold Overlay in Sanctuary: m. Mid. 4:1; Baraita in b. Pesaḥ. 57a. – Sanctuary Vessels: War 5.216–218; m. Yoma 5:3; t. Yoma 2:12; m. Menaḥ. 11:5– 6; b. Menaḥ. 98b–99a; b. Yoma 21b; 33b; 51b–52a; y. Sheq. 6,3. – Holy of Holies: m. Mid. 4:5; War 5.215–219; m. Sheq. 4:4; t. Kelim, Baba Qama 1:7; t. Sheq. 3:6. – Even Hashtiya: m. Yoma 5:1; t. Yoma 2:14. – Structure of the Ceiling and Roofs: m. Mid. 4:6. – Building Materials: War 5.208–213; 222–224; b. Sukkah 51b; b. Baba Batra 4a; m. Mid. 3:4. – Cells: m. Mid. 4:3, 4; War 5.220; Ant. 15.393. – Mesibbah and the Space for Draining Away the Water: m. Mid. 4:5, 7. – Upper Chamber: m. Mid. 4:5, 6; War 5.209, 211, 221; Ant. 15.393. – Curtains of the Upper Chamber: t. Sheq. 3:13–15; y. Yoma 42b; b. Yoma 54a. – Parapet and the Spikes: m. Mid. 4:6; War 5.224; b. Shabb. 90a; b. Menaḥ. 107b.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:16.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved. Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:16.

XII. The Golden Vine, The Sanctuary Portal, and its Depictionon the Bar-Kokhba Coins*

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The Second Temple consisted of three parts: the Porch, the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies. Two portals led into the Temple: that of the Porch and that of the Sanctuary. A recently discovered silver coin of Bar-Kokhba in a denomination of two drachmas (half a selʿa),1 displays the portal of the Porch (Figs. XI.3 a and b, p. 206).2 As depicted on the coin, a staircase leads to the portal; its door posts look like two columns and its lintel is cut diagonally at each end. It has been suggested, quite convincingly, that the object standing in the middle of the portal is the width view of the Table of the Shewbread.3 I would like to suggest that the second portal, leading into the Sanctuary, whose holiness was greater than that of the Porch, is depicted on the silver tetradrachms (four drachms) of Bar-Kokhba (Figs. XII.1 and 2).4 The artist-engraver forewent displaying the doorposts, and instead depicted the narrow, length view of the Table. However, he did engrave the portal arch above the Table, flanked by two columns on either side as an impressive architectural frame. The very existence of these columns on either side of the portal is corroborated by the description of the golden vine * Enlarge version of a lecture delivered in Hebrew at the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, 16–24 August 1989. Translated by Yonatan Nadelman. 1  Leo Mildenberg, “The Bar Kokhba Didrachm,” INJ 8 (1984–85): 33–6, Pl. 25; Dan Barag, “The Shewbread Table and the Façade of the Temple on the Bar Kokhba Coins,” Qadmoniot 20.77–78 (1987): 22–25 (Hebrew); idem, “The Table of the Shewbread and the Façade of the Temple on Coins of the Bar Kokhba Revolt,” in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, expanded edition, ed. Hillel Geva (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 272–76. 2  Barag, “Shewbread Table”; idem. “Table of the Shewbread”; Joseph Patrich, “The Structure of the Second Temple: A New Reconstruction,” Qadmoniot 21.81–82 (1988): 35 (Hebrew); idem, “Reconstructing the Magnificent Temple Herod Built,” Bible Review 4.5 (October 1988): 20. 3  Barag, “Shewbread Table”; idem. “Table of the Shewbread”. A similar interpretation was also suggested for the object standing between the columns on the Bar-Kokhba tetradrachms (Fig. XII.1). The arched lines at the top of this object are generally drawn as continuous lines, whereas the other lines of the object are drawn as a series of dots. This seems to suggest that the arched lines do not belong to the Shewbread Table but rather to the Sanctuary portal. An arch or conch above the Sanctuary portal is hinted at in the drawing above the Ark in the Dura Europos synagogue (see below, notes 36 and 37). This is probably the origin of the arch in AviYonah’s reconstruction (see below, note 27). Moreover, this arched line does not appear in the graffiti depicting the Shewbread Table in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City in Jerusalem, or in what was presumably engraved in relief on Titus’s Arch in Rome. 4  I made this suggestion already in the articles mentioned in note 2 above (p. 36 in the Hebrew article, and pp. 21, 24 in the English one). Here I wish to display in detail the entire argument in favor of this interpretation.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:26.

218

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Fig. XII.1. Tetradrachm of Bar – Kokhba.

Fig. XII.2. Reconstruction of the Sanctuary portal. The four columns supported the golden vine which was entwined on poles above the capitals.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

and the posts upon which it intertwined over the portal of the Sanctuary. This description is preserved only in the Latin version of Josephus Flavius’s Jewish Antiquities 15.394–395:5

5  The Greek version of this passage is corrupted, so that here, as in other places, the Latin version should be preferred, despite its being a translation from the Greek. On the inferior textual tradition of the Greek manuscript, see Flavi Josephi Opera, 1, ed. Benedikt Niese (Berlin: Weidmann, 1887, reprinted 1955), xxvii–xxix; Franz Blatt, The Latin Josephus 1, introduction. Acta Jutlandica 30, 1 (Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1958), 17–26. Here is the Greek text for Antiquities 15.394–395 which is evidently corrupted: θύρας δὲ ἐπὶ ταῖς εἰσόδοις σὺν τοῖς ὑπερθυρίοις ἴσον ἐχούσας τῷ ναῷ ποικίλοις ἐμπετάσμασι κεκόσμητο, τὰ μὲν ἄνθη ἁλουργέσι, κίονας δὲ ἐνυφασμένοις. καθύπερθε δ᾿ αὐτῶν ὑπὸ τοῖς θριγχώμασιν ἄμπελος διετέτατο χρυσῆ, τοὺς βότρυας ἀπαιωρουμένους ἔχουσα, θαῦμα καὶ τοῦ μεγέθους καὶ τῆς τέχνης τοῖς ἰδοῦσιν, οἷον ἐν πολυτελείᾳ τῆς ὕλης τὸ κατασκευασθὲν ἦν. (https://www.loebclassics.com/view/j​o​s​e​p​ h​u​s​-j​e​ ​w​is​ ​h​_​a​n​ti​q​ ​u​it​i​e​ ​s​/1930/pb_LCL489.447.xml?result=1&rskey=xvxX0C)

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:26.

XII. The Golden Vine, The Sanctuary Portal, and its Depiction

219

ianuas autem introitus et superliminaria nec non et uela iuxta templi magnitudinem uario ornatu decorauit et aureos flores ambientes columnas fecit super quorum capita uitis tendebatur botryones aureos habens pendentes. “He [Herod] decorated the doors of the entrance and the sections over the opening with a multi-colored ornamentation and also with curtains, in accordance with the size of the Temple, and made flowers of gold surrounding the columns, atop which stretched a vine from which golden clusters of grapes were suspended” (tr. Leah Di Segni).

It is clear that tall columns are referred to, since the height of the portal was twenty cubits (approximately ten meters). The vine itself was large and heavy and it had several clusters, as is indicated in the Jewish War 5.210: “[The opening of the Sanctuary] had above it those golden vines, from which depended grape clusters as tall as a man” (tr. Ralf Marcus, Loeb Classical Library). Additional information on its size and method of suspension can be found in m. Mid. 3:8: “A golden vine stood over the entrance of the Sanctuary, trained over posts; and whosoever gave a leaf, or a berry, or a cluster as a freewill-offering, he brought it and [the priests] hung it thereon” (tr. Herbert Danby).

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The posts mentioned in this tractate, around which the vine intertwined, were stretched horizontally between the columns, resting on their capitals. This method is similar to the hanging of vines in a vineyard. The columns’ trunks were decorated with gold flowers which entwined them. Such a decorative system can be seen on a number of Roman wall paintings from Herculaneum6 and Boscoreale.7 Columns with similar decorations are also depicted on a bronze coin minted at Sidon.8 The number of columns which supported the golden vine is not mentioned in the quoted passage in Antiquities. If only two columns flanked the portal of the Sanctuary, it would surely bring to mind the two famous columns – Yakhin and Boaz in Solomon’s Temple, columns which Josephus mentions when he describes the Solomonic Temple (Ant. 8.77–78). Considering the silence of both the Mishnah and Josephus on this point, it seems better to reconstruct two columns on either side of the portal. The space between the Sanctuary portal and 6 Amedeo

48.

Maiuri, The Great Centuries of Painting: Roman Painting (Geneva: Skira, 1953),

7  Phyllis Williams Lehmann, Roman Wall Paintings from Boscoreale in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Cambridge, MS: Archaeological Institute of America, 1953), 84, fig. 51; 152, fig. 75 (Pompeii); pls. XI–XX, XXXIII. See also Erwin R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, vol. 4 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1954), ill. 41. 8 Martin Jessop Price and Bluma Trell, Coins and their Cities. Architecture on the Ancient Coins of Greece, Rome and Palestine (London and Detroit: Vecchi, 1977), 13, fig. 277 and 156– 57. The coin is from the reign of Elagabalus (218–22 ce) and shows the temenos of AshtartaEuropa in Sidon. See also Carl Maria Kaufmann, Handbuch der Christlichen Archaeologie, 2nd edn. (Paderborn: F. Schoeningh, 1913), 483–84.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:26.

220

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

the wickets to its north and south (Fig. ΧΙΙ.2) conveniently affords room for two columns on either side of the portal.9 The golden vine above the entrance of the Sanctuary was not an innovation introduced in the Herodian Temple. It already existed in the Hasmonean Temple, as is indicated by Florus and Tacitus, writing at the end of the first and the beginning of the second century ce, describing the occupation of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 bce.10 At that time the façade of the Temple was narrower and lower than the Herodian construction, and the portal of the Porch was probably open wider to show the vine and the curtain below it. Both are mentioned by Florus as the most outstanding features on the Temple’s façade. It is not impossible that already then the vine was twined over four columns which flanked the Sanctuary portal. Moreover, it is quite possible that a model was sent as a gift by Aristoboulus to Pompey in order to earn his support. This vine was valued at 500 talents. Strabo calls it a “vine” or “garden (εἴτε ἀμπελος εἴτε κήπος) and says that the Jews call this art work τερπωλἥ – a term which means delight, and according to Marcus’s commentary to the English translation, its Hebrew name might have been ʿeden (‫)עדן‬. Strabo, who saw this vine in Rome, in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, says the inscription “From Alexandros King of the Jews” was attached to it (Ant. 14.34–36). This inscription indicates that Aristoboulus looted this exemplar from the treasury of the Temple in Jerusalem, where it was kept, to which it was donated as an offering by Alexander Jannaeus.11 The columns which supported the golden vine of Herod’s Temple served at the same time as a magnificent architectural frame to the Sanctuary portal. Although these columns stood within the Porch, the priests were not the only ones to enjoy them. On special occasions, lay people were also permitted into the priestly court  9  In my reconstructions (Figs. ΧΙΙ.2, XI.1 and Pl. I, pp. 218, 202 and XIII), drawn with great skill by Mr. Leen Ritmeyer, the lower diameter of the columns is two cubits – a diameter that fits 20 cubits height, and they are placed at a distance of 1.5 cubits from the Sanctuary wall. Thus the columns take up 3.5 cubits of the entire east-to-west depth of the Porch which measures 11 cubits. The space between the columns is three cubits. See my “The Mesibbah of the Temple according to the Tractate Middot,” Cathedra 42 (1987): 39–52 (Hebrew); IEJ 36 (1986): 215–33, and infra, Chapter XIII. In the Hebrew article (40), which appeared before the English one, the four columns are drawn without the flower decorations, since at that time I was not yet aware of the Latin version of Ant. 15.394–95. 10  Florus, Epitoma 1.40.30; Tacitus, Historiae 5.5.5. 11  Josephus refers to Strabo. See Marcus’s comments in his edition and English translation (LCL). Goodenough suggested that an earlier version of the golden vine of the Temple is described in this passage (Ant. 14.34–36), and that Herod’s vine was a substitute for this vine. See Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 5, 102. However, as stated, a golden vine also hung above the Sanctuary’s portal at the time of Pompey’s conquest. This means that Aristoboulus’s present was not the hanging vine, but its smaller version, since it was donated to Pompey while he was still in Damascus, previous to the conquest of Jerusalem. See also Kurt Galling, “Die Terpole des Alexanders Janneaus,” Festschrift für Otto Eissfeldt. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77 (1958): 49–62. For donations of golden vines in Greek literature, see Arthur Bernard Cook, Zeus II.1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1925), 281–82.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:26.

XII. The Golden Vine, The Sanctuary Portal, and its Depiction

221

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

and even to the Porch itself, so that the Sanctuary portal with its decorations and columns were well known and admired by contemporaries.12 As was suggested above, the tetradrachm artist’s intention was to represent the portal of the Sanctuary with the two pairs of columns on either side. The golden vine itself was not depicted above the columns on these coins, although it is not impossible that the wavy line appearing above the columns on coins of the third year of the revolt do refer to the golden vine.13 It is quite possible that the artist refrained from an exact representation of the columns with the entwining flowers and with the vine above, as described in Antiquities 15, not only because these features were not essential for the representation of the Sanctuary portal, but also because a prohibition against an exact depiction of the Temple, its components, and its vessels prevailed at that period.14 A cluster of grapes and a vine leaf are prominent motifs on Bar-Kokhba coins of lesser denominations.15 The cluster has three lobes, as was common in Jewish art since the Herodian Period.16 These motifs in the Bar-Kokhba coinage may

12  M. Kelim 1:8, states: “The Court of the Priests is still more holy, for Israelites may not enter therein save only when they must perform the laying on of hands, slaughtering, and waving” (tr. H. Danby). Shmuel Safrai, Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple (Tel Aviv: ʿAm HaSefer, 1965 [Hebrew]), 191, says that Israel are permitted in procession around the altar on Sukkot; see idem, “The Ritual in the Second Temple,” in Sepher Yerushalayim. The Nature, History and Development of Jerusalem from Its Beginning to the Present, ed. Michael Avi-Yonah (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik and Dvir, 1956), 371–72; he says that the representatives of Israel (maʿamadot) assist in the worship near the priests. 13  This suggestion, put forth by Sporty, was totally rejected by Leo Mildenberg, The Coinage of The Bar-Kokhba War (Aarau, Frankfurt, Salzburg: Sauerlaender, 1984), 44 note 98, who interprets it as a crenellation. See Lawrence D. Sporty, “Identifying the Curving Line on the Bar-Kokhba Temple Coin,” BA 46 (1983): 121–23; Barag, “Table,” 25 and fig. 1, explains it in a similar manner. 14  B. Menaḥ. 28b (The Soncino Press, Seder Kodashim, vol. I, 184): “A man may not make a house after the design of the Temple, or a porch after the design of the Temple porch, or a courtyard after the design of the Temple court, or a table after the design of the table [in the Temple] or a candlestick after the design of the candlestick [in the Temple]. He may, however, make one with five, six or eight [branches], but with seven he may not make one, even if it be of other metal.” See also parallels: Rosh Hashanah 24a; Avodah Zarah 43a. The archaeological remains indicate that between the end of the first century ce and the middle of the second century ce the Jews strictly refrained from representing a seven- branched menorah. See Varda Sussman, Ornamented Jewish Oil-Lamps: From the Destruction of the Second Temple Through the Bar-Kokhba Revolt (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1972 [Hebrew]), 39, 59–61 ; Levi Yizhak Raḥmani, “Depictions of Menorot un Ossuaries,” Qadmoniot 13.51–52 (1980): 114–17 (Hebrew). 15  Yaʿaqov Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 2 (New York: Amphora Books, 1982), 138– 52, 218–19, notes 31–62; Leo Mildenberg, The Coinage of The Bar-Kokhba War, 31–47; Aryeh Kindler, “Coins of the Bar-Kokhba War,” in The Bar-Kokhba Revolt. Issues in Jewish History 10, ed. Aharon Oppenheimer (Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 1980), 162–3 (Hebrew). 16 Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 143, note 46.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:26.

222

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

be related to the golden vine which hung above the portal of the Sanctuary.17 In the biblical period, the vine represented the People of Israel.18 A similar concept prevailed also in Rabbinic literature.19 This is the symbolic meaning that should be attributed to the golden vine of the Temple. As was suggested above, two portals of the Temple are depicted on the BarKokhba coins: that of the less sanctified Porch is depicted on the two-drachm (half-selʿa) coin, and that of the more sanctified Sanctuary is depicted on the four drachms (selʿa).20 In the center of each portal the Table of the Shewbread was represented, as was suggested by Barag, once on its widthwise and once lengthwise. Both types refer to the Temple and presumably express a hope to rebuild it. Other motifs of Bar-Kokhba coinage, such as the Four Species, the trumpets, the grape cluster and the vine leaf, as well as the jug, are all closely connected to the Temple and to the religious ceremonies conducted in it. Up until now, numismatists and historians of Jewish art had difficulty explaining the depiction on the tetradrachms and consequently various suggestions were raised.21 It is the four pillars which supported the veil before the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle,22 or in Solomon’s Temple,23 or an architectural frame to the Holy Ark of a Synagogue.24 The first two suggestions were the results of the identification of the object between the columns as the Ark of Covenant, 17 Such is also Meshorer’s opinion, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 143. Mildenberg, however (Coinage, 46–7), sees these motives as symbols of fertility of the land, like the vine that the spies brought Joshua. 18  See Jer 2:21: “Yet I planted you a choice vine, wholly of pure seed. How then have you turned degenerate and become a wild vine?” (RSV). Cf. Ps 80:9–12; Ezek 17:5–8. 19  Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 5, note 12, 102–3, sees the appearance of the vine in minor Jewish art as well as the golden vine above the Sanctuary portal as an expression of the ritual of imbibing wine which is central in Judaism. See also vol. 6 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1956), 126–217. 20 Mildenberg, “Bar Kokhba Didrachm,” suggested that the number of columns on each of the two types indicates its denomination: two drachms and four drachms. However, in the period under discussion coin denominations were not thus marked. 21 For the various interpretations in the research, see Barukh Kanael, “Altjüdische Münzen,” Jahrbuch für Numismatic und Geldgeschichte 17 (1967): 256–72: “Symbolik”; Alice Muehsam, Coin and Temple: A Study of the Architectural Representations on Ancient Jewish Coins (Leiden: Brill, 1966); Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 138–40, notes 31–7 on pp. 218–9; Mildenberg, Coinage, note 16, p. 33, note 80. 22 This suggestion was already raised in 1855 by Cavedoni and was adopted by Adolf Reifenberg, Coins of the Jews (Jerusalem: R. Mass, 1947), 31–32 (Hebrew). Goodenough interpreted the object displayed between the columns as a Torah shrine and the architectural envelope as an expression of the centrality of the Torah in Judaism. Jewish Symbols, vol. 1. 277 and vol. 4, 114. For further bibliographical references, see Kanael, “Altjüdische Münzen,” nos. 24, 95, 96, 269, 283. 23  For complete bibliographical references see Kanael, “Altjüdische Münzen,” nos. 46, 272, 261, 295, 298. This suggestion was originally raised by Rogers (1911) and was adopted by Hill (1914), Lambert (1932), Romanoff (1944), and Roth (1955). 24  So Rosenau (1936), Wendel (1950), and Kanael (1960). For complete bibliographical references see Kanael, “Altjüdische Münzen,” nos. 55, 278, 296.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:26.

XII. The Golden Vine, The Sanctuary Portal, and its Depiction

223

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

which was not among the holy vessels of the Second Temple. The situation is different in the case of the Shewbread Table. Such an identification of the object between the columns negates the first two explanations, and negates any basis for the third. A further explanation was to identify it with the magnificent gate to the Second Temple, namely Nicanor Gate.25 Only a few scholars adopted the idea that these coins display the Temple which was destroyed by Titus.26 The prominent representative of this idea was the late Professor Michael Avi-Yonah who promoted it widely, not only in his writings but also in his reconstruction of the Second Temple in the model at the Holyland Hotel in Jerusalem.27 The four columns shown on the coin are definitely not a prostyle of a pronaos, which was a characteristic feature of contemporary Hellenistic-Roman temples, but lacking in the Jewish Temple.28 A pseudo prostyle was the favorite opinion. Accordingly, Avi-Yonah and other scholars reconstructed in the corners of the façade two attached pilasters and between them and the Porch portal two attached half columns. Recently Barag repeated this view, with minor alterations concerning mainly the shape of the Porch portal, as suggested by the depiction on the didrachm of Bar-Kokhba.29 However, the literary sources describing the Second Temple’s façade do not mention any attached pilasters or half columns, so that there is no textual basis for such an interpretation.30 Indeed, Vincent, Busink, and Aibeschuetz, adhering to the sources, reconstructed the Temple with a plain façade, refraining from these additions.31 Such is also my suggestion (Fig. XI.1, p. 202), as well as Avi25  This was Cavedoni’s first interpretation and it was adopted by Frederic William Madden, Coins of the Jews, 2nd edn. (London: Trübner, 1881), 202–3; and see Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 139, note 32. See Muehsam, Coin and Temple, 26–33. 26  This suggestion was raised in the last century by Levy and Merzbacher. See Reifenberg, Coins of the Jews, 31. 27 Michael Avi-Yonah, “The Façade of Herod’s Temple – An Attempted Reconstruction,” in Religions in Antiquity: Assays in Memory of E. R. Goodenough (Leiden: Brill, l968), 327–35. Mildenberg, Coinage, 37, also sees the representation of the coins as the TempIe’s façade. As for the Temple model – it was meanwhile moved to the grounds of the Israel Museum. 28  See numerous examples in Price and Trell, Coins and their Cities. Such temples also had gabled roofs, an element missing from the coins under discussion. Colonnaded structures with flat roofs are often identified in numismatics as gates to temple courtyards (21, ill. 16; 30, ill 38; 86, ill. 152; 134, ill. 238); altars (58, ill. 105; 104, ill. 188); or Phoenician temples: Bluma Trell, “Architectura Numismatica Orientalis: A Short Guide to the Numismatic Formulae of Roman Syrian Die-Makers,” Numismatic Chronicle, 7th Series, 10 (1970): 38, fig. 74. 29 Barag “Table,” figure on page 25. Even though the door posts of the portal are represented on the coins as two columns (or two pilasters), I prefer in my reconstruction (Fig. XI.1 and Pl. I, pp. 202 and XIII), to adhere to the written descriptions (see following note), which do not mention door posts of such a shape. It is reasonable to assume that in this case, as in others, the artist refrained from a precise representation of the Porch portal (see note 14 above). 30  M. Mid. 2:3; 3:7; War 5.208–213; 222–227). See Patrich, “The Structure,” 32–40 (Hebrew); “Reconstructing,“ 16–29 (English). 31  Louis-Hugues Vincent, “Le Temple Herodian d’après la Mišnah,” RB 61 (1954): 5–35, 398–418; Louis-Hugues Vincent and Ambroise-Marie Steve, Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament,

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:26.

224

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Yonah’s in an earlier stage of his research.32 As stated above, only a minority among the numismatists adopted the opinion that the depiction on the tetradrachms is the facade of the Temple destroyed by Titus. Meshorer preferred the suggestion that the depiction on the coin symbolizes the concept of the Temple rather than its actual shape.33 In light of all this, the suggestion that the façade of Herod’s Temple was depicted on the tetradrachms should also be rejected, in preference to my own interpretation: the tetradrachms show the portal leading into the Sanctuary. On the coins of the Second Year an element was added under the columns, which may be a balustrade, emphasizing the sanctity of the construction above it.34 In the coins of the Third Year, a wavy line was added above the construction, which may stand for the golden vine training above the columns.35 The depiction on these coins resembles the drawing above the Torah niche in the synagogue of Dura Europos, and should be similarly interpreted.36 The portal in Dura Europos, between two columns, is displayed with the wings of the doors shut, and above them an arch or rather a conch. The vine of an earlier phase, drawn as a tree with branches in the panel above,37 adds validity to my interpretation: it is the Sanctuary portal, with two columns on either side. II  – III (Paris: Gabalda, 1956), 432–525. Theodore A. Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem, II (Leiden: Brill, l980). Elḥanan Aibeschuetz, “The Sanctuary and the Porch in the Second Temple: An Examination and Clarifications of the Rabbinic Sources,” Sinai 87 (1980): 226–37 (Hebrew). 32  See my articles, note 2 above. Avi-Yonah, “The Second Temple,” in: Sepher Yerushalayim, I, 392–418 (Hebrew). This article presents two different suggested reconstructions of the Temple’s façade. On page 408, fig. 8, a plain façade is represented; yet a reconstruction different from these two was published later. See note 27 above. 33  Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 140. 34  I do not mean the balustrade which divided the outer and inner courts. Also Mildenberg, Coinage, 42 and note 94, sees this element as a balustrade. Yaʿaqov Meshorer, Jewish Coins in the Second Temple Period (Tel Aviv: ʿAm HaSefer, 1966) (Hebrew), 121, coin number 179, and Barag, “Table,” figure on page 25, refer to it as the foundation of the Temple. For the display of balustrade grilles in a similar manner on coins of the temple of Pan in Paneas and the Zeus and Heracles temenos in Selge, see Price and Trell, Coins and their Cities, 20, ills. 10–11; 144, ill. 262. 35  See note 13 above. 36  Wendel was the first to notice this resemblance. See Carl Wendel, Der Thoraschrein im Altertum (Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1950). In both cases he believed that the descriptions refer to the Solomonic Temple. 37 Comte du Mesnil du Buisson, Le peintures de la synagogue de Doura Europos (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1939), 27–8, fig. 23 and p. XXIII; Carl Hermann Kraeling, The Excavations at Dura-Europus, Final Report VIII, 1: The Synagogue (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956), 62–5, pls. XVII, LI; Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vols. 5 and 9 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1964), 78–82; volume 11 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1964), pls. I, III. ills. 66, 73, 74, 76, 93. Kraeling interprets the drawing as a tree of life rather than as a vine, while Goodenough interprets it as a vine-tree. According to Henry F. Pearson the drawing depicts a vine, see Guide de la synagogue de Doura Europos (Beyrouth: Impr. catholique, 1940), 22–3.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:26.

XII. The Golden Vine, The Sanctuary Portal, and its Depiction

225

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

It may have served as a source of inspiration for the fashioning of Torah arks in later synagogues.38

38  Raḥel Ḥachlıli, ”The Niche and the Ark in Ancient Synagogues,” BASOR 223 (1976): 43–54; she shows a frieze from Kochav Hayarden (fig. 4); a relief from Beit Sheʿarim (fig. 6); a mosaic from Ḥorvat Susiya (fig. 8). In these representations a distinction should be made between the Holy Ark which is a furniture, possibly of wood, with two doors, and the architectural decorations which surround it, including the niche in which it was placed. This may have been inspired by the Sanctuary portal, with two pairs of columns on either side. An aedicule with a niche flanked by two columns on either side is depicted on several Palestinian oil lamps from the Late Roman period, and the windows of the Capernaum synagogue were similarly decorated. See Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 3, ills. 286–88, 293, 462–63.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:26.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved. Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:51:26.

XIII. The Mesibbah of the Temple According to Tractate Middot* The most detailed description of the Second Temple is to be found in tractate Middot. According to this, the Temple consisted of the Sanctuary (‫ )היכל‬and the Holy of Holies (‫)קדש קדשים‬, with an Entrance Hall or Porch (‫ )אולם‬in front of them, and above them, forming the second floor, an upper chamber (‫)עליה‬. Around them, to the north, west and south, were cells (‫ )תאים‬arranged in three stories. To the north, beyond the cells, was the mesibbah (‫)מסיבה‬, and to the south, a space for draining away the water (‫)בית הורדת המים‬. The position and dimensions of the Porch, the Sanctuary, the Holy of Holies, and the upper chamber are quite clear from the descriptions in the Mishnah, but this cannot be said of the cells, the mesibbah, and the space for draining away the water. Some commentators have found it difficult to understand these features, and almost all scholars have had difficulties in understanding the form of the mesibbah. A proper understanding of the structure and location of this element will permit the correct reconstruction of the Temple. The present article is meant to clarify the matter.

1. Commentators’ and Scholars’ Opinions The mesibbah is described in m. Mid. 4:5:

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

And a mesibbah (‫ )מסיבה‬went up from the north-eastern corner to the north-western corner, through which they would go up to the roofs of the cells.1 One would go up the ‫ מסיבה‬facing westward, and walk across the entire northern side until he reached the west. [When] he reached the west, he turned southward, and walked the entire western side until * My interest in this question was aroused during a conversation with the late Prof. Yigael Yadin a few days before his unexpected death. I am indebted to Leen Ritmeyer for drawing the plans and reconstruction presented here, into which he put much of his experience and talent. Figures 1 and 2 are published here courtesy of Eretz magazine. This article was translated from the Hebrew by Jeffrey M. Green. 1 A full-stop should be placed at the end of this sentence, which is how Maimonides punctuated it in his commentary: The Mishnah with the Commentary of Maimonides, ed. Yosef Kapaḥ, Seder Qodashim (Jerusalem, 1967); such is also the punctuation in the Jerusalem Manuscript (Heb. 40 1336), in the Yemenite tradition. This contrasts with the comma placed there by Yalon in the Mishnah with Ḥanokh Albeck’s commentary (see below, n. 11). The English translation is taken from Jacon Neusner, A History of Mishnaic Law of Holy Things, Vol. 5, Tamid, Middot (Leiden: Brill, 1980); cf. also Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:12.

228

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

he reached the south. [When] he reached the south he turned eastward and walked across the southern side until he reached entrance to the upper chamber. For the entrance to the upper chamber was toward the south. And in the entrance to the upper chamber were two posts, by which they went up to the roof of the upper room. And in the chamber the tops of the flagstones mark the division between the Sanctuary the Holy of Holies. And in the upper room were openings into the house Holy of Holies through which they would lower down craftsmen in boxes [closed on three sides], so that they should not feast their eyes on the house of the of Holies (tr. J. Neusner).

From Mid. 4:7 we learn that the width of the mesibbah was three cubits, and that it was between the northern cells of the Temple and its external wall (see plan and reconstruction of the Temple, Figs. XI.1 and 2, Pl. I, pp. 202, 203 and XIII). Mid. 4:3 tells us that entry to the mesibbah was from the cell in the northeastern corner. The commentators disagree as to the form of the mesibbah. Some, following Rashi, believe that it was a kind of spiral staircase.2 The origin of this interpretation of the mesibbah is the ‫( לולים‬or ‫ )בלולים‬of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 6:8), an obscure hapax legomenon for which the Targum gives the Aramaic word ‫מ ִס ָּב ָתא‬, ְ i. e., Hebrew ‫מסבות‬. In the Septuagint the word is rendered ‘a spiral ascent’ (ἐλικτὴ ἀνάβασις);3 in the Peshitta, on the other hand, we find instead the word ‫קטרוטא‬, derived from the Greek (καταῥάκτης), the word that translates Hebrew ‫ ֲא ֻר ָּבה‬in the LXX. Flavius Josephus, however, while describing Solomon’s Temple, relates in the place corresponding to the passage in 1 Kings (Ant. 8.70): “and the king contrived an ascending stairway (ᾄνοδον) to the upper story through the thickness of the wall (διὰ τοῦ εὔρος τοῦ τοίχου).” Assuming that the Temple described in Middot is basically Herod’s Temple, and bearing in mind that the description of the mesibbah in Middot is also, in fact, a description of a passage ascending through the thickness of the wall, it is quite possible that Josephus, who was familiar with the Temple, was influenced by it in his account of the ‫ לולים‬in Solomon’s Temple, although he does not refer to the mesibbah at all in his description of Herod’s Temple. Considering the identity between the terms in the Mishnah and the Aramaic translation of the Bible which was close to it in time, it is quite likely that the ‫ מסבתא‬in the Targum was also intended to interpret the ‫ לולים‬as an ascending passage within the wall, unlike the other two interpretations of ‫ לולים‬which we find, i. e., a spiral staircase or a chimney.4 2 See Appendix A,

232. staircases were common in private and public buildings in Egypt during the Hellenistic period. See Maria Nowicka, La maison privée dans l’Egypte ptolémaïque (Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1969); Bernard Bruyère and J. Manteuffel, Tell Edfou, III (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1939), Pls. IV, V. One should not exclude the possibility that the Temple of Jerusalem actually had a spiral ascent during the early Hellenistic period, and that the LXX were influenced in their translation by the existence of such a construction in the Temple of their time. 4  The above discussion is based on Moshe Gil (below, Appendix, A). See also Elisha Qimron, 3 Spiral

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:12.

XIII. The Mesibbah of the Temple According to Tractate Middot

229

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

In Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishnah,5 the mesibbah is taken to be one of the cells on the north side, and anyone walking round the Sanctuary until he reached the upper chamber was thought to make his way within the cells (see Fig. XIII.1).6 This definition results from Maimonides’ particular approach to the interpretation of the cells surrounding the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies, which entails a great many insoluble difficulties.7 In contradiction to Maimonides, many commentators view the mesibbah as a kind of corridor situated between the cells and the outer northern wall of the Sanctuary. Some of them believe that the roof of the cells was lower than the entrance to the upper chamber. Thus they surmise that the mesibbah also extended to the southern side of the Sanctuary, despite what is written in the Mishnah.8 Only two commentators – R. Asher ben Yeḥiel (thirteenth-fourteenth centuries) and R. Samuel Shtrashon (nineteenth century) – noted that the roof level of the cells and that of the entrance to the upper chamber were the same.9 This is also Holtzmann’s view, in his commentary to the German translation of Middot.10 Secular scholarship has also raised a number of separate and distinct hypotheses regarding the nature and form of the mesibbah.11 In the plans of the Temple

“Lul and Belul,” Lešonénu 38 (1974): 225–27 (Hebrew). He proposes that in 1 Kings 6:8, the letter bet in belulim belongs to the root BLL.  5 Maimonides, Commentary, ed. Kapaḥ, 451. In Halakha 12 of his Hilkhot Beth Habehirah, Mid. 4:5 is adduced verbatim, without any interpretation by Maimonides.  6  For illustrations in the various manuscripts of Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishnah, see Raḥel Wischnitzer, “Maimonides’ Drawings of the Temple,” JJA 1 (1981): 16–27.  7  For other adherents to Maimonides’ system of interpretation of the mesibbah see Appendix, B.  8  See Appendix, C, 232–33.  9  According to R. Asher b. Yeḥiel, in his commentary to t. Mid. 37a the mesibbah of the Temple was not a staircase like the ‫( לולים‬or ‫)בלולים‬, “but rather it was smooth and went from east to west along the entire northern side, and afterwards one continued along the western and southern sides on the roof of the cells to the entrance of the upper chamber”. R. Samuel Shtrashon in his ‘Novellae’ emphasizes that the Mishnah’s description of the movement up to the entrance of the upper chamber shows that “the height of the roof of the cells was necessarily level with the floor of the upper chamber”; thus there could be no windows illuminating the Sanctuary above the roof of the cells, as proposed by the Tosafot Yom Tov on Mid. 4:3, and the height of the cells was not only eighteen cubits, as implied by his commentary on Mid. 4:4. 10  Oscar Holtzmann, Die Mischna Middot (Text, Übersetzung und Erklärung) (Giessen: Topelmann, 1913), 93–94, and plan on page viii. 11  Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Pardes Pub. House, 1903), 803, translates it by ‘winding staircase’, whereas Danby (Mishna) has ‘passage way’, Neusner (History of Mishnaic Law), ‘passage’, and Holtzmann (Mischna Middot) ‘ein Gang mit Windungen’, i. e. a passage with twists. Ḥanokh Albeck (Seder Qodashim, Jerusalem, 1957, p. 331 and the plan opposite page 328 [Hebrew]), similarly interprets it as ‘a passage winding from bottom to top.’ However in the plans accompanying the interpretations of Holtzmann and Albeck, the mesibbah is presented as a straight corridor on the northern side of the Temple between the outer wall and the cells, containing the ascent to the roof of the cells.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:12.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

230

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Fig. XIII.1. Sketch of the Temple and the arrangement of the cells accompanying Maimonides’ commentary on Middot.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:12.

XIII. The Mesibbah of the Temple According to Tractate Middot

231

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

presented by Watson,12 Holtzmann,13 Eisenstein,14 Hollis,15 and Watzinger,16 the mesibbah is correctly placed only on the northern side of the Temple, but some of their reconstructions contradict the Mishnah in various other points. In the cross-section elevations proposed by Watson, the third story of cells is raised so as partially to surround the upper chamber. Eisenstein shows a one hundred cubit wall as the front wall of the Porch; beyond this façade the width of the Porch from north to south is only seventy cubits, as is the width of the Temple in the area of the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. According to him, the ascent in the mesibbah was also along the southern side. Hollis believes that the mesibbah need not have reached the level of the roof of the cells in the north-western corner, and the ascent might well have continued along part of the western side, since according to the Mishnah there were only two cells on that side on the upper story of cells. However, he states that from the end of the ascent the passage continues horizontally on the roof of the cells along the western side and thence along the southern side. The solution proposed below agrees with Holtzmann’s interpretation of the mesibbah regarding the nature of the ascent up to the entrance to the upper chamber. Although Watzinger did not deal with this point in detail, the plan and cross-sections he devised show that his approach is similar to ours.17 Surprisingly, those scholars who subsequently dealt with the Temple as described in Middot – Vincent,18 Avi Yonah,19 and Busink20 – have not taken Watzinger’s correct reconstruction into account. In their plans they show an additional space on the western side of the Temple, beyond the cells, creating a corridor surrounding the Temple on three sides. This hypothesis, which is also presented by Dalman,21 is in complete contradiction to

12  Charles M. Watson, “The Temple of Jerusalem,” PEFQS 12 (1896): Plans 2, 3, facing pages 54 and 58. 13  Above, n. 10. 14 Judah David Eisenstein, “Temple of Jerusalem,” The Jewish Encyclopedia, 12 (New York and London, 1906), cols. 85–97, esp. col. 91 (Temple plan). 15  Frederick J. Hollis, The Archaeology of Herod’s Temple (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1934), 329–30 and Pls. XV, XVIII. 16 Carl Watzinger, Denkmäler Palästinas, 2 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1935), 41–45, Pls. 6–7. 17  As far as concerns the plan and cross-section, but not his reconstruction of the Temple façade, which contradicts Mid. 3:7. 18  Louis-Hogue Vincent, “Le temple hérodien d’après la Mišnah,” RB 61 (1954): 5–35, 398– 418; idem and Ambroise H. Steve, Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament, 2 (Paris: Gabalda, 1956), 508–9 and 3, Pl. CV. 19  M. Avi-Yonah, “The Second Temple,” Sefer Yerushalayim, ed. idem (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik and Dvir, 1957), 403, and plans and cross-sections on pages 339, 401, 402 (Hebrew). 20  Theodore A. Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem, 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 1573–74, 1545 (Fig. 344), 1559 (Fig. 347). 21 Gustav Dalman, Orte und Wege Jesu (Götersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1924), 273, Fig. 3, also idem, „Der zweite Tempel zu Jerusalem,“ PJb 5 (1909): 50.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:12.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

232

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Mid. 4:7, which states that the outer wall of the western cells was the outer wall of the Temple on the west side. Avi-Yonah’s reconstruction of the Temple shows a single roof covering both the upper chamber and the cells, so that the upper chamber actually has no entrance, contrary to Mid. 4:5. Busink differentiates between the roof of the cells and that of the upper chamber, presented, as they should be, on two different levels. However, he leaves the mesibbah and the space for draining away the water (connected by an additional space on the western side and forming a surrounding corridor) with no roof. He believes that the surrounding corridor was used both for ascending and for removing rainwater from the roofs. He places the entrance to the mesibbah in the northern outer wall of the Temple, so that the water flowing there, in his opinion, would not flow down and flood the Porch. This reconstruction contradicts Mid. 4:3. Very recently Magen put forward a new proposal,22 according to which the mesibbah of the Temple described in Middot was similar in form to the bet ha-mesibbah described in the Temple Scroll:23 a square building, twenty cubits from corner to corner, separated by seven cubits from the northern side of the Temple, near the north-west corner. Within it was a square pillar, four by four cubits, around which ascended stairs four cubits wide. It had an upper story from which one could pass, apparently on a bridge of wooden beams, to the upper chamber of the Sanctuary, the entrance to which was open to the north. Correspondingly, Magen proposes to reconstruct the mesibbah of the Mishnah as a tower with stairs of similar dimensions, but situated seven cubits to the west of the Temple, close to its north-western corner. The entire hypothesis has no textual basis, however, and is an erroneous interpretation of Middot. Contrary to Mid. 4:5, Magen holds that the opening sentence refers to some kind of ante space ‘‫’מבוא המסיבה‬, a concept never mentioned in the sources. The mesibbah mentioned in the Mishnah cannot possibly be interpreted as a stair-tower. The path described in the Mishnah from the entrance of the mesibbah to the entrance of the upper chamber adds up to only a 180° turn. Unlike the Temple Scroll, only one upper chamber is mentioned here: that of the Temple, with its entrance on the south. Nevertheless Magen imposes two upper chambers on the text: that of the mesibbah and that of the Sanctuary. He pays no attention at all to the questions of how one ascended the mesibbah to the roof of the cells, or of how one entered the upper chamber of the Temple, the level of which was

22 Yizhak Magen, “Bet Ha-Mesibbah in the Temple Scroll and in the Mishnah,” Eretz lsrael 17 (1984): 226–35 (Hebrew), and 10* (English summary). 23  Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll 1 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977), 163–68; 2, 92–96 (Hebrew) (1, 211–17; 2, 131–33 in the English edition). According to Yadin, the mesibbah of the Mishnah was a long corridor, probably with stairs, which rose continuously as it encircled the Temple on three sides, ending in the south-eastern corner whence one could enter the upper chamber of the Sanctuary (English edition, 1, 215).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:12.

XIII. The Mesibbah of the Temple According to Tractate Middot

233

45 cubits above the floor of the Sanctuary.24 Further, his suggestion regarding the way one reached the roof of the upper chamber, which was 90 cubits above the floor of the Sanctuary, is entirely without foundation.25

2. The Reconstruction of the Mesibbah (Figs. XI.1 and 2, Pl. I.1, Plan and Cross-Sections B–B, C–C) The subject of the opening sentence of Mid. 4:5 is the mesibbah. The sentence describes the mesibbah, its place in the Temple, and its function. Further on, the subject of the sentence changes: it is no longer the mesibbah but rather a person (a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite)26 seeking to reach the entrance to the upper chamber.27 The Mishnah describes the path he takes, which is divided into three sections: (1) Ascent in the mesibbah from east to west for the full length of the northern side of the Temple; from the opening clause of the Mishnah we already know that the person making this ascent reached the roof of the cells; (2) Walking from north to south for the full length of the western side; (3) Walking from west to east as far as the entrance to the upper chamber, but not for the full length of the southern side. This entrance clearly gave on to the section of the upper chamber situated above the Sanctuary, not above the Holy of Holies.28 In the second and third sections of the path, the person walking proceeds horizontally on the roof of the western and southern cells. Since his path takes him to the entrance of the upper chamber, evidently the floor of the upper chamber was level with the roof of the cells.29 If one did not wish to get to the entrance of the upper chamber, it was of course possible to turn directly eastward from the end of the 24 Mid.

4:6.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

25 According

to Magen (“Bet Ha-Mesibbah”, 231), the lower ends of the two cedar beams were placed at the opening of the upper chamber of the mesibbah, and their upper ends reached the roof of the Temple’s upper chamber; he has failed to notice that between those two points there was a difference in height of 45 cubits. Since according to his hypothesis the mesibbah was seven cubits distant from the Temple, this would mean that the beams were placed almost vertically  – an illogical and absolutely impossible arrangement. One wonders how such a structure can be termed a bridge. See also Morton Smith’s reservations regarding the presentation of the mesibbah as a stair tower in his response to Jacob Milgrom, who adopted that view without criticism or verification. (The response follows Milgrom’s article: “Challenge to Sun-Worship Interpretation of Temple Scroll’s Gilded Staircase,” BAR 11.1 [1985]: 70–73). 26  See t. Kelim (Baba Qama) 1:11 (Zuckermandel edition, 570). 27  A similar change in the subject of a sentence is found in Mid. 4:2 (and in Tamid 3:7): “The great gate had two wickets, one to the north and another to the south. By that to the south none ever entered. … He took the key and opened the wicket. He entered into a cell, and from the cell into the Sanctuary.” On the change in sentence structure see Albeck’s remark in the introduction to Middot (Seder Qodashim, 314). See also Neusner, History of Mishnaic Law. 28  Cf. t. Kelim (Baba Qama) 1:7 (Zuckermandel edition, 569). 29 Holtzmann, Mischna Middot; see also the commentaries of R. Asher (‘commentary’) and R. Samuel Shtrashon (‘Novellae’).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:12.

234

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

mesibbah, and to walk along the roof of the northern cells as far as the western wall of the Porch, which rose far above. It is not stated how one ascended within the mesibbah, whether along a ramp with a constant slope or by stairs – a more convenient arrangement. However, the presence of stairs in the bet hamesibbah mentioned in the Temple Scroll might indicate that one did indeed ascend within the mesibbah by means of stairs.30 I suggest that the mesibbah extended from the wall of the Sanctuary in the east to the line of the inner face of the wall of the upper chamber in the west. A calculation of the length of that section gives a distance of 66 cubits.31 The difference in levels between the floor of the Sanctuary and the top of the roof of the cells as well as the floor of the upper chamber was 45 cubits.32 The resulting gradient is therefore more moderate than any of the staircases in the Temple, for as Mid. 2:3 states: “All the steps that were there [within the Temple Mount], the height thereof was half a cubit and the tread thereof was half a cubit, save only those of the Porch.”33 That is to say, the standard gradient was 45°, and here we have, on the average, a more moderate slope. If Mid. 2:3 also applies to the ascent of the mesibbah, we would have to assume that it was not built as a single, continuous flight of stairs, but rather as several flights broken by horizontal landings, each stairway being at the standard gradient of 45°. The total length of the horizontal landings would come to 21 cubits.34 Contrary to Busink’s opinion, it is probable that the

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

30 In

b. Zebaḥ. 63a we find: “Rami b. Hama said: All the ascents had a gradient of one cubit in three except the ascent of the altar; which rose three and a half cubits and a finger and a third, counting the little fingers.” If in fact the words of this fourth generation Babylonian Amorite can be considered as reliable evidence about the ascents in the Temple of Middot, we must conclude that the ascent in the mesibbah was not a ramp, because a slope of 1:3 is too slight to reach a height of 45 cubits (which is the height of the mesibbah, according to Mid. 4:5) along the northern side alone. 31  According to Mid. 4:4 and 4:7, 100 − (6 + 11 + 5) − (7 + 5); i. e., from the overall length of 100 cubits one subtracts the thickness of the eastern external wall, the breadth of the Porch and the thickness of the eastern wall of the Sanctuary, and on the west side, the thickness of the western wall of the cells plus the width of their roof. In 4:4 a horizontal floor (‫ )רובד‬of eight cubits above the third story of cells is not mentioned. The roof of this story of cells was most probably an extension of the roof of the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies; thus the thickness of the wall of the upper chamber did not reduce the thickness of the wall of the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies on the level of the third story of cells, i. e. the thickness of the walls of the upper chamber to the north, west, and south was five cubits. (Cf., in contrast, the interpretation of R. Israel Lipschuetz to this Mishnah, Tiferei Israel, Boaz, Ch. 4, sgn. I, and the drawing presented there). 32 Mid. 4:6. 33 For the staircase of the Porch, see Mid. 3:6. 34 In the reconstruction presented in Figs. XI.1, 2 and Pl. I, pp. 202, 203 and XIII, the mesibbah is composed of three successive staircases, the first two being 14 cubits high, and the third 17 cubits. The three staircases are separated by two horizontal landings of seven cubits each. At the bottom of the mesibbah, next to its entrance and before the lower staircase, an additional horizontal landing of seven cubits is proposed. In this arrangement, suggested by Leen Ritmeyer, the levels of the landings would correspond with those of the floors of each story of cells.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:12.

XIII. The Mesibbah of the Temple According to Tractate Middot

235

mesibbah was covered along its entire length with a roof, to prevent water and birds from entering it. The roof of the mesibbah was apparently level with that of the cells, since the Mishnah speaks of only two roof levels in the Temple: that of the cells and that of the upper chamber. On the southern side of the Temple, in a position symmetrical to that of the mesibbah on the north, between the southern cells and the outer wall of the Temple, was the space for draining away the water, which was also three cubits wide.35 Gutters brought water there from the roofs of the Temple, and thence it was taken to a central cistern below the Temple courtyard. Perhaps this space for draining water was basically similar in structure to the mesibbah, that is: a sloping ascent three cubits wide in which a broad channel was installed, down which the water flowed.36 To avert the danger of flooding at the foot of the channel, it is likely that it sloped down from east to west, in the opposite direction to the mesibbah, for the people would gather at the side of the Israelite courtyard, to the east of the altar. However a slope from west to east is not impossible.37 Considerations of symmetry lead us to suggest that ‘the space for draining the water’, like the mesibbah, rose only to the level of the roof of the cells. Thus the roofs of the upper chamber and the Porch rose to the same height, while around the upper chamber – to the north, west and south, – was a single, continuous lower level of roofs over the cells, the mesibbah and ‘the space for draining the water’.38 Around the lower roof there was undoubtedly a parapet to keep the priests or workmen from falling as they made their way on the roof  Mid. 4:7.  Vincent’s proposal (“Le temple hérodien”), is unusual in that he argues that the space for draining away the water is the same as the ‘Place of the Dripping’ mentioned in the description of the dimensions of the Temple from bottom to top (Mid. 4:6). Thus he argues that in reviewing the dimensions of the Temple from north to south, the first half of the description, till the middle of the Temple, refers to the floor level, and the second half – from the middle of the Temple to the southern wall – refers to the roof level. This proposal is groundless, if only because on the upper level the cells were seven cubits wide, not six. 37  If the slope of that channel was indeed from west to east, like that of the mesibbah, perhaps the water was collected in cistern No. 28 (Bir Rumaneh) beneath the level of the present-day Ḥaram. On the other hand, if the slope was in the opposite direction, there is no cistern under the western end of ‘the space for draining away the water’. A third theoretical possibility is that the channel sloped in both directions, eastward and westward, from the ends to the middle, like a funnel, and the water flowed thence to a reservoir. It seems less likely that the water was permitted to flow down the whole height of the southern wall of the cells without being channeled into gutters. In the reconstruction (Fig. XI.2, p. 203) the structure of ‘the space for draining away the water’ is not presented in detail, since the Mishnah offers no precise data. The construction of this space as a sloping ascent might have helped the builders during the construction of the Temple; this is also true of the mesibbah itself. 38 Cf. Flavius Josephus, War 5.220–221: “Around the sides of the lower part of the Sanctuary were numerous chambers, in three stories, communicating with one another; these were approached by entrances from either side of the gateway. The upper part of the building had no similar chambers, being proportionately narrower, but rose forty cubits higher in a severer style than the lower story. These forty cubits, added to the sixty of the ground-floor, amount to a total altitude of a hundred cubits.” See also the cross-sections of the reconstructions of Hollis 35

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

36

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:12.

236

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

to the entrance of the upper chamber.39 Perhaps a scarecrow was placed on this parapet like the one on the parapet over the upper chamber.40 The mesibbah of the Temple according to Middot is thus entirely different from the bet ha-mesibbah mentioned in the Temple Scroll. It is a roofed corridor with stairs, three cubits wide, extending along the northern side of the Temple and leading to the roof of the cells. There is also a terminological difference between the Mishnah and the Temple Scroll: the Mishnah consistently uses the term mesibbah whereas the Temple Scroll speaks of the bet ha-mesibbah, a structure separated from the Temple itself. The architectural difference is thus expressed in the terminology as well. Clearly, as indicated by the etymology of the term (derived from the root SBB = to turn), a staircase of the mesibbah type, ascending within the thickness of the wall, could also change direction, rising and turning through two or more walls of the building, depending on the level one wished to reach, the length of the walls, and the slope of the stairs. However, as noted, according to the text of the Mishnah, the mesibbah of the Temple extended only along the northern wall; this is consistent with the dimensions of the mesibbah, its length, the difference in height which it had to overcome, and its gradient.

3. Archaeological Parallels

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

A staircase built within a wall and leading to the roof of the temple is a welldefined architectural element. Such staircases existed in some of the most celebrated pagan temples of the Hellenistic-Roman east: the temple of Zeus at Kanawat in the Hauran has a stairwell within one of the thick walls flanking the pronaos (the porch, or entrance hall to the temple).41 In the Mithraeum of Burkush on the Ḥermon a wide staircase, rising up inside the wall, surrounds the apse on three sides.42 In the temple of Qasr Bint Faraʿun in Petra there are two staircases inside the walls, enclosing the chambers on either side of the central adyton (see Figs. XIII.2 and 3). The gradient of each staircase is 45 degrees, and (The Archaeology of Herod’s Temple), Watzinger (Denkmäler Palästinas), and Busink (Der Tempel von Jerusalem). 39  Cf. the north-south cross-section proposed by Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem, 1559, Fig. 347, where the parapet was reconstructed along the edges of the roof of the cells, while the mesibbah and ‘space for draining the water’ are not roofed but are open to the sky. 40  Mid. 4:6. 41 Robert Amy, “Temples à éscaliers,” Syria 27 (1950): 94–95, Figs. 11–12. 42 Ibid., 113, Fig. 25c. In the Ḥibbariye Temple on Mount Ḥermon a staircase is built into the wall enclosing the adyton from the left. That staircase does not lead to the roof of the temple but to an underground room beneath the adyton. See Amy, “Temples à éscaliers,” 113, Fig. 25b, and Daniel Krencker and Willy Zschietzschmann, Römische Tempel in Syrien, I (Berlin und Leipzig: W. de Gruyter & Co, 1938), 220, 240–41; II, Pls. 89, 100.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:12.

XIII. The Mesibbah of the Temple According to Tractate Middot

237

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. XIII.2. The temple of Qasr Bint Faraʿun, Petra: plan at the balcony level of the chambers flanking the adyton (from Wright 1961, n. 43).

Fig. XIII.3. Reconstruction of the south-western corner of Qasr Bint Faraʿun, Petra, viewed from outside (from Wright 1961).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:12.

238

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

they are one meter wide, that is, about two cubits. The rise and tread of each step is about 25 cm., i. e. half a cubit. The stairs are built of stone on a foundation of concrete. Within the southern wall of the western chamber is a space under the stairs, the entrance to which was through an opening from the western chamber. This temple was built in a period close to that of Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem, making the parallel particularly important.43 The mesibbah of the temple of Zeus in Baetocece (Ḥossn Soleiman), Syria, is also of particular interest. Entry was through the inside of the temple, by means of a small wicket to the right of the main entrance. The mesibbah is composed of staircases of five steps alternating with horizontal landings. This ascent was constructed throughout the western wall alone – one of the long sides of the temple – and access to the roof was close to the end of this wall.44 The palace-temple in Ḥatra has a different plan: a square within a square. One mesibbah led to the roof of the surrounding corridor, and a second mesibbah was built into one of the walls of the inner square, leading thence to the upper roof (Figs. XIII.4a and b).45 Similar staircases were built in the palace itself. A staircase built into the thickness of the wall leads to the roof of the Hellenistic temple of Hathor at Dendara, Upper Egypt, built in the classical Egyptian style (Figs. XIII.5, 6). The main sections of the temple were finished under Ptolemy XIII (died 47 b.c.e.)46 A similar arrangement existed in the great temple at Edfu, which was built in the same period.47 The temple of Augustus built by Herod at Sebaste is usually reconstructed as consisting of two aisles, each two meters wide, separated from a central nave by two colonnades.48 This is a rather unusual plan for a Roman temple. By analogy with the Herodian Temple at Jerusalem, I would suggest identifying the two lateral spaces of the Sebaste temple respectively as a mesibbah and a space for draining away water. These 43 George R. H. Wright, “Structure of the Qasr Bint Farʿun – A Preliminary Review,” PEQ 93 (1961): 1–14, 25–26, Figs. 2–5, 7–8. See also Fauzi Zayadine, François Larché and Jacqueline Dentzer-Feydy, Le Qasr al-Bint de Petra: L’architecture, le décor, la chronologie et les dieux (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 2003). 44  Amy, „Temples à éscaliers,“ 110, Fig. 24; Krencker and Zschietzschmann, Römische Tempel in Syrien, 84–86, Pls. 31, 35. 45  Amy, “Temples à éscaliers,” 119, Fig. 31; Oscar Reuther, “Parthian Architecture,” in A Survey of Persian Art I, ed. Arthur U. Pope (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1938), 437 and Fig. 103 on page 430; Walter Andrae, Hatra, I (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1908), 18, Pls. II, VII; Hatra, II (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1912), 142, Pls. VII, VIII, IX;1, XI:1, and page 45, Fig. 239. 46 Auguste E. Mariette, Dendérah, I, III (Paris-Cairo, 1875; repr. Hildesheim-New York, 1981), Pls. 1–6; Emile Chassinat and François Daumas, Le Temple de Dendara, II (Cairo: Institut français d’archeologie orientale, 1947), Pls. CCCXVI–XIX; VI (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1965), Pls. XV–XXX; François Daumas, Dendara et le Temple de Hathor, Cairo: Impr. de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1969), Pls. II and VII. 47  Le Marquis de Rochemonteix and Emile Chassinat, Le Temple d’Edfou, III (Paris: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1897), Pls. I, XXXVIIa–e. 48 George A. Reisner et al., Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908–1910 (Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press, 1924), 177.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:12.

XIII. The Mesibbah of the Temple According to Tractate Middot

239

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. XIII.4a. Ḥatra, plan of the palace-temple (Temple of the Sun) (Hopkins 1942, p. 6, Fig. 4).

Fig. XIII.4b. Ḥatra, the palace-temple: remains of a staircase within a wall (Andrae 1912, p. 45, Fig. 239).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:12.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

240

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Fig. XIII.5. Dendara, plan of the Ḥathor temple (Daumas 1969, Pl. II).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:12.

XIII. The Mesibbah of the Temple According to Tractate Middot

241

Fig. XIII.6. Dendara, cross-section of the ascending passage in the Hathor temple (Daumas 1969, Pl. VIII).

components of the Sebaste temple seem to be the predecessors of the examples in the Jerusalem Temple. In the Jerusalem Temple, the mesibbah and ‘the space for draining away the water’, besides fulfilling practical functions, also served as external walls enveloping the Temple itself in addition to the envelope of the cells. This strengthened the building, at the same time protecting the inner space from changing atmospheric conditions.49

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

4. Other Mesibbot and Stairhouses in the Literary Sources The word mesibbah as used in the Mishnah was apparently a technical term referring to a well-defined architectural element. We must therefore conclude that the mesibbah by which one ascended from the Rinsing Chamber to the roof of the Parwah Chamber50 was also in the form of an ascending staircase inside one or more of the walls of the Rinsing Chamber.51 Similarly, we can explain the mesibbah “going under the bira’ or ‘under the rampart (ḥel)’, through which the priest walked to the ritual immersion chamber when he was impure because of a nocturnal emission,52 as an underground passage with steps leading down from 49  In libraries of the Roman period it was the practice to erect double enveloping walls with a space between them to protect writings from moisture and heat. Wooden stairways were built in the space between the walls to provide access to the upper levels of the library. A good example of this arrangement can be found in the library built by Hadrian in Ephesus. See Christian Callmer, “Antike Bibliotheken,” Opuscula Archaeologica 3 (1944): 170–71. 50  Mid. 5:3. 51  See the plan proposed by Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem, 1545, Fig. 344(k). But a stairtower is also a reasonable option in this case. 52  Tamid 1:1; Mid. 1:9.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:12.

242

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

the Chamber of the Hearth, in accordance with the usual interpretation. Thus we see that Magen’s proposal to reconstruct these two mesibbot as ‘stair towers’ is both highly uncertain, and in the light of the different structure of the mesibbah of the Temple, rather doubtful. The Temple Scroll, 42:7–9 says: ‫ ובית מעלות תעשה אצל קירות השערים בתוך‬7 ‫ הפרור עולים מסבות בתוך הפרור השני והשלישי‬8 ...... ‫ ולגג‬9 “And you shall make a stairhouse by the walls of the gates, inside the stoa, [in which] mesibbot [shall] go up to the second and third stoas and onto the roof.”53

Yadin suggested that, like the bet ha-mesibbah mentioned in the scroll, these stairhouses comprised spiral stairs,54 but the text does not necessarily imply this. These mesibbot could also have been ascending staircases built in the stoa, against the wall of the gates and the adjacent rooms. In contrast, in the scroll known as ‘Descriptions of New Jerusalem’, at the gates to each of the quarters of Jerusalem, we find ‘stairhouses’ similar in form to the bet ha-mesibbah mentioned in the Temple Scroll.55

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

5. Appendix: Interpretations of the Messibah in Rabbinic Literature A: A spiral staircase: Rashi (R. Solomon b. Isaac, eleventh century) in his commentary on b. Yoma 39a (which discusses the mesibbah that went up from the Rinsing Chamber to the Parwah Chamber [see Mid. 5:3]) and in his commentary on 1 Kings 6:8 and Ezech 41:7; Radak (R. David Kimḥi, late twelfth – early thirteenth centuries) in his commentary on the same biblical verses. Similarly Abraham ben Solomon the Yemenite (second half of the fourteenth century, see Moshe Gil, “The Lulim in the Temple,” Beth Miqra 17 [1972]: 297–301 [Hebrew]), in his interpretation of the ‫ לולים‬of Solomon’s Temple; R. Ovadiah of Bertinoro (fifteenth century) in his commentary on Mid. 5:3, regarding the mesibbah of the Parwah Chamber but not the mesibbah of the Temple, which he defined as ‘a kind of cavern or cave’; Rabbi Joseph Caro, Kesef Mishneh (sixteenth century), in the commentary to Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Bet Ha-Beḥirah, 4:12 (referring to the mesibbah of the Temple); also Solomon

 Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 2, 178–79 (126 in the Hebrew edition).  Ibid., 1, 259–61, Figs. 17, 18 (201–2 in the Hebrew edition). 55  Ibid., 1, 216–17 (167–68 in the Hebrew edition); Josef Tadeusz Milik, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, 3 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 190 (5Q15, ii:2). 53 54

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:12.

XIII. The Mesibbah of the Temple According to Tractate Middot

243

Adani (seventeenth century) and Isaac Ḥayyut (late eighteenth century), in their commentaries on Mid. 4:5.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

B: One of the cells on the north side of the Temple (see Fig. XIII.1). This is Maimonides’ view. Other adherents to Maimonides’ system of interpretation are R. Abraham ben David (Rabad) (twelfth century), Joseph Caro, R. Ovadiah of Bertinoro, R. Menaḥem Ha-Meiri, Abraham Simeon Traub and others. C: An ascending corridor. There are two versions of this hypothesis. In the drawing of the Temple presented in the appendix of the commentary of Yom Lipmann (seventeenth century), the author of the Tosafot to Bertinoro’s commentary, the mesibbah is presented as a corridor extending parallel to the cells along the northern side, and together with the ahorei bet ha-kapporet, and ‘the space for draining away the water’, creating a continuous space around the Temple on the northern, western, and southern sides (ibid., sgns. 63, 64, 68). A similar drawing by Jonathan ben Joseph of Ruzhany (early eighteenth century) is presented in the appendix to Middot in the Babylonian Talmud. However, according to later opinion, there was no extension of the corridor on the western side of the Temple. See in great detail R. Israel Lipschuetz (nineteenth century): Tiferet Yisrael, Middot 4, sgns. 24, 38, 39, 42, and sgn. 65 of the ‘picture of the Temple’ presented in the appendix to his commentary, where he says: “Between the outer wall of the northern cells and the wall of the mesibbah rising up along the north from east to west – (a wall) which was also 5 cubits thick – there was a space of 3 cubits from north to south, and that space was called the mesibbah, and the length of that space was the length of all the northern cells, and in that space was a kind of bridge sloping up from east to west, till, at the western extremity, the end of the bridge reached the roof of the third story of the cells; and through it one went up to the roof of the upper story of all the cells on the three sides of the Temple. However on the south-western corner of the roof of that upper story, that bridge began once more, slanting up from west to east, above the roof of the third story of the cells enveloping the Temple on the south until the head of that bridge reached the entrance to the upper chamber over the Sanctuary, since the entrance to the upper chamber faced the south.” An identical interpretation of the mesibbah is presented by Yizhak Pesach Naimann: Surveyor’s Booklet (Quntras ha-Moded) on Measuring the Temple (Jerusalem: Sh. Zuckermann, 1902), 14–6, sgns. 59, 61 (Hebrew). A drawing and three-dimensional reconstruction of the mesibbah according to this theory is presented by Elḥanan Eibeschitz, “The Sanctuary and the Porch in the Second Temple – Examination and Clarification of the Sources,” Sinai 87 (1980): 226–37 (Hebrew), and Shaul Shefer: The Temple (Jerusalem, 1962), plates opposite pages 33, 40 (Hebrew). In the opinion of R. Elijah of Vilna (late eighteenth century) the difference in height was overcome not by ascending a mesibbah on the south, but rather by means of the cedar posts mentioned in the Mishnah, by which one first went up from the

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:12.

244

The Temple and its Gates and Chambers

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

roof of the cells to the upper chamber through the entrance of the upper chamber and thence to the roof of the upper chamber. See his commentary to Mid. 4:5. As demonstrated in this article, all these interpretations are erroneous. As was indicated above (note 29), a correct interpretation was offered in R. Asher’s commentary and in R. Samuel Shtrashon’s ‘Novellae’.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:12.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Outside the Temple Precinct

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved. Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XIV. The ‘Free Masons Hall’ – A Composite Herodian Triclinium and Fountain on the West of the Temple Mount* 1. Introduction

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

On November 20, 1867, Charles Warren uncovered an impressive hall (Figs. XIV.1–4), beneath the Maḥkame  – the seat of the Ottoman Council. Warren noted that “It has been used as a cistern and its walls could only be seen when the plaster was broken away …”,1 and later states that “At the original south–east angle of the chamber on the east side is a double entrance, with lintels, on which, as well as upon the jambs, there are traces of ornament.”2 One of the blocked entrances into the hall was partially opened, revealing a mass of fallen stones behind it. Warren labelled the hall – the Masonic Hall.3 It was found largely filled with silt to a height of more than 5 m, but due to its grandeur, it immediately became a sensation, attracting many visitors, including men and women.4 In spite of the given name, it never served as an official meeting place for the Free Masons.5 Subsequent to the 1967 War, when the Old City of Jerusalem came under Israeli control, the hall was cleared from the fills that accumulated therein over centuries, and the plaster covering its walls was removed. Immediately, its splendor became evident. It was labeled by some Israeli archaeologists as the Hasmonaean or Herodian Hall.6 Later, from 2007–2012, a similar chamber * This article was originally co-authored with Dr. Shlomit Weksler–Bdolah. I am indebted to her for the permission to reproduce it here. 1  Charles Warren and Charles R. Conder, The Survey of Western Palestine  – Jerusalem (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1884), 200–1, Pls. XXXIII, XXXV and XXXVI. 2  Ibid., 201; Charles Wilson, “The Masonry of the Ḥaram Wall,” PEFQS 12 (1880): 25. 3  Charles Warren, Underground Jerusalem (London: R. Bentley, 1876), 369. 4  Charles Wilson and Charles Warren, The Recovery of Jerusalem (London: R. Bentley, 1871), 66–68: “a large rectangular vaulted chamber of ancient construction, with a column or pedestal sticking up from the centre” (67). Originally, Warren lowered himself in by a rope, but subsequently a ladder was used, as noted in their publication: “… To proceed onwards, we get up out of this chamber by a ladder placed for the accommodation of the many ladies who visited it …” (89). According to Warren and Conder (The Survey of Western Palestine, 200), the column supported two pointed arches. 5 We would like to thank Mr. Kevin Shillington, who shared this information with us, which is part of the research he is preparing on a biographical book on Charles Warren. 6  W. F. Stinespring, “Wilson’s Arch and Masonic Hall, Summer 1966,” BA 30 (1967): 27–31 (who documented the Hall already in 1966, prior to the Six Days War); Dan Bahat and Aren Maeir, “New Finds in the Study of the Western Wall Tunnels” New Studies on Jerusalem 3

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

248

Outside the Temple Precinct

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. XIV.1. Location map (N. Zak).

(1997): 25–28 (Hebrew); Meir Ben-Dov, In the Shadow of the Temple: The Discovery of Ancient Jerusalem (Trans. from the Hebrew by Ina Friedman) (Jerusalem: Keter 1985), 178–80; Dan Bahat, The Western Wall Tunnels. Touching the Stones of Our Heritage (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2002), 71–3. For a detailed description of the hall and its plan, see Dan Bahat, The Jerusalem Western Wall Tunnel (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2013), 113– 28, Plan 4.06, figs. 4.08–4.15, photos 4.32–4.50.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XIV. The ‘Free Masons Hall’

249

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

was uncovered to its west, with an elaborate fountain between the two halls.7 Due to these unexpected finds, it was cautiously suggested that the entire complex be interpreted as a Herodian fountain house, or nymphaeum.8 However, not every building with a fountain should necessarily be identified as a nymphaeum.9 The fountain of the building in question only occupies its center, with no fountains or pools (two typical features of a nymphaeum) on its two, main, lateral components.10 After its re-examination, it can be clearly concluded that the building was actually a royal banqueting complex adorned by a fountain – a composite Herodian triclinium. The identification of the two lateral halls as triclinia, with reclining couches for dining arranged along their walls, is based on their architecture, the decoration of the walls, comparison to similar buildings, and the elimination of other possible functions of the halls, as the complex was not a domestic structure, storage facility, religious structure, fortification, or a nymphaeum as was suggested in the past.

 7 Alexander Onn and Shlomit Weksler–Bdolah, “Wilson’s Arch and the Great Causeway in the Second Temple and Roman Periods in Light of Recent Excavations,” Qadmoniot 140 (2010): 109–22 (Hebrew); idem and eadem, “A Monument (Nympheon?) and other remains from the Second Temple Period West of the Temple Mount: the Excavations of the Giant Causeway 2010–2011” NSAJR 5 (2011): 187–99 (Hebrew); Shlomit Weksler–Bdolah, “The Environs of the Temple Mount Between its Destruction in 70 ce and Madaba Map: The Archaeological Evidence from Southeastern Jerusalem.” NSAJR 8 (2014): 190–209 (Hebrew); Alexander Onn and Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah, “Jerusalem: The Western Wall Tunnels, HA-ESI 128 (2016) http:// www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=25120&mag_id=124.  8 Alexander Onn and Shlomit Weksler–Bdolah, “A Monument (Nympheon?),” 197; Guy D. Stiebel, “The Κρήνη of Jerusalem: A Herodian Nymphaeum at Jerusalem,” NSAJR 7 (2013): 148–58, also adopted this identification.  9  Franz Glaser “Fountains and Nymphaea,” in Technology and Change in History, Vol. 2. Handbook of Ancient Water Technology, ed. Örjan Wikander (Leiden–Boston–Köln: Brill), 413–51. 10  Avi Solomon, “What was the purpose of the Hasmonaic hall in the Western Wall Tunnel,” New Studies on Jerusalem 21 (2015): 69–80, suggested that the complex in its entirety, including both halls, served as an elaborate immersion facility connected to miqvaoth, serving the pilgrims who ascended to the Temple. His claim is based on a misleading argument that the capitals that had adorned the attached pilasters of the western wall of Room 23 – the Free Masons Hall – served as fountain heads, as did the capitals adorning the pilasters of Room 22. However, this claim is erroneous, as the corner capital adorning the NW pilaster in Room 23, the only one that is still extant on its western wall, has no hole in it, indicating that no lead pipe was integrated in them, as is the case in the capitals in Room 22. Therefore, it could not serve as a fountain head. The lack of such a hole was ascertained by both authors while carefully inspecting the NW capital from the top of a tall ladder, on February 16, 2016, in the presence of Dr. Solomon himself and two other archaeologists working in the new excavations of the Western Wall Tunnels. Earlier the capital was also inspected from ground level using a metal detector with a long holding handle operated by David Tanʿami, on behalf of the IAA. The metal detector did not indicate the presence of a lead pipe, as those found in Room 22.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

250

Outside the Temple Precinct

2. Architectural Description11

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The building is located to the west of Wilson’s Arch, ca. 25 m from the western wall of the Herodian Temple Mount. Its southern part is located ca. 15 m below the level of the Street of the Chain (Bab as-Silsaleh street), leading to Ḥaram alSharif. The structure stood north of the meeting point between the Tyropoeon Valley and its main western transversal tributary that ascended from the area of Jaffa Gate eastward (Figs. XIV.1, 5). It was comprised of two identical elaborate chambers12 with a fountain between them (Fig. XIV.6). Built of hewn stones, all of the walls were adorned by attached pilasters on their interior, resting on a raised podium and crowned with a decorative cornice (Figs. XIV.2–4), and supporting plain-faced Corinthian capitals (Fig. XIV.7).13 Its construction pre-dated that of Wilson’s Arch and the Herodian precinct (the construction of which had started in year 22 bce).14 It continued to be used in its original form for several decades, and went out of use in the first third of the 1st c. ce, seemingly due to damage caused by an earthquake in the year of the Crucifixion of Christ (33 or 34 ce).15 At some later point in time, the three components were separated into three rooms (labelled 21, 22 and 23 by Onn). The “Free Masons Hall” is 7.15 m wide from east to west and 9.3–10.7 m. long from north to south (inter11  For a detailed description of the building in its various phases and the datable finds uncovered therein, see Alexander Onn, Shlomit Weksler–Bdolah and Joseph Patrich, “A Herodian Triclinium with Fountain along the Road Leading to the Temple Mount,” Qadmoniot 151 (2016): 39–48 (Hebrew); Onn and Weksler–Bdolah, “Jerusalem, the Old City,” (forthcoming). 12  The western chamber was transformed in a later phase to an immersion pool (miqveh) that extended throughout its area. See previous note. 13 On such plain faced capitals elsewhere in Jerusalem see Joseph Patrich, “The Formation of the Nabatean Capital,” in Judaea and the Greco–Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence, ed. Klaus Fittschen and Gideon Foerster (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1996), 209; Orit Peleg–Barkat, “The Herodian Architectural Decoration in light of the Finds from the Temple Mount Excavations,” PhD diss. (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2007), 213–18. For Warren and Conder (The Survey of Western Palestine, 200), the corner capitals seemed to be Ionic of peculiar shape. Today we know this was a mistake. The NE capital which Warren saw is partly damaged. 14 It also pre-dated Vaults 24, 25 and 26 (Fig. XIV.6), extending to its east and leaning against it. 15  Earthquakes associated with the Crucifixion of Christ are mentioned in Matt. 27:45, 50–54; 28:1–3 (in Luke 23:44 no earthquake is mentioned). Matthew speaks about two earthquakes. The first occurred at the very time of the Crucifixion. The second occurred after the Resurrection. Later Church historians, like Eusebius and Malalas, seem to derive from Matthew. Nicholas N. Ambraseys Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2009), 109–11, brings the texts in an English translation. The historicity of this event is questionable. Yet, an earthquake in the Dead Sea area around 33 ce was indicated by the geological research. See Revital Bookman Ken-Tor et alii., “High-resolution Geological record of historic earthquakes in the Dead Sea basin” Journal of Geophysical Research 106/B2 (2001): 2221–34. David H. K. Amiran et al., ”Earthquakes in Israel and Adjacent Areas: Macroseismic Observations Since 100 b.c.e.” IEJ 44 (1994): 265 lists an earthquake also in year 30 ce.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

XIV. The ‘Free Masons Hall’

251

nal dimensions). The eastern wall up to the door jamb is 5.7 m long on the inside; the double-entrance is 4.2 m wide. The dimensions of the entire complex are 24.5 m (west to east), by 9.5 m (north to south, maximal preserved internal dimensions). Its walls are ca. 1 m thick. The stones have marginal drafts on the outside, resembling those of the Wailing Wall in their workmanship, but smaller in size. On the interior of the room, the stones are plain-dressed. The building was set on top of a high cement (opus caementicium) foundation wall that rose above its immediate surroundings (Fig. XIV.8). It was built adjacent to and south of the road that led east to a gate in the western wall of the pre-Herodian Temple Mount (the Kiponus Gate). Thus, when erected, our building was elevated by several meters above this road (the exact elevation of which is not known). Couches were set along the walls of Halls 21 and 23, in their northern parts. The southern part of these chambers, as well as the area to the south of the fountain, served as a kind of an elongated corridor, running from the doubledoor westward. A similar double-door, may have existed at the western wall of Hall 21. According to the reconstruction suggested here (Fig. XIV.9), each couch is 1.4 m long, with 12 of them standing in each chamber, arranged anti-clockwise, according to the prevailing custom.16 The placement of the decorative pilasters on top of an elevated podium (Figs. XIV.2–4, 10), enabled the couches to be set lengthwise next to the podium walls, beneath the adorning cornice. A recess preserved in the southern end of the eastern wall of Hall 23, next to the jamb of its northern entrance, rounded in its top (Fig. XIV.11a), marks the exact location where the head-end of the first couch was fixed against the podium wall. A somewhat similar depression, but rectangular in shape, preserved in the southern end of the western wall of Hall 21 (Fig. XIV.11b), marks the legend of the last couch in this hall. Both indicate that the two triclinia discussed held klinai, following the Greek style rather than Roman podia for couches (see below). These two end klinai were thus secured in their place in order to prevent them from moving and obscuring free passage in the doorways. Wide and deep recesses above the three pilaster capitals preserved in Room 22 (Fig. XIV.12) and another one, recognizable in the northern wall of Room 23 (although filled with small stones), indicate that the building originally had flat ceilings made of horizontal beams, the ends of which were set in these recesses, and that these beams extended from wall to wall, across all of the rooms. The 3D reconstruction presented here (Fig. XIV.13) is based on these extant remains. These also indicate that the building had a second floor. 16 A notorious banquet of twelve guests is the cena dodekatheos (the Supper of the Twelve Gods, at which the guests were dressed in the habit of gods and goddesses) of Octavian, who personated Apollo (Suetonius, Augustus 70.1). Mau reports a room at Pompeii with space for twelve guests – see Katherine Dunbabin,“Triclinium and Stibadium,” in Dining in a Classical Context, ed. William J. Slater (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991), 124 and 139, note 21.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

252

Outside the Temple Precinct

Fig. XIV.2. The “Free Masons Hall” (no. 23), looking north. Note the central and corner pilasters standing on a raised podium, topped by a cornice.. (A. Peretz).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XIV. The ‘Free Masons Hall’

253

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. XIV.3. The “Free Masons Hall” (no. 23), looking east to the double-entrance. The cornice of the podium on which the three attached pilasters are standing was chiseled off. Only the corner capital is partially preserved (A. Peretz).

Fig. XIV.4. The double-entrance to the “Free Masons Hall” (no. 23), looking east (A. Peretz).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

254

Outside the Temple Precinct

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. XIV.5. The archaeological remains beneath the vaults of the Great Causeway to the west of Wilson’s Arch, extending between the Temple Mount and the Eastern Cardo, plan (Based on D. Bahat’s and Alexander Onn’s excavations. Surveyor: V. Essman, drafting: N. Zak).

Fig. XIV.6. A general plan of the monumental building (marked in green), and its vicinity. The “Free Masons Hall” is Room 23 (Based on D. Bahat’s and A. Onn’s excavations. Surveyor: V. Essman, drafting: N. Zak). The southern part of the complex is conjectural.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XIV. The ‘Free Masons Hall’

255

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. XIV.7. Plain-faced Corinthian pilaster capitals. A. (when first exposed), and B. (after being cleaned). Both functioned as fountain heads (in Room 22). Water flew out from a lead pipe that was inserted in the center of each capital. (A. – A. Onn; B. – A. Peretz).

Fig. XIV.8. A section across the monumental building, looking east (Surveyors: V. Essman, M. Kipnis, Y. Shmidov, drafting: N. Zak).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

256

Outside the Temple Precinct

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. XIV.9. Proposed arrangement of the klinai in the “Free Masons Hall” (no. 23). A reconstruction (Y. Shmidov).

Fig. XIV.10. The western wall of the “Free Masons Hall” (no. 23). Note the podium cornice, partially preserved, and the preserved corner capital (A. Peretz).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

B.

Fig. XIV.11. Recesses marking the coach placement. A. In the eastern wall, north of the double-entrance of the “Free Masonic Hall (no. 23), marking the head-end of the first coach. B. In the western wall of Room 21, marking the legs-end of the last coach (A. Peretz).

A.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

XIV. The ‘Free Masons Hall’

257

258

Outside the Temple Precinct

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. XIV.12. Elevation of the fountain façade. The arrows mark recesses in the wall into which were set the roofing beams (Surveyors: V. Essman, M. Kipnis, Y. Shmidov, IAA; drafting: N. Zak and Sh. Patrich).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XIV. The ‘Free Masons Hall’

259

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. XIV.13. Proposed isometric reconstruction of the monumental building, with roofing beams (Y. Shmidov).

Fig. XIV.14. Proposed isometric reconstruction of the monumental building, looking north. Note the windows wall on the south and the roofing beams (Y. Shmidov).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

260

Outside the Temple Precinct

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. XIV.15. The fountain façade (in Room 22), looking north–west. Note the well preserved podium cornice and three of the six attached pilasters that adorned it. The opening is a later breach that may mark the insertion of a water container with a heating system in the wall. Note the two capitals that served as fountain heads. The square recess above the left capital served for the insertion of a roofing beam (A. Peretz, IAA).

Fig. XIV.16. Proposed isometric reconstruction of the fountain section of the monumental building, looking east (Y. Shmidov).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XIV. The ‘Free Masons Hall’

261

The southern part of the building had entirely collapsed. Its primary source of light, save for the double-entrances near its south–eastern corner and perhaps the south–western corner, must have been on that side. Hence this wall was reconstructed here as a wall of windows (Fig. XIV.14), resembling the extant walls of the reception-hall/triclinium in the Lower Terrace of the Northern Palace at Masada (see below). Attached to it, semi-columns set on a podium were reconstructed in the inner side of this wall, and taller pilasters rising from floor level were set on its outer face. The wider width of the central window reflects the wider space between the pilasters decorating the façade of the fountain (Figs. XIV.12, 15). This façade, separating between the two triclinia, was originally adorned by six attached pilasters. Holes were cut in the center of each of their capitals and a lead pipe was set in each (Fig. XIV.7a–b). These six capitals served as fountain heads. Water flew out through the pipes from a reservoir that was built to the north, behind the decorative façade (Figs. XIV.6, 8). A regulation apparatus was installed in the thickness of the southern wall of this water reservoir. No water tank had existed in front of this façade. Hence it is concluded that water flew into large vessels (Fig. XIV.16), seemingly of stone rather than of intoxicating metal. The floor of the entire building was of rectangular, limestone pavers. Some of them are still extant in Room 22 and near the SW corner of Room 23. A shallow channel in the preserved part of the floor drained excess water.

3. Discussion

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Among the Greeks, the andron, where meals were served, functioned as the main room of the house (Vitruvius, De architectura, 6.7.5). The shape of the room could be square or rectangular, either elongated or a broad-room.17 In the Roman world and in modern research, a dining room is usually called a triclinium, even if there were more than three reclining couches (klinai in Greek) in the room.

17  A broad-room, rare in Classical times, is typical of the Hellenistic courtyard houses of Delos, where the room is referred to as oecus maior and the door is normally central (House of the Trident, House of the Masks, House of the Comedians and House of the Tritons, for example) and elsewhere. Here a plain mosaic band replaced the earlier, somewhat raised trottoir, but occasionally the outer band is raised above the rest of the floor with a marble frame at its edge, as in the Ilot des Bijoux at Delos and in a Hellenistic building with mosaics at Samos. See Dunbabin, “Triclinium and Stibadium,” 122 and Fig. 4; eadem, “Ut Greaco More Biberetur: Greeks and Romans on the Dining Coach” in Meals in a Social Context: Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman world (Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity 1), ed. Inge Nielsen and Hanne S. Nielsen (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998), 84–85 and Figs. 2–3; Inge Nielsen, “Royal Banquets: The Development of Royal Banquets and Banqueting Halls from Alexander to the Tetrarchs,” ibid., 103, Fig. 1.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

262

Outside the Temple Precinct

The klinai in the Greek houses were intended for no more than two people.18 In the Roman world, the coaches were larger (2–4 × ​1.5 m), and each coach was intended for three or more people, who reclined diagonally, rather than parallel to the walls.19 In the Greek world the klinai were arranged along the four walls of the room (this precluded the doorway from being located symmetrically, in the center of the frontal wall). In the Roman world, couches were arranged along three walls, excluding the frontal wall. Such was the case in the royal palaces of Alexandria and as we suggest, in our monumental building. The frontal wall had one or more doorways. In Homer’s Greece (8th century bce), it was customary to dine seated at a table.20 Likewise in the neo-Assyrian Empire.21 The custom of reclining at festive meals (social, religious, ceremonial, and at feasts), was introduced to the Greek world from the Levant, with the spread of oriental influences in the 8th–7th centuries bce.22 The custom was not just a matter of furniture. In the Classical and Hellenistic Greek world (5th–2nd centuries bce), the festive meal was a social event. It was held in the afternoon and early evening in two parts: the meal proper, deipnon, which generally did not include wine, and the symposion, the wine-drinking part of the event. The wine was generally mixed with water. During this latter part of the feast, philosophical discussions or prayers, appropriate to the occasion, were held (such feasts should not be conceived as orgies of intoxicated individuals). Between the two parts of the feast and during the symposion, music and other entertainment was provided. The name symposion was given, by association, to the feast hall as well. In Latin such festive meals had several names: cenatio, cena, convivium, epulum.23  The average kline size was 1 × ​1.8 m or less (Dunbabin, “Greeks and Romans on the Dining Coach,” 83). As mentioned above, the projected length of the klinai in the triclinium considered here is 1.4 m. 19 Dunbabin, “Greeks and Romans on the Dining Coach,” 89; Nielsen, “Royal Banquets,” 107. 20 The earliest literary attestation of a seated meat and wine symposium seems to be Od. 9.556–557, held after Odysseus and his companions managed to escape from the cave of Cyclops Polyphemus. From the archaeological perspective, it was recently suggested that the year 800 bce should serve as a terminus ante quem for the birth of the symposium in Greece. See Marek Wecowsk, The Rise of the Greek Aristocratic Banquet (Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press, 2014). 21  Stefania Ermidoro, Commensality and Ceremonial Meals in the Neo-Assyrian Period. Antichistica 8. Studi Orientali 3 (Venezia: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari – Digital Publishing, 2015). 22 Jean-Marie Dentzer, Le motif du banquet couché dans le Proche–Orient et le monde grec du VIIe au IVe siècle avant J.-C. (Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 1982); Walter Burkert, “Oriental Symposia: Contrasts and Parallels,” in Dining in a Classical Context, ed. William J. Slater (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991), 1–24; Ermidoro, Commensality and Ceremonial Meals. 23  Dunbabin, “Triclinium and Stibadium”; eadem, “Convivial spaces: dining and entertainment in the Roman villa.” JRA 9 (1996): 66–81; eadem, “Greeks and Romans on the Dining Coach”; eadem, The Roman Banquet. Images of Conviviality (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

18

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XIV. The ‘Free Masons Hall’

263

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Triclinia / andrones were common in the Greek, Hellenistic, and Roman world from the 5th century bce until the 3rd–4th centuries ce. The archeological remains occur in many contexts. Domestic houses24 and palatial complexes included halls that were used both for receptions and for festive meals.25 They occur in temple precincts, synagogue complexes, civil buildings, burial structures, etc. (see below). They are found in various dimensions, ranging from simple rooms to luxurious halls. The identification as andron or triclinium is usually based on the floor or wall decorations; since couches were generally movable, made of perishable materials, they were not generally preserved in situ. In a few cases, masonry built klinai were preserved.26 Triclinia were also used as gathering places for trade clubs, religious associations and similar social groups in large public complexes.27 In the Athenian sity Press, 2003), 11–35; Nielsen, “Royal Banquets,” 103 and 105. See Dennis Edwin Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist. The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 13–46 for the Greco-Roman Banquet. 24  Greek, Late Classical examples of well-preserved andrones are the early to mid 4th c. bce House of the Mosaics at Eretria, comprising two andrones, each with a 3 cm high trottoir around the walls, 0.95 m wide. One could hold 7 klinai, the other – 11. At Olynthus, the standard size of the andrones could hold 7 klinai with an anteroom. They are also common in the houses of the aristocrats in Pella, having large dimensions. In the Roman world, triclinia feature regularly in the Late Republican and Early Imperial houses of Pompeii (Casa del Moralista, Casa del Criptoportico, and the more elaborate Casa del Labirinto, Casa di Meleagro and many more) and other Campanian towns and villas (Dunbabin, “Convivial spaces”), with three broad couches, each for three people, surrounded a single common table (eadem, “Triclinium and Stibadium”, 121–24 and Figs. 1–12; “Greeks and Romans on the Dining Coach,” 82–90, Figs. 1–7). 25 Nielsen, “Royal Banquets.” 26  Such is the case, for example, in the Sanctuary of Asclepius in Corinth. See Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist, 15, Figs. 1–2. Raised platforms around the walls were uncovered in the ‘Podiumsaal’ in Pergamon, which served as a meeting place for a Dionysian thiasos and in an assembly hall in the Sanctuary of Kybele at Kapikaya, near Pergamon. For isometric reconstructions, see Inge Nielsen, Housing the Chosen: The Architectural Context of Mystery Groups and Religious Associations in the Ancient World (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), 118–19, Fig. 82 and Pl. 21 and 84–85, Figs. 54–55 respectively. Many masonry coaches were uncovered in Pompeii. In addition, cuttings in the walls occasionally attest to the location of more precious movable coaches (thus, for example, in the Casa dei Dioscuri and in the Casa dell’Efebo, where in addition of cuttings, fragments of the feet of coaches were found). For a list and references see Dunbabin, “Triclinium and Stibadium,” 123 and 138, note 13. A depression in the wall for setting in a coach was preserved in the Baalshamin precinct in Palmyra. See Nielsen Housing the Chosen, Pl. 17. 27  Nielsen and Nielsen, Meals in a Social Context; Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist, 67–86; 87–132 (The Club Banquet); Inge Nielsen, Housing the Chosen; eadem, “The Assembly Rooms of Religious Groups in the Hellenistic and Roman Near East: A Comparative Study,” in Religious Identities in the Levant from Alexander to Muhammed: Continuity and Change, ed. Michael Blömer, Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015), 47–74; Dunbabin “Triclinium and Stibadium”, 125: At Ostia, a row of masonry triclinia opens off the central courtyard of the Cassegiato dei Triclini, identified as the headquarters of a collegiums, built ca. 119–120 ce. A large triclinium of a similar purpose, with elongated coaches for more than 6 diners each, was located in the Schola del Traiano there.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

264

Outside the Temple Precinct

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

agora, along the Southern Stoa I (erected in the second half of the 5th century bce), there were 15 triclinia, each with seven couches. The rooms served the citizens for meals, rest, and discussion.28 An inscription found in one of these rooms, dated to 222/21 bce, indicates that the room was in use as a meeting place for city officials in charge of the weights and measures – metronomoi.29 From the classical period in Greece, the treasuries of the city-states (Leschai) at Apollo’s precinct in Delphi, such as the treasury of Knidos, adorned with paintings by Polygnotus of Thasos (Pausanias 10.2–31), should be mentioned. They were used as dining halls as well. In Israel, meals consumed while reclining were first mentioned by the prophet Amos (6:4–7, first half of the 8th century bce), in his rebuke of the kingdoms of Judea and Israel “That lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat the lambs out of the flock, and the calves out of the midst of the stall; That chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of music, like David; That drink wine in bowls, and anoint themselves with the chief ointments ….Therefore now shall they go captive with the first that go captive, and the banquet of them that stretched themselves shall be removed” (King James Bible). Such festive meals are mentioned in Hellenistic and Roman Israel as well. The Tosefta (Ber.4:8, ed. Liberman, 20) describes such a meal with guests: “What is the order of a meal? Guests come in and sit down on top of benches (‫ )ספסלים‬and on top of soft seats (‫ )קתדראות‬until all [guests] come in. [After] all [guests] came in, and they (the servants) have given them [water to wash] hands, every one of them washes one hand. [When] they (the servants) poured them a cup [of wine], each one [of the guests] makes a Beracha (blessing) [for the wine] himself. [When] they (i. e. the servants) brought them appetizers each one [of the guests] makes a Beracha [for the appetizers] himself. [After the guests] have gotten up [from their temporary seats, moved to the main eating hall] and reclined (‫[ )עלו והסבו‬on sofas], they [the servants] gave them [water to wash their] hands [again]. Even though he already washed one hand, [still] he [has to] wash both of his hands [again]. [After] they (the servants) poured them a cup [of wine again], even though he already made a Beracha on the first [cup of wine], he makes [another] Beracha on the second [cup of wine]. [After] they (the servants) brought in front of them [more] appetizers, even though he [already] made a Beracha on the first [set of appetizers], he makes a [new] Beracha on the second [set of appetizers], but [this time] one [person] makes a Beracha for all of them.”30

According to the text, the first part of the meal takes place in the anteroom, where the guests are seated on benches and chairs, until all the guests had arrived. Then 28  John Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (New York: Hacker Art Books, 1980), 534–36, figs. 29–30, 301. 29  John M. Camp, The Athenian Agora. Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens (London: Thames and Hudson, 1986), 122–26. 30  http://www.sefaria.org/Tosefta_Berakhot.4.7–8?lang=en. See also the discussion in Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist, 145–47.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XIV. The ‘Free Masons Hall’

265

the party moves to the dining room, where they recline on sofas. Although this passage of the Tosefta was reducted after the destruction of the Second Temple, the custom of reclining at such a meal, similar to the custom of reclining at the symposion in the Greek world, was common during the Second Temple period in Israel. Such dinning manners are reflected in the ethical instructions in the Wisdom of Ben-Sira (written in Jerusalem ca. 200–180 bce) to the sympoiarch, the head of the symposium (Wisdom of Ben-Sira 32:1–2, Segal’s edition, 197): “If they make you master of the feast, do not exalt yourself; be among them as one of their number. Take care of them first and then sit down; when you have fulfilled your duties, take your place …”.31

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Of special interest is the common meal of the Jewish Therapeuthae at their settlement on the shores of Lake Mareotis in Egypt, as described by Philo of Alexandria (De Vita Contemplativa, 64–89),32 though his depiction of this group is somewhat idealistic. The diners would recline on dinning beds (66) with simple leaves covered by a rough mat made of local papyrus, raised slightly near the elbows, for reclining (69). Instead of wine, water was served, warm water being served to the elderly (73). Women took part in the meal as well (68). The men dined separately, on the right, and the women on the left (69).33 In Herodian Jerusalem, magnificent, large feast halls are mentioned in Herod’s palace, furnished with one hundred couches (klisia; klinai) for numerous guests (Ant. 15.318; War 5.177). Herod’s palace had courtyard gardens with footpaths and water channels and pools with bronze statues from whose mouths water flowed (War 5.180–181). It would seem that dining rooms and fountains did co-exist in Jerusalem during this period. The immense triclinium in Herod’s third palace at Jericho, with colonnades along three of its walls (resembling in this sense a vast Vitruvian Corinthian oecus [de architectura 6.3.8]), might demonstrate the size and magnificence of the dining halls in his palace in Jerusalem.34 31  See detailed discussion in Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist, 133–45, with the translation appearing on page 133. For a different English translation see: http://st-takla.org/pub_ Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Asfar_El-Kanoneya_El-Tanya__5-Wisdon-of-J​o​ s​h​u​a​-Son-of -Sirach.html#Chapter%2032. The Hebrew text in Segal’s edition reads: ‫שר הקימוך‬ ‫ הכן צרכם ואחר תרבץ‬,‫ דאג להם ואחר תסוב‬,‫ היה להם כאחד מהם‬.‫אל תתרומם ובראש עשירים אל תסוב‬. 32  For a Hebrew translation, see Susan Daniel Nataf, Jerusalem 1985, sections 64–202. 33  For a brief discussion see Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist, 158–59; Nielsen, Housing the Chosen, 236. In the Therapeuthae prayer hall, there was a dividing screen between men and women. There are no other Jewish sources that refer to gender segregation at commonly-held meals. Therefore, it is doubtful that gender segregation is a valid explanation for the two dining halls in our monumental building (although the idea cannot be entirely ruled out). The Essenes held common meals while sitting. Women did not participate in their meals. 34  During feasts, movable couches were set up in the reception hall, so that the reception hall could serve for dining, as needed. On the practice of setting up moveable equipment see also Dunbabin, “Triclinium and Stibadium,” 125; eadem, “Convivial spaces,” 67, 70.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

266

Outside the Temple Precinct

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

The origin of these large dining halls is most likely the Hellenistic royal palaces in Alexandria, from which there is no archeological evidence, but extant literary sources reflect their grandeur and layout. Such was the dining pavilion of Ptolemy II (at whose palace the 72 translators of the Septuagint were hosted according to the Letter of Aristeas, 180–300,35 although this event is probably fictitious). The same ruler held a great banquet in a tent-like pavilion erected in Alexandria in 274–270 bce, on the occasion of a sumptuous religious procession in honor of his tutelary deity Dionysus. One hundred klinai were places in this tent (Athenaeus of Naucratis, The Dinner Sophists [Deipnosophistai] 5.196– 197, apud Callixenus; Polybius, Histories, 31.3.7).36 On Ptolemy IV’s royal Nile galley (Thalamegos) there were various dining rooms with three, five, seven, nine, thirteen, and even twenty couches (Athenaeus of Naucratis, ibid., 204– 6.).37 Many triclinia designed for up to 32 diners were found in the palace of Phillip II at Vergina, Macedonia.38 A feast hall overlooking the Temple was part of Agrippa II’s palace, built already by the Hasmonaeans in Jerusalem (Ant. 20.189–190). Both palaces, Herod’s and the Hasmonaeans Palace, were located in the upper city, not far from the monumental building dealt with here.39 Impressive garden triclinia, with long stone-built couches, were also found at the Hasmonaean palaces in Jericho – on each side of the Twin Palaces. In the eastern garden triclinium, a water channel ran along the entire foot of the couch. Nearby, in the garden’s north–west corner, there was a waterfall, at least 3 m high.40 There was also a triclinium overlooking the double pool at the Hasmonaean’s principal palace in Jericho. Impressive dining halls from the Herodian period are also evidenced (in addition to reception halls that were converted to dining halls as required, such 35 Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas), edited and Translated by Moses Hadas (New York: Ktav, 1973), 171–72. 36  See also Inge Nielsen, Hellenistic Palaces (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1994), 22, 133; Dunbabin, “Greeks and Romans on the Dining Coach,” 100, note 22. The reception tent of Alexander (skene hekatontaklinos and oikos hekatontaklinos) also held 100 couches (Diodore of Sicily, Bibliotheca 17.16.4; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistai 12.538c). For a survey on Royal banquets, including Herodian ones, see Nielsen, “Royal Banquets”. In the Asklepieon at Troizen, Greece, there was a large banqueting hall and three smaller ones, holding together 90 klinai (see plan in Ernest Will, “Salles à Banquet à Palmyra.” Topoi. Orient–Occident 7 (1997): 881 and Fig. 887). 37  See also: Dunbabin “Greeks and Romans on the Dining Coach,” 88; Nielsen “Royal Banquets,” 104–5, Fig. 3; 113–16, Fig. 12 38  Nielsen, Hellenistic Palaces, 81–84. 39 Once Judea became a Roman province, Herod’s palace was occupied by the Roman prefects when visiting the city. The Hasmonean palace became the residence of Agrippa II, and was probably used by Agrippa I as well. But by then our building lost its splendor and was not used for its original purpose. 40 Ehud Netzer, The Palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great (Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi and Israel Exploration Society, 2001), 5–6, 189–94.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XIV. The ‘Free Masons Hall’

267

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

as the aforementioned hall in the Third Palace at Jericho). Such was the Royal Box above the theatre at Herodium, which undoubtedly served the king and his guests. It was built by Herod in anticipation of the visit of his friend Agrippa, Augustus’s aide, in 15 bce.41 Both halls – that in Jerusalem and the Royal Box at Herodium – have similar wall decorations; the hall in Jerusalem was decorated in stone while the Royal Box at Herodium was adorned by stucco and frescos. Our monumental building was built high above its surroundings, with an impressive view to the south, and is also similar in this sense to the triclinium at Herodium, built on the side of the hill, above the theatre, and with a panoramic view to the east. Awareness of the impressive view from banqueting halls is a recognizable feature of many Roman villas.42 To this category of Herodian triclinia, decorated with wall art or with attached columns set on a podium, one should include the “Monumental Building”  – actually a triclinium – at the western end of “the course” in lower Herodium, which also had fountains.43 The reception hall at the lower terrace of the Northern Palace at Masada also belongs to this group.44 It is clear that reception/dining halls such as these were to be found in all of Herod’s palaces: in the First Palace in Jericho; on top of southern Tel Abu el-Alaiq – the circular reception hall; at the mountain-top palace in Herodium; in Machaerus, and at the promontory palace in Ceasarea, where a fountain was installed at a later stage.45 The reconstructed triclinium at Qasr el-ʿAbd, the palace of Hyrcanus, son of Tobias in Trans-Jordan, seemingly had the same function. Similarly, stone-decorated walls were found in the monumental dining hall at the Pinacotheca in the Acropolis of Athens, a building well known throughout the Classical, Hellenistic and Roman world. The Pinacotheca, a picture gallery, was built as part of the Propylaea, the gateway of the Acropolis.46 This structure, dating from the 5th century bce, continued to function until the 2nd century ce

41  Silvia Rozenberg and David Mevorach, eds., Herod the Great: The King’s Final Journey (Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 2013), 148–56. 42  Dunbabin, “Convivial spaces,” 66. 43  Ehud Netzer, Greater Herodium. Qedem 13 (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1981), 36–45. Romans were fond of integrating fountains, nymphea and cascades in their more elaborate triclinia (Dunbabin, “Convivial spaces,” 71 with references therein). 44 Ehud Netzer Masada III: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Final Reports: The Buildings, Stratigraphy and Architecture (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1991), 158– 62; Gideon Foerster, Masada V, The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Final Reports: The Buildings, Stratigraphy and Architecture (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1995), 179–90. 45 Barbara Burrell, Katherine Gleason and Ehud Netzer, “Uncovering Herod’s Seaside Palace.” BA 19 (1993): 50–57, 76; Ehud Netzer, The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 106–12. 46 William B. Dinsmoor, The Architecture of Ancient Greece3 (London: Batsford, 1950), 199–205.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

268

Outside the Temple Precinct

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

(Pausanias 1.22.6). Like the Pinacotheca, our monumental building was also situated close to the entrance of a temple – the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. The architectural style, magnificence and sophistication of the building presented here, with the integrated fountain, suggest that it was sponsored by Herod. It stands as an independent structure, projecting to the south, next to the road that led from the upper city eastward to the Temple Mount since the days of the Hasmoneans. As far as can be construed, it was not part of a larger building, since the surrounding terrain to the north and to the south was lower.47 Even when the road leading to the Temple Mount had been elevated, the building still fulfilled its original function. Toward the end of the Second Temple period, the road ran over a bridge (War 2.344; 6.324–25, 377). It connected the Temple Mount with the palaces in the upper city; the Hasmonaean palace (Ant. 15.410) and Herod’s palace (whose construction started after 30 bce, but prior to the expansion of the Temple Mount). The Hasmonaean Palace was probably occupied by Herod at the beginning of his reign, until he completed the larger palace.48 The proximity of our building to the temple precinct (ca. 50 m west of the preHerodian Temple Mount, or 25 m west of the Herodian Temple Mount), and its location along the road that continues to the Temple Mount, suggest that it served guests of the king or of the city, before entering the temple precinct. There are many examples of Greco-Roman triclinia in religious contexts, alongside roads leading to temple precincts, at their entrance, and also within the precinct itself. Such is the Pompeion, the processional building near the Dipylon Gate in Athens, at the start of the pan-Athenaic processional road that crossed the Agora and climbed to the Acropolis (the Pinacotheca, mentioned previously, was placed at the end of this road). The Pompeion had six dining rooms, arranged around a peristyle courtyard.49 Other examples of triclinia in religious context have been found in Labraunda in Asia Minor (4th century bce),50 at the 47 It is possible, however, that when the Temple Mount was enlarged, our building occupied an upper level of a larger complex founded on a lower level that stood to its south (maybe the Council Hall – see below), and collapsed. 48  Another palace in Jerusalem that Herod could have used was the Hasmonaean Baris that was expanded to become the Fortress Antonia. From there the king had direct access to the temple precinct. But the function of this building is beyond the scope of the present paper. 49  Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary, 477–81, figs. 391, 540, 602, 722. 50  Pontus Hellström, “Formal Banqueting at Labraunda,” in Architecture and Society in Hecatomnid Caria, ed. Tullia Linders and Pontus Hellström (Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 1989), 99–104; idem, “The Andrones at Labraynda. Dining halls for Protohellenistic kings,” in Basileia. Die Paläste der Hellenistischen Könige, eds. Wolfram Hoepfner and Gunnar Brands (Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1996), 164–69; Christina G. Williamson, “A room with a view. Karian landscape on display through the andrones at Labraunda,” in Labrys: Studies presented to Pontus Hellström. Boreas, Acta Universitais Upsaliensis 35, eds. Lars Karlsson, S. Carlsson and J. B. Kullberg (Uppsala: University of Uppsala 2014), 123–40. We are grateful to Dr. Lucia Novakova of Trnava University, Slovakia, for drawing our attention to the andrones uncovered in this important site.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XIV. The ‘Free Masons Hall’

269

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

temple of Apollo Hylates in Kourion, Cyprus,51 and at the temple of the Syrian Gods Atargatis and Hadad in Delos.52 Triclinia have also been found in religious contexts in the east, as in the Nabatean temple from the 2nd c. ce at Khirbet Tannur (Phase 2), in Jordan.53 The rooms had stone built klinai along the walls, for the religious associations known as marzeḥa (‫ )מרזחא‬in Aramaic (thiasos in Greek).54 A popular meeting place of such associations throughout the ancient world was a house with a banqueting room or hall, or banqueting halls (andrones / triclinia) in sacred precincts.55 Such were the dining halls at the Baalshamin and the Bel temples in Palmyra,56 and at the temples of Dura Europos.57 In Jewish contexts, there is the dining room at the building in Jericho that Netzer suggested to identify as a Hasmonean synagogue, and in several Diaspora synagogues.58 Our building has two (possibly three) dining halls, identical in size and layout; it had no focal point that emphasizes a king’s seat.59 The opulence of the building, equipped with a fountain that served the visitors to the building, not the public, suggest that it hosted important guests. They included, most probably, guests of the king and, after his death, important guests of the subsequent rulers (Archelaus, the Roman prefects, and possibly Agrippa I), and also the heads of the city and their guests. The latter group would have included council members 51  Robert L. Scranton, “The Architecture of the Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates at Kourion,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 57 (1967): 65–83. 52  Nielsen, Housing the Chosen, 102–3. 53  Judith S. McKenzie et al., The Nabataean Temple at Khirbet et-Tannur, Jordan: Final Report on Nelson Glueck’s 1937 Excavation, Vol. 1: Architecture and Religion. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 67–68. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2013. 54 The LXX renders ‫ בית מרזח‬in Jer 16:5 as thiasos. On this institution in the Bible and in the Ancient Near East, see Jonas C. Greenfield “The marzeaḥ as a Social Institution.” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 22 (1974): 451–55. 55 Nielsen, Housing the Chosen, 252–53. 56 Jean Starcky, “Salles de banquets rituels dans les sanctuaires orientaux,” Syria 26 (1949): 62–85; Will, “Salles à Banquet à Palmyra”; Nielsen, Housing the Chosen, 94–97, Figs. 62–64. 57 These are encountered in many temples there, with several triclinia in each: the sanctuary of Zeus Theos, of Adonis and Atargatis, Atargatis as Gadde and Baal Shamin as the local God of Dura, and the sanctuary of the Palmyrene Gods. See: Susan B. Downey, Mesopotamian Religious Architecture: Alexander through the Parthians (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1988); Nielsen, Housing the Chosen, 99–102, Figs. 68–69; 142–45, Figs. 100–2; Inge Nielsen, “The Assembly Rooms of Religious Groups in the Hellenistic and Roman Near East: A Comparative Study,” in Religious Identities in the Levant from Alexander to Muhammed: Continuity and Change, ed. Michael Blömer, Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015), 47–74. 58 Ehud Netzer, Yaʿakov Kalman and Rachel Loris, “A Hasmonean Synagogue at Jericho,” Qadmoniot 117 (1999): 17–24 (Hebrew); Nielsen Housing the Chosen, 236 and Figs. 123–27. Banqueting halls associated with the synagogues were uncovered in Delos, Stobi, Ostia and Sardis. Dining, in burial contexts, is beyond the scope of this paper. 59 The king’s main dining and reception hall was, of course, at his palace, a short distance to the west.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

270

Outside the Temple Precinct

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

(bouleutai); city magistrates; military commanders; and possibly heads of the priestly order, the Memunim (who could be from among the Priests, Levites, or Israelites); clan elders and high priestly officials (although it is reasonable to assume that the priests also had meeting rooms within the sacred precinct).60 The building may have served as a meeting place for the non-priestly chiefs of the Israelites that served at the temple.61 Visitors could also have been foreigners who wanted to admire the splendor of the temple and its ceremonies and were allowed to enter the temple precinct up to the grille (soreg), and could offer a sacrifice. Such guests could be hosted here until the ceremonies reached their climax. We do not know why two (possibly more) such dining halls were installed. But multiple dining halls situated at a temple entrance, are known in some of the sites mentioned above.62 It is quite possible that after the expansion of the temple precinct and the construction of the stoai around the Herodian complex, similar dining halls were built inside the temple precinct, and our building was not restored to its former grandeur after the catastrophe that ruined it. The so-called Free Mason’s Hall was a public building, outside of the Temple precinct (that was overseen by the priestly order) and outside of Herod’s palace. This raises a question of who hosted the guests and how were the meals funded? The central authority  – Herod, Archelaus, the Roman prefects, and possibly Agrippa I could, of course, host guests there. But in the timeframe at our concern, the city’s municipal affairs (as opposed to the Temple’s affairs) were under the authority of the Boule, the city council. At the time, Jerusalem was administered as a polis, with a demos, boule, and archontes. These three urban institutions were the addressee of a letter of Claudius to the people of Jerusalem regarding the return of the priestly robe to the people in 45 ce (Ant. 20.11). The council and its members (bouleutai) are mentioned in many literary sources: Josephus, the New Testament, the Writings of the Sages, and Cassius Dio. Joseph of Arimathea, who asked Pontius Pilatus for the body of the crucified Jesus, for burial, was a member of the city council (Luke 23:50, Mark 15:43). Other known council members were Aristeas of Emmaus, the secretary (grammateus) (War 5.532), Ben Tzitzit, Ben Nakdimon, Ben Gurion, and Ben Kalba Savoua who could “feed the city for ten years” (Lamentations Rabbah, Vilna 60 Meeting chambers (‫ )לשכות‬in which wine was served already existed in the First Temple Period (Jer 35). 61  On the social hierarchy in Jerusalem and Judea see: Abraham Schalit, König Herodes. Der Mann und sein Werk (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969), 167–82; Israel Lee Levine, Jerusalem. Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 b.c.e.–70 c.e.) (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2002), 243–45, 265–69. On the temple and its administration see: Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Study edition (London: SCM, 1969); Shmuel Safrai, “The Temple,” in The Jewish People in the First Century, ed. Shmuel Safrai and Menaḥem Stern (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), 865–907. 62  A double triclinium was installed in front of the Temple of Dionysus, at the outskirts of Pompeii (Dunbabin, “Triclinium and Stibadium,” 125 and 140, note 30).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XIV. The ‘Free Masons Hall’

271

ed., 1:31).63 Other bouleutai include the ‘First Ten’ (deca protoi) at the time of Nero (Ant. 20.194) and “the fifteen eminent men”, mentioned at the time of the Great Revolt (War 5.532). Our monumental building is situated adjacent to the First Wall (War 5.144). In the description of the course of the wall, Josephus mentions two adjacent buildings: the Xystos and the place of the council (boule).64 In Greek, the term Xystos referred to a large stoa in which athletes practiced in the winter (as in the Gymnasion of Olympia). The Romans used the term for an unroofed promenade (Vitruvius, De architectura 6.7.5). From the numerous sources that mention the Xistos in Jerusalem,65 it can be inferred that it was a wide, paved(?) place – a plaza, that could accommodate a large crowd,66 located between the Hasmonaean Palace and the wall of the Temple Mount, approximately where the Western Wall plaza is located today. It could have a long, covered stoa on one side.67 Either way, the description does not fit our monumental building, and therefore it is not the Xistos mentioned by Josephus. As for the boule place – bouleteria like those at Priene, Miletus, Termessos, Sagalossos, etc., have tiered stone benches arranged around a central space. This characteristic feature is not present in our building. As stated above, Josephus (War, 5.144) locates the place of the council (boule), close to our monumental building. The place of the boule might have been at the foot of our building, adjacent to the Xistos. But in Hellenistic cities, there was generally another building associated with the bouleterion – the prytaneion. In a Greek polis, the city officials, the prytaneioi (headed by the proedroi), and the city guests, would dine together in the prytaneion.68 Proedroi and bouleutai –  http://www.sefaria.org/Kohelet_Rabbah.7.11?lang=he&layout=lines&sidebarLang=all.  A bouleuterion set on fire is mentioned in War 6.354. It seems that its location was south of the Temple Mount, unlike the “council place” of interest here. 65  Other than in War 5.144, the xistos is also mentioned in War 2.344; 4.581; 6.191, 324–325, 377 and in Ant. 20.189–190. 66  Abraham Schalit, Namenwörterbuch zu Flavius Josephus, Suppl. I. (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 92; Karl Heinrich Rengstrof, A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus. Vol. III (Leiden: Brill 1979), 164. 67  According to another opinion the Xistos referred to the road that connected the upper city to the Temple precinct. See: Yehoshua Peleg, “The Meaning of the Word Xystos in the Writings of Josephus,” New Studies on Jerusalem 12 (2006): 73–82 (Hebrew); Israel Shatzman’s commentary on War 2.344 in Ulman’s Hebrew translation, 263; Alexander Onn and Shlomit Weksler–Bdolah, “Wilson’s Arch and the Great Causeway in the Second Temple and Roman Periods in Light of Recent Excavations,” Qadmoniot 140 (2010): 120–21 (Hebrew). 68 Stephen Gaylord Miller (The Prytaneion: Its Function and Architectural Form [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978]), brings literary sources and inscriptions, up to the 2nd c. ce, indicating that the prytaneion was an active institution in numerous cities of Asia Minor, Greece and the Greek islands. Noteworthy are copies of resolutions of the boule and demos of a particular city to confer a certain individual with the right of sitesis (to be fed gratis) in the prytaneion. See, for example, 204, sources no. 382 and no. 383 (Paros, mid 1st c. ce); 205, no. 389 (Pergamon, 1st c. bce); 208, no. 413 (Philippi, 1st c. bce); nos. 422, 423 (Rhodes, 2nd 63

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

64

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

272

Outside the Temple Precinct

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

city officials who served a 12-month term – existed in Jerusalem as well (Tosefta Kippurim, 1:1–2 [Liberman ed., 220]; y. Yoma 1:1, 38c, b. Yoma, 8b).69 Seemingly their members were not only from the priestly order. There are no sources that state explicitly that in Jerusalem these officials congregated outside of the temple precinct or that they enjoyed the privilege of a daily meal at the expense of the city. However, it would seem that our building, that functioned as a dining hall and was located adjacent to the council place, served as a prytaneion of sorts during the ca. 60 years of its existence. In any case, although the monumental building discussed here is not among the buildings mentioned in Josephus’s writings (perhaps because the building deteriorated before the end of the Second Temple period and ceased to serve its original function as a composite royal triclinium near the gates to the Temple Mount), from an architectural viewpoint it seems to be the most splendid Herodian building that survived in Jerusalem.

c. ce); 211, no. 433 (Tangara – concerning the right of certain ambassadors to be hosted in the prynaneion, 1st c. bce); no. 461 (Philo of Alexandria, De mundi oficio 1.17, ca. 40 ce. Prytaneia are also listed among the public buildings designed by an architect for a city: 201–3, nos. 373–77 (description of the prytaneion of Olympia as a standing, functioning institution). 69  See: Gedalya Alon, “Prairetin [‫]פראירתין‬. On the history of the priesthood at the end of the Second Temple period,” in Studies in Jewish History in the times of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud, Vol. 1 (Tel- Aviv ,1967), 48–76 (Hebrew) (published also earlier in Tarbiz 13 [1941]: 1–24). See also above, Chapter V, with further references.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XV. A Sadducean Halakha and the Jerusalem Aqueduct* Rabbinic sources contain numerous references to controversies between the Pharisees and the Sadducees in matters relating to the Temple cult, law, daily life and theology.1 The dating of these controversies is significant both for the history of the sects and for the development of halakha.2 The particular controversy with which we shall deal in this article is mentioned in the mishnah. We shall attempt to explain this mishnah, examine it in the light of archaeological evidence, and suggest its historical setting.

1. The Legal Aspect The Sadducees say, “We protest against you, O Pharisees, for you declare clean the nyzok,” The Pharisees say, “We protest against you, O Sadducees, for you declare clean the channel of water that comes from among the graves.” (m. Yad. 4:7)3

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Incidental to a controversy between Pharisees and Sadducees over the nyzok, we learn that there was a Sadducean halakha which determined that the water of an aqueduct passing through a cemetery is considered ritually pure. The com* I wish to thank Drs. L. Levine and I. Gafni for reading a draft of this paper. The subject was presented and discussed within the framework of Prof. M. D. Herr’s seminar at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in January 1980; I am most grateful for his comments. It is clear, however, that I take full responsibility for the paper as presented. 1  See, for example, Avraham Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel2 (Frankfurt am Main: Madda, 1928), 127–58. Chaim Tchernowitz, History of the Halakha (Hebrew), vol. l, part 2 (New York: Publishing Committee, 1936), 260–339; Solomon Zeitlin, “Sadducees and Pharisees,” (Hebrew), Horeb 3 (New York, 1936–37): 65–89; Louis Finkelstein, The Pharisees, 2 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 19623), 637–745, 811–19; Alexander Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism in the Making (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1970), 136–61; Jean Le Moyne, Les Sadducéens (Paris: Lecoffre, 1972), 167–317. 2  See Guttmann’s comments on the dating of the controversies, Rabbinic Judaism, 156. 3  Reading of m. Yad. 4:15, according to the Cambridge MS. (The Mishnah on which the Palestinian Talmud rests [‫]מתניתא דתלמודא דבני מערבא‬, edited for the syndics of the University Press from the unique manuscript preserved in the University Library of Cambridge Add. 470.1 by William H. Lowe, Cambridge, 1883, 249); see also reading in Mishnah Codex Parma (De Rossi, 497). Lieberman showed that the reading beyn hakvarot (between the graves) is from the Jerusalem Talmud. In the Babylonian Talmud we generally find beyt hakvarot (cemetery). See his review article on Higger’s edition of Massekhet Semaḥot, Kiryat Sepher, 9.2 (1932): 55–56 (Hebrew); also, Shaul Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Feshutah, I (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1955), 109 (Hebrew).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

274

Outside the Temple Precinct

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

mentators explain nyzok according to m. Makhshirin 5:9, i. e. a stream of liquid poured from a ‘pure’ vessel to a ‘contaminated’ one.4 The parallel between the nyzok and the aqueduct derives from the fact that both cases involve a stream of liquid whose extremity touches something ‘contaminated’. The Sadducees oppose the Pharisaic claim that the nyzok does not transmit contamination from a lower vessel to an upper vessel. The reasoning behind the Pharisaic answer to the Sadducees requires comment.5 In rabbinic law, water attached to the ground is not subject to ‘contamination’.6 Thus water in an aqueduct is ‘pure’ insofar as it is connected to a spring which wells up from the ground.7 However, if indeed this was the prevailing halakhic conception at the time of this controversy, then the Pharisaic response is both surprising and incomprehensible; the water in the aqueduct is in any case ‘pure’, as it is connected to the ground. Hence there is no comparison between the nyzok which is unconnected (to the ground) and comes in contact with ‘contamination’, and the aqueduct whose water is ‘pure’, being connected to the ground (even in a cemetery). Later commentators resolved this problem by claiming that the

4 See Yosef Kapah, ed., The Mishnah with the Commentary of Maimonides. Seder Qodashim (Jerusalem, 1967), 717; Bertinoro Commentary and Tosafot Yom Tov. 5 Scholars had difficulty in understanding the nature of the controversy. Geiger sought to explain it as an allegory on the political controversy between the supporters of the Herodian dynasty, whom he identified as the Sadducees, and the Pharisees, supporters of Hasmoneans (Urschrift und Übersetzungen, 95–96). Tchernowitz inverted the mishnaic text, attributing the Sadducean protest to the Pharisees, and vice versa. He explained nyzok in the passive (nifʿal) form, as one upon whose head drawn water was poured for the purpose of ritual immersion, and read into this passage a controversy over the laws regarding immersion in a ritual bath (History of the Halakha, 289). Leszynsky defined nyzok as bee’s honey, the controversy being over whether or not the honey is ‘pure’, since bees often suck on ‘contaminated’ or dead beings (Rudolf Leszynsky, Die Sadduzaer [Berlin: Mayer & Müller, 1912], 38–43). See, however, the criticism of Bernard Revel in JQR 7 (1916–17): 438 on Leszynsky’s book. According to Zeitlin, nyzok is the seed in the ground, upon which water is poured, and the discussion revolves around the suspicion that vegetables would be ‘contaminated’ while they were still ‘attached to the ground’ (Solomon Zeitlin, “Takkanot Ezra,” JQR 8 [1917–18]: 68–69); see also idem, “Sadducees and Pharisees,” 73–74. According to Finkelstein, nyzok means aqueduct. The position taken by the Pharisees was that water flowing through an aqueduct is ‘pure’ and may be used for immersion in a miqweh. The Sadducees opposed this stand. The Pharisees responded to the Sadducean protest by pointing out that the latter permitted the use of water flowing through an aqueduct, which passed through a cemetery. This shows that the Sadducees also upheld the principle that water, as long as it is still connected to the ground, is appropriate for purposes of ritual immersion. Even an aqueduct built into the ground does not prevent the conducted water from being used in a miqveh. See Louis Finkelstein, “The Pharisees,” HTR 22 (1929): 217; as well as his book The Pharisees, 153–54; Le Moyne, Les Sadducéens, 212–13; Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purity, 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 154. 6  T. Miqw. 1:1, ed. Zuckermandel, 652. See further, Bertinoro on m. Miqw. 1:1 and 4. For the same reason, stagnant water “into which a dead body had fallen” is ‘pure’; by argument a fortiori, this applies to well-water which is of the highest degree of ‘purity’ (ibid. 1:8) 7  Cf. m. Parah 8:11.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XV. A Sadducean Halakha and the Jerusalem Aqueduct

275

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Pharisaic response referred to a Sadducean halakha. In other words, the Saddu­ cees themselves maintained that even water connected to the ground could become contaminated. Without this explanation, the Pharisaic response is incomprehensible.8 However, it is also possible that this reflects the legal reality of an earlier period, according to which even that which is connected to the ground is liable to contamination, according to the Pharisees as well.9 Only in such a halakhic situation would the aqueduct crossing a cemetery be comparable to the nyzok. In both cases, the stream of water is a single entity, the extremity of which touches something contaminated. The Pharisaic response thus points to the contradiction in the Sadducean position. On the one hand they consider the nyzok to be contaminated, while on the other hand they declare the aqueduct which crosses the cemetery to be pure. The literary structure of the mishnah under discussion, i. e. a response to protest in the form of a counter-protest, is similar to that of the following mishnah in the same chapter (4:8).10 It suggests that the Pharisees might not have disagreed with the Sadducees in the matter of water from an aqueduct passing through a cemetery, and that they too might have considered it pure.11 While we do have a number of rabbinic legal decisions forbidding the passage of an aqueduct through a cemetery,12 this prohibition does not render the water of such an aqueduct contaminated. A baraita in the Babylonian Talmud

 8  See the commentary on this mishnah by R. Israel Lipschutz, Tiferet Yisrael – Yakhin, 66; Mishnah Ahrona – Seder Tohorot of R. Ephraim Yitzhak of Premysl on this mishnah.  9  This, for example, is the opinion of Louis Ginzberg, An Unknown Jewish Sect (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1967), 351–53; see also, below, n. 49. Ḥanokh Albeck, in his comments on Yadayim (Seder Teharot, 609), points out the possibility that the Pharisean/ Sadducean controversy here is related to a halakha of the early Sages in t. ʾOhal. 4:6, according to which the ‘power’ of contamination is greater on the descent than on the ascent. In the case of the aqueduct which passes through a cemetery, the water descends from the place of contamination, whereas in the case of nyzok, which he defines as katapheres (gutter) from the Greek καταφερής which means “sloping downward” (see m. Tehar. 8:9), the water descends to the contaminated area. The Pharisees are therefore protesting the Sadducees declaring water ‘pure’ when contamination occurs on the descent, while declaring it impure when contamination occurs on the ascent. It is clear that, according to this explanation, a controversy such as this one is possible only in a halakhic situation in which the water in the aqueduct does not have the status of ‘attached’. For other suggestions explaining the mishnah and the nature of the controversy, see above, n. 5. 10 In this mishnah, there is no difference between the Pharisees and their opponents; both sides “… write the name of the ruler together with the Name [of God] on the [same] page....” The Pharisaic response in both instances is in keeping with the (original) protest; however, rather than elucidating the claim, they present a counterclaim emphasizing the absurd aspect of their opponent’s statement. See. Albeck’s comment on Seder Teharot, 609–610. 11  See also below, end of n. 26. 12  M. Semaḥot 14:1, ed. Dov Zlotnick; b. Meg. 29a. See also the reading of tractate Evel brought by Nachmanides in his Torat Ha-Adam (Venice ed., 1595), 42a; and Michael Higger’s notes on Semaḥot ad loc., Massekhet Semaḥot, ed. Higger (New York: Bloch, 1931), 204.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

276

Outside the Temple Precinct

lists the question of drinking such water among ten problematic issues facing the student of halakha.13 We thus conclude that both Sadducees and Pharisees agreed that water from an aqueduct passing through a cemetery is pure. However, the context in which the matter is cited – the comparison of an aqueduct to a nyzok – shows that at least among the Sadducees the prevailing legal opinion was that even water connected to the ground was liable to contamination. Consequently, a special legal decision was required regarding water in an aqueduct passing through a cemetery. The fact that this halakha is identified in the mishnah as Sadducean, indicates that it was handed down by a bet din (court) authorized and recognized by the Sadducees.14 Like the Pharisees and the Dead Sea Sect, the Sadducees undoubtedly had an accepted structure for determining halakha. Some scholars doubt the historicity of the commentary (scholion) to Megillat Taʿanit, according to which the Sefer Gezerata (“Book of Decrees”) mentioned in the megilla is a Sadducean legal corpus.15 However, even if it was not identical with the Sefer Gezerata of the megilla, such a code as mentioned in the scholion probably existed.16 All the other halakhot mentioned in controversies between Pharisees and Sadducees and identified as Sadducean law,17 can be so defined only if they were accepted, or at least approved, by an internal sectarian institution authorized to do so. The existence of such Sadducean traditions may also be deduced from the reference to a high priest offering incense on Yom Kippur outside the parochet, in contradiction to Pharisaic law: “When he came out, he said to his father, ‘All your life, you expounded it in this fashion, but never carried it out, now I did.”’18  B. Hor. 13b. For water installation in cemeteries, see Erwin R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, I (New York: Pantheon Books, 1953), 103–110; Willia  H. Worrell, “Sepulchral Cup Marks Pools and Conduits Near Jerusalem,” AASOR 2–3 (1921– 1922): 94. The decree of the Roman Senate prohibiting the digging of a grave or the planting of a tree near an aqueduct, is found in Frontinus, De Aquis 2.127. I am most grateful to Mr. Y. Hirschfeld for bringing the above decree to my attention. 14  Thus the reference in the title of this article, to a “Sadducean halakha” is justified, even if this legal position was already accepted by the Pharisees. 15  Megillat Taʿanit, ed. Lichtenstein, HUCA 8–9 (1931–1932): 331. Among others, Solomon Zeitlin, Gedalya Alon, Yitzhak Baer, Ben Zion Luria, and Yehoshuʻa Efron reject the scholion, but most scholars base themselves upon it in their commentaries and emphasize the fact that the memorial day mentioned therein was established to commemorate the abrogation of the Sadducean Book of Decrees. So, for example, Abraham Geiger, Heinrich Graetz. Joseph Derenbourg, Jacob Zallel Lauterbach, Louis Ginzberg, Louis Finkelstein, Zvi Lichtenstein, and Hugo Mantel. See Ido Hampel, “Megillat Ta’anit” (PhD diss., Tel Aviv University, 1976), 137– 140. See also, Ephraim E. Urbach, “The Derasha as a Basis of the Halakha and the Problem of the Soferim,” Tarbiz 27 (1958): 180–81 (Hebrew). 16  Megillat Taʿanit may not be referring to the Sadducees, and the scholion may not be referring to the megilla; nonetheless, the scholion preserves a valid historical tradition. 17  See above, no. 1. 18  T. Yoma 1:8, ed. Lieberman, 222–23; Y. Yoma 1:5 (39a). The tradition which claims the

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

13

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XV. A Sadducean Halakha and the Jerusalem Aqueduct

277

2. Archaeological Evidence

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Rabbinic laws often reflect real-life situations. Thus, the halakha discussed here may refer to a specific aqueduct in a particular cemetery. There are two aqueducts known to us from Second Temple times which pass through a cemetery – one in Jericho and the other in Jerusalem. The cemetery at Jericho extends on both sides of the Hasmonean palace aqueduct, a palace which was apparently built at the time of Alexander Jannaeus.19 The earliest part of the cemetery dates from the later Hasmonean period;20 no graves were found which pre-date the first century bce. Neither were there any instances of the aqueduct cutting through a grave or rendering a grave unusable. It would appear, therefore, that when the aqueduct was built, it did not cut through the cemetery – in other words, the relationship of the aqueduct to the cemetery was such that its construction did not necessarily create the need for a legal decision regarding the ‘purity’ of the water. An offshoot of the aqueduct leads to a miqveh (ritual bath) located in a building in the heart of the cemetery. The latter does not pre-date Herod. The water of this aqueduct supplies other ritual baths within the palace area, and was used by the Hasmonean high priests. Jannaeus was indeed close to Sadducean circles and his adoption of Sadducean law would not be surprising.21 Furthermore, in addition to being the winter residence of the Hasmoneans, Jericho was also an important residence for priests, and Sadducean law may well have predominated there.22 But we have already seen that when the aqueduct existence of a Sadducean bet din (court) in the last generation before the destruction of the Second Temple has been preserved in b. Sanh. 42b. See also Urbach, “The Derasha”; Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Rabbinical Essays – The Sadducees and the Pharisees (New York: Ktav, 1973), 35 and n. 15; Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: SCM [London], 1969), 231–32; Joseph M. Baumgarten, Studies in Qumran Law (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 26–7; Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 2, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar & M. Black (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), 208 (n. 28), 390. 19 Ehud Netzer, “The Hasmonean and Herodian Winter Palaces at Jericho,” IEJ 25 (1975): 92; idem, “The Winter Palaces of the Judaean Kings at Jericho at the End of the Second Temple Period,” BASOR 228 (1977): 1. 20  Rachel Hachlili, “Ancient Burial Customs Preserved in Jericho Hills,” BAR 5:4 (1979): 28– 35; idem, “A Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period at Jericho,” Qadmoniyot 12 (1979): 62–66 (Hebrew). My thanks to Drs. Hachlili and Netzer for further details referred to below. 21  Some scholars identify the Sadducean high priest who poured the water on his feet rather than on the altar during the Sukkot festival with Alexander Jannaeus, identifying the episode related in Josephus, Ant. 12.372 with that mentioned in rabbinic sources (Sukkah 4:9; t. ibid. 3:16 [Lieberman ed., 270]; b. ibid 48b; Yoma 26a). See, for example, Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, 2 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1956), 43; Joseph Derenbourg, Essai sur l’histoire et la geographie de la Palestine (Paris: Impr. impériale, 1867), 98; Joseph Klausner, The World History of the Jewish People – The Hellenistic Age, ed. A. Schalit (London, 1979), 230–31; Le Moyne, Les Sadducéens, 285–86; Schürer, History of the Jewish People l, 222–23, n. 16. 22  Adolf, Büchler, Die Priester und der Cultus im letzten Jahrzehnt des jerusalemischen Tempels (Wien: A. Hölder, 1895), 159–81; Finkelstein, The Pharisees, 61–72. On the other

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

278

Outside the Temple Precinct

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

was built, there was as yet apparently no need for a legal decision regarding the ‘purity’ of its water. However, from the time that the aqueduct passed through the cemetery – at the latest during the Herodian period – the legal decision under discussion assured the ‘purity’ of the water for use in the palace ritual baths as well as in the one located in the cemetery itself. The relationship between the aqueduct and the cemetery at Jerusalem is clearer. In the course of widening a section of the road south of the Jaffa Gate, a number of burial caves dating from the end of the First Temple period were exposed (Fig. XV.1). Some of the caves had been used for burial in the Hasmonean period as well, as evidenced by pottery vessels dating from the end of that period.23 The discovery of a broken ossuary in a nearby grave shows that this cemetery was still functioning when ossuaries were being used for secondary burial.24 In the southern part of the row of caves, a segment of the Lower Level Aqueduct was discovered bringing water from springs in the area of Solomon’s Pools to Jerusalem. Part of this segment was built on top of a burial cave, as a result of which the latter was ruined and could no longer be used (Figs. XV.2–3). Here then is a clear-cut example of an aqueduct passing through a cemetery.25 The water from the Lower Level Aqueduct played an important role in the Temple ritual. The water of this aqueduct, which ran from ʿEtam to the laver in the temple, was used by the priests for washing and ritual purification, as well as by the high priest for his own immersions on the Day of Atonement (Yom hand, there is no evidence in the sources of Sadducean activity, or even their existence, outside Jerusalem. See Le Moyne, Les Sadducéens, 343–44. 23 Amos Kloner, HA 53 (1975): 22 (Hebrew); David Davis and Amos Kloner, “A Burial Cave of the Late Israelite Period on the Slopes of Mt. Zion,” Qadmoniyot 11 (1978): 16–19 (Hebrew). I am obliged to Dr. Kloner, Jerusalem District archaeologist, for supplying additional information about the burial ground and what was found there, over and above the information recorded in the above articles. He also called my attention to the existence of a loculus-type burial cave discovered south of Abu Tor in an area containing other burial caves; it went out of use when the aqueduct was built. Material on this cave was published recently: Amos Kloner, “The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period” (PhD diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1980), 59, cave 9–9; see also 265–66 and Pls. l, 38. Kloner prefers a Herodian date for the construction of the Lower Aqueduct, but this suggestion is far from being conclusive. 24  Raḥmani dated the first appearance in Jerusalem of ossuaries for secondary burial, to the fourth decade of the first century b.c.e., the beginning of Herod’s rule. See Levi Y. Rahmani, “A Tomb on Shain Hill, Jerusalem,” IEJ 8 (1958): 105; idem, “Jewish Rock-Cut Tombs in Jerusalem,” ʿAtiqot 3 (1961): 116. Another suggestion is presented by Eric M. Meyers, Jewish Ossuaries, Reburial and Rebirth (Rome: Biblical institute press, 1971), 39–44. Note, however, Raḥmani’s review in IEJ 13 (1973):121–26. See also Ḥachlili’s suggestion based on the evidence from Jericho, “A Jewish Cemetery at Jericho,” 66. 25 Even if, as a result of the laying of the aqueduct, burial no longer took place there, and the area became a shekhunat kvarot (a cemetery area) rather than a beyt kvarot (active burial ground), this does not detract from its ‘contamination’. There was no sign whatsoever of ossiligation for the sake of making the area ritually clean, in the group of caves cut by the aqueduct.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XV. A Sadducean Halakha and the Jerusalem Aqueduct

279

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. XV.1. Route of the Lower Aqueduct through the area of the graves on the western slope of Mt. Zion.

Kippur).26 Its ritual significance on the one hand, and the fact that it passed through a cemetery on the other, leads to two conclusions: a) in order to allow the use of water from the Lower Aqueduct, there had to be a legal decision stating that water passing through a cemetery is ‘pure’; b) because such a decision in26 Y. Yoma 3:8 (41a); b. ibid., 31a; Eikhah Rabbah, ed. Buber, 4:4. This aqueduct, which passed through a cemetery, provides practical evidence that the Pharisees, together with the majority of the people, considered its water to be ‘pure’, fit for the Temple ritual. At present the aqueduct could be traced only to a water cistern located below the upper platform of Ḥaram alSharif. Post-script: see supra, Chapter X.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

280

Outside the Temple Precinct

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Fig. XV.2. A segment of the Lower Aqueduct cuts through an ancient burial cave on the western slope of Mount Zion, south of the Jaffa Gate, view to the southeast (Author).

Fig. XV.3. A segment of the ancient aqueduct with a late Ottoman pipe laid inside (Author).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XV. A Sadducean Halakha and the Jerusalem Aqueduct

281

volved the aqueduct whose water was used in the Temple service, it had to be made by the Sanhedrin. Even if a law concerning an aqueduct passing through a cemetery had already been accepted by a Sadducean court, it would not have sufficed; rather, it necessitated acceptance at the highest national level, as a law binding upon everyone.27 On the basis of the first conclusion, we may set the terminus ad quem of the Sadducean law no later than the construction date of the Lower Level Aqueduct leading to the Temple. By the time the controversy developed between the Sadducees and the Pharisees regarding nyzok, this law was already in existence. However, we may assume that its acceptance was still fresh in the memory of the Pharisees. Were this not the case, there would be little point in taking the Sadducees to task for it. Consequently, the dating of the Lower Level Aqueduct makes it possible to establish not only the latest possible date for the law regarding the water of an aqueduct passing through a cemetery, but the time of the nyzok controversy as well. We would suggest that the Sadducean legal decision was indeed connected with the construction of the Lower Level Aqueduct.

3. Date of Construction of the Lower Level Aqueduct

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

While the existence of the Lower Level Aqueduct has been known to scholars for more than 100 years and much of its remains can still be traced28 opinions are divided as to the date of its construction. Several datings have been suggested, based mainly on considerations of urban history. Some suggest that the aqueduct was constructed at the time of Herod;29 others that it dates from the time of 27  While supervision of the Temple was awarded to the Hasmoneans, the Herodians, or the Roman governors, in their respective periods, the authority of the Sanhedrin remained paramount when it came to halakhic matters relating to religious life and the Temple service, as well as to ritual purity (m. Sanh. 4:2; regarding the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period, its character, structure and authority, see below, n. 37). During the time of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, mention is made of a legal decision relating to the purity of water, taken by the High Court in the Chamber of Hewn Stone (m. ʿEd. 7:4). In addition, we have the following stipulation: “… they may not add to the city or the courts of the Temple save by the decision of the court of one and seventy …” (m. Sanh. 1:5; m. Shebu. 2:2). See Ḥanokh Albeck, “The Sanhedrin and Its President,” Zion 8 (1943): 168 (Hebrew). About construction of aqueducts in Syria by contributions from priests and high Temple officials, see Robert J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, I (Leiden: Brill, 1955), 164. 28 Charles Wilson, Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem, 1865: Notes (London: Palestine Ex­plo­ ra­tion Fund, 1866), 80–83, pls. vii, xxviii; Conrad Schick, “Die Wasserversorgung der Stadt Jerusalem,” ZDPV I (1878): 132–76. With regard to the aqueducts, see ibid., 143–76. (The survey and the measurements upon which the attached map is based are from 1870). 29  Schick, “Wasserversorgung,” 168–69; George A. Smith, The Topographic, Economic, and Historical Geography of Jerusalem, I (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1907), 128–33; Michael Hekker, “The Water Supply of Jerusalem in Ancient Times,” in Sefer Yerushalayim,

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

282

Outside the Temple Precinct

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Pontius Pilate.30 There are those who even suggest a Solomonic date.31 Even a recent survey carried out in 1969 by Amiḥai Mazar failed to yield a definitive archaeological answer to the dating issue. Mazar tends to assume that the Lower Level Aqueduct was already in existence during the Herodian period, and may even have been built by the Hasmoneans.32 In other words, four different dates have been suggested for the aqueduct. Recently discovered archaeological evidence eliminates the possibility that this undertaking dates back to the days of Solomon. In the section of the aqueduct uncovered in 1975 on the western slope of Mt. Zion, i. e. the section mentioned above, as well as in the section discovered south of Abu Tor, the aqueduct cuts through several caves which were in use sometime during the Second Temple period. Thus, the aqueduct could not possibly have been built during the time of Solomon or of the First Temple. However, this find does not allow us to be more specific as to which part of the Second Temple period – Hasmonean, Herodian, or Roman – we must attribute the building of the aqueduct. The claim that Pilate was responsible for this aqueduct is based upon the description given by Josephus. However, there is no certainty that the aqueduct mentioned is indeed the Lower Level Aqueduct. Scholars who date its construction to the Herodian or Hasmonean periods rely primarily upon consideration of Jerusalem’s urban development, as well as upon factors in the development of the entire aqueduct system, to Solomon’s Pools and from there to Jerusalem. The supply of water to Jerusalem is mentioned in various sources, both Jewish and non-Jewish, but none makes explicit reference to the Lower Level Aqueduct and therefore is of no value in dating its construction. We can only learn from them that in the years 134–132 bce, during the siege of Jerusalem by Antiochus Sidetes, water did not as yet reached the city via an aqueduct.33 ed. M. Avi-Yonah (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik, 1956), 217 (Hebrew); Ruth Amiran, “The Water Supply of Jerusalem,” Qadmoniyot 1 (1968): 18 (Hebrew). 30  Preface to Wilson, Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem, 9–11; Charles R. Conder and Horatio H. Kitchner, The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs. Vol. 3 (London, 1883), 89–91; Germer Durand, as reported in “Dernieres Nouvelles de Jerusalem,” RB 10 (1901): 108; Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 14; Michael Avi-Yonah, “Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period,” Qadmoniyot 1 (1968): 25–26 (Hebrew). 31  Frederick J. Bliss and Archibald C. Dickie, Excavations at Jerusalem 1894–1897 (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1898), 332; Louis-Hugues Vincent and Ambroise M. Steve, Jerusalem de l’Ancien Testament, 1 (Paris: Gabalda, 1954), 307–12; John Wilkinson, “Ancient Jerusalem – Its Water Supply and Population,” PEQ 106 (1974): 36–37. 32 Amiḥai Mazar, “The Ancient Aqueducts of Jerusalem,” Qadmoniot 5 (1973): 120–25 (Hebrew). 33  From Josephus’s description of the siege of Antiochus Sidetes, ca. 134–132 bce, we learn that the latter’s army suffered during the siege from a shortage of water, a distress relieved by the advent of rain (Ant. 13.237). From this we may surmise that at the time of the siege there was as yet no aqueduct supplying the city; had there been one, the besiegers would certainly

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XV. A Sadducean Halakha and the Jerusalem Aqueduct

283

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Despite the reference in Josephus to the fact that Pontius Pilate installed a water supply system for Jerusalem, it is improbable that the task of erecting the Lower Level Aqueduct which supplied water to the Temple was undertaken by Pilate, who was known for his insensitivity – even animosity – regarding Jewish customs.34 The construction of an aqueduct leading to the Holy City had to be executed with utmost care in order to ensure the ‘purity’ of the water, and despite the considerable proficiency of the Romans in laying aqueducts, it is doubtful whether they would have been trusted with such an undertaking. In fact, a number of legal decisions has been preserved indicating that the Jews took great care to prevent water in such installations from becoming ‘contaminated’35 In light of the development of Jerusalem and the size of its population in the Second Temple period, it is difficult to imagine that the city, adorned by Herod with a magnificent Temple and other (monumental) undertakings, remained without a supply of aqueduct water until the time of Pontius Pilate. Other places, such as the Hasmonean and Herodian palaces at Jericho and the desert fortresses, had already been supplied with water carried by long aqueducts at an earlier period. Herod built an aqueduct to Herodium36 from Naḥal Artas, the very locale of the springs which fed the Lower Level Aqueduct. The aqueduct extending from there to the Temple may have been installed at about that time. The main difficulty in attributing the construction of the Lower Level Aqueduct to the time of Herod lies in the fact that, while Josephus describes the Herodian Temple and the aqueduct of Herodium at length, he did not mention the aqueduct to Jerusalem among Herod’s undertakings. However, an argument ex silencio is far from conclusive. Our current knowledge regarding the supply of water by aqueducts in the Hasmonean period has been especially enhanced by the discovery of the aqueduct at the Hasmonean palace at Jericho (noted above), which brings water from the Naʿaran Springs, 7.5 kilometers away. Consequently, there is some basis for the suggestion that the Lower Level Aqueduct from ʿEtam to Jerusalem may have been built as early as the Hasmonean period.

have made use of its water. Cf. Midrash Tanḥuma to Exodus (Bo, 4), ed. Buber, 40: “What does a king of flesh and blood do when a city [medina] rebels against him? He sends his legions to encircle it. First of all he breaks [alt. reading: blocks] its aqueduct …”. 34  War 2.169–174; Ant. 18.55–59; Philo, Legat 38 (302). Regarding the incident in which the Roman standards were brought into Jerusalem, see Carl H. Kraeling, “The Episode of the Roman Standards at Jerusalem,” HTR 35 (1942): 263–89. 35  See, for example, m. Parah 8:11; t. Miqw. 4:6, ed. Zuckermandel, 656; t. Yad. 1:9, ed, Zuckermandel, 681; as well as m. Yad. 4:7. 36  War 1.420; Ant. 15.325.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

284

Outside the Temple Precinct

4. The Sadducees and the Sanhedrin

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

As we have said, the law relating to an aqueduct supplying water for the Temple ritual was undoubtedly established by a Sanhedrin representing all the Jews. It appears that in all matters relating to the Temple ritual and the religious life of the nation, the Sanhedrin never ceased to be the supreme legal institution among Jews during the later Second Temple period. From time to time, and from one ruler to another, changes did occur in the political authority of the Sanhedrin as well as in its composition. However, in all religious matters, its authority endured, both under the Hasmoneans and, in all probability, under Herod as well.37 Laws of ritual purity were among the important issues discussed by the Sanhedrin, and its decisions in these matters were voted upon in plenum.38 The Sanhedrin in question had a considerable Sadducean representation. While we have no direct evidence regarding the Sanhedrin under Herod, the sources do reveal something about the king’s attitude towards the various sects. His removal of Sadducees identified with the supporters of the Hasmoneans and with the high priesthood is probably linked to his execution of forty-five leading citizens upon entering Jerusalem.39 Throughout his rule he persecuted the descendants of the Hasmoneans and their supporters, even handing over the high priesthood to his personal appointees, including families from Babylonia and Alexandria.40 On the other hand, he held two Pharisaic sages – Pollion and Samaias41 – in great esteem, and the Pharisees who refused to swear an oath of allegiance to him and to the Caesar were, in the first instance, not punished at all, while in the second they were only fined.42 Also in all matters pertaining to the building of the Temple, Herod apparently adhered to Pharisaic law.43 37  See Schürer, History of the Jewish People, 2, 210–23; Saul Baron, A Social and ReIigious History of the Jews, I (Philadelphia: Columbia University Press, 1952), 222–23; Avigdor Tcherikover, “Was Jerusalem a ‘Polis’?” IEJ 14 (1964):61–78; Gedalya Alon, The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age, I (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, the Hebrew University, 1980), 185–205; Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism, 17–27; Hugo Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, England, 1961), 96; Menaḥem Stern, “The Second Temple Period,” History of the Jewish People. Vol. l, ed. Ḥaim Hillel Ben Sasson (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1969), 221–22; Shmuel Safrai, The Jewish People in the First Century, I (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1973), pp. 379–400. 38 M Sanh. 4:2; t. Ḥag. 2:9 ed. Lieberman, 383; Gedalya Alon, “The Bounds of the Laws of Levitical Cleanness,” Jews, Judaism and the Classical World (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1977), 233, n. 112. 39 Ant. 15.5–7; cf. ibid. 14.175; War 1.358. 40  Regarding the high priests at the time of Herod, see Schürer, History of the Jewish People, 2, 229; Menaḥem Stern, “Social and Political Realignments in Herodian Jerusalem,” in Israel Lee Levine ed., The Jerusalem Cathedra, 2, Jerusalem and Detroit 1982, 40–62. 41  Ant. 15.3–4.; cf ibid. 16.172–176. 42  Ant. 15.368–372; ibid 17.42. 43  See Schürer, History of the Jewish People, l, 311–14; Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 232, 262–63.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XV. A Sadducean Halakha and the Jerusalem Aqueduct

285

Sadducean influence had returned together with the dynasties of the high priests which began serving in the Temple at the time of Herod, and increased with the growth of their power at the beginning of the period of direct Roman rule in Judaea.44 However, at the very time when important positions were handed over to the Sadducees, their influence over the people waned, and they were forced to accept the authority of the Pharisees.45 In contrast, we have considerable information regarding Sadducean influence under the Hasmoneans. Throughout the entire Second Temple period, starting with the Hasmonean revolt, there appears to have been only one period in which the Sanhedrin was Sadducean: from the time of John Hyrcanus and his abrogation of the Pharisaic laws,46 through the era of Jannaeus. Only under Salome Alexandra did Pharisaic laws regain their authority.47 In no other period, from the Hasmoneans to the destruction of the Temple, do we note the total absence of Pharisaic influence in the Sanhedrin.48 If the law under discussion was adopted by a Sadducean Sanhedrin, it is easier to understand why the Pharisees considered it a Sadducean law in the controversy about the nyzok – even if they did not actually oppose the law itself. It seems that the picture of an archaic legal reality reflected by this controversy – in which even that which was ‘attached’ (to the ground) could become ‘contaminated’ – suits this particular period better than later ones, when Pharisaic influence re-emerged and a different halakhic norm prevailed, one in which that which is ‘attached’ (to the ground) is never ‘contaminated’. The time of R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus has been claimed as the terminus ad quem for the establishment of the law that what is ‘attached’ cannot be contaminated.49 According to rabbinic law, stone vessels cannot be ‘contaminated’.50 The widespread presence of stone vessels among archaeological finds from the time of  See Ant. 20.251; Le Moyne, Les Sadducéens, 389–93. 18.17. 46  War 1.67; Ant. 13.288–296. Further on, Josephus relates that before Hyrcanus died he put an end to this conflict (ibid. 13.299). Cf. b. Qidd. 66a. For the various scholarly opinions regarding the beginning of the controversy between the Pharisees and the Hasmoneans according to these two sources, see Alon, “The Bounds”, 32–3, n. 22; Lee I. Levine, “Pharisees, Sadducees and Hasmonean Politics,” Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. Abraham Schalit memorial volume, eds. Aharon Oppenheimer, Uriel Rappaport and Menḥem Stern (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and Ministry of Defense, 1980), 61–83 (Hebrew). 47  Ant. 13.408–409; War 1.110–114. 48 A vague reference to the composition of the Sanhedrin in this period is preserved in the scholion to Megillat Ta’anit, ed. Lichtenstein, 342–343. Even if this description includes certain details of doubtful historicity, its content essentially agrees with Josephus regarding the status of the Pharisees and the Sadducees in this period. On the composition of the Sanhedrin in this period, see the sources quoted above, n. 37. For the various opinions regarding the authenticity of the scholion to Megillat Ta’anit, see Hampel, “Megillat Taʿanit,” 177–79; see also above, n. 16. 49  Ginzberg, An Unknown Jewish Sect, 353, based on m. Kelim, 15:2; see also m. Ḥag. 3:8. 50  M Kelim 10:1; m. ʾOhal. 5:5. 44

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

45 Ant.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

286

Outside the Temple Precinct

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Herod up to the destruction of the Second Temple51 certainly points to the time of Herod as the terminus ad quem of the legal reality that what is ‘attached’ can be ‘contaminated’. The writings of the Dead Sea Sect, however, reflect a legal reality according to which even what is ‘attached’ can be contaminated. In the Temple Scroll,52 which was apparently written at the time of John Hyrcanus or slightly before, we read that the house of the dead is ‘contaminated’ and the stone vessels in it are liable to ‘contamination’ – in contradiction to the firmly established rabbinic law.53 A similar legal reality emerges from the Damascus Document.54 Fragments of this document found in Qumran Caves 4, 5, 6 – the earliest of which are dated to between 75 and 50 bce – teach us about the period when this law still held sway among the Dead Sea Sect.55 As noted above, a similar legal reality also emerges from m. Yad. 4:7. The Hasmonean kingdom reached its peak in the days of John Hyrcanus and his son Alexander Jannaeus. If, indeed, the aqueduct was constructed under the Hasmoneans, this would have been an appropriate time for such an undertaking. The construction of the aqueduct leading to the Hasmonean palace at Jericho in this period shows that the technical skills involved in the measurement and construction of an aqueduct were available. And it is reasonable to assume that these technical skills were exploited in order to solve the problem of providing water for Jerusalem with its expanding population, and for the Temple, the focal point of national life. During this period, Jerusalem was the capital of a geographically expanding kingdom. The growth of the population in the city and the extension of the built-up area required the erection of an additional wall – i. e., the First Wall, which is attributed to this period.56 Building an aqueduct 21 kilometers in length was undoubtedly expensive,57 but the economic situation of Judaea during this period, in which large sums of money reached Hasmonean coffers, made this construction as well as other building projects possible.58 51 I am obliged to Mr. Y. Magen for a great deal of information on the subject of stone vessels in the Second Temple period, their distribution and their legal significance. 52 Fol. 49, lines 5, 11–15. 53 Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll, I (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977), 252–55, 298 (Hebrew). 54 Xll, 15–17 (ed. Rabin). 55  Josef Tadeusz Milik, Ten Years of Discoveries in the Wilderness of Judaea (London: SCM Press, 1959), 38–39. For a correct version of the law in the Damascus Document, see Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Essene Avoidance of Oil and the Laws of Purity,” RQ 6 (1967): 183–92 = idem, Studies in Qumran Law, 88–97. See also Yadin’s reservations, The Temple Scroll, 254. Cf. also Targum Yerushalmi on Numbers 19:14; Sifrei on Numbers 12:6 (ed. Horowitz, 162, line 16). 56  Avi-Yonah, “Archaeology and Topography,” Sefer Yerushalayim, 309–11. 57  In the middle of the second century bce the Aqua Marcia (aqueduct) was erected in Rome, extending 61.7 Roman miles in length, and costing 180 million sesterces. See Frontinus, De Aquis, 1.7–8. 58  On the period of Hyrcanus – Ant. 13.273, 284. The description of Judaea in the Letter of

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XV. A Sadducean Halakha and the Jerusalem Aqueduct

287

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Thus it appears that the legal reality reflected in the controversy under discussion, together with the archaeological and historical information available, lead us to the conclusion that both the controversy and its setting – i. e. the construction of the Lower Level Aqueduct from ʿEtam to the Temple – date from the latter part of the Hasmonean kingdom.

Aristeas (112–115) may relate to this period. See Stern, “The Second Temple Period,” 237–39. Josephus relates that Hyrcanus looted David’s tomb (Ant. 13.249) and removed 3000 silver talents for his own use. See also Klausner, The World History of the Jewish People, 224. Despite the frequent external and civil wars, Alexander Jannaeus had enough money – the fruit of conquest and booty (Ant. 13.358, 374) – to build desert fortresses at Machaerus (War 7.163– 177), Alexandrium, Hyrcania, and perhaps even Masada (War 5.280–319); See Yoram Tsafrir, “The Desert Fortresses of Judaea in the Second Temple Period,” in The Jerusalem Cathedra 2 (1982): 120–145. At these fortresses, aqueducts were installed for the collection of run-off water. See Zeev Meshel and David Amit, “The Water Supply of the Cypros Fortress,” Qadmoniyot 12 (1979): 67–77 (Hebrew); David Amit, “The Water Works at the Doq (Dagon) Fortress,” in Judaea and the Dead Sea, ed. Zvi Ilan (Tel Aviv, 1974), 359–62 (Hebrew); Yosef Feldman, “Water System at Hyrcania,” ibid., 326–35; David Amit, “A New Survey of the Water Works at Alexandrium (Sartaba),” Ancient Aqueducts in Israel (Jerusalem, Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 1979), 24–26 (Hebrew). It was apparently during this period that the palace and aqueduct at Jericho were built (see above, n. 19).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved. Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

XVI. Conclusions The restored Temple was much humbler relative to the First Temple, destroyed in 586 bce, rebuilt in a small city. In later years the Temple underwent several stages of restoration and elaboration and the city was much expanded. According to the Roman author Pliny (Natural History 5.70), at the time of its destruction in 70 ce, Jerusalem was “by far the most famous city of the East and not of Judaea only.” The Temple was the largest and most impressive structure therein, the center of religious and national life and a goal of pilgrimage. In its splendor and importance, it eclipsed all other institutions of the Jews, both in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora. It was the one and only Temple of the entire nation. The Greek historian Polybius, writing in the second century bce and quoted by Flavius Josephus (Ant. 12.136), noted that the Jews were a nation residing around a Temple called Jerusalem. The Roman historian Tacitus wrote: “Jerusalem is the capital of the Jews. In it was a temple possessing enormous riches” (The Histories 5.8.1). According to the Rabbinic sources, “Whosoever has not seen Jerusalem in its splendor has never seen a beautiful city; and whosoever has not seen the Temple standing has never seen a magnificent building” (Baraita, b. Sukkah 51b); “Whosoever has not seen Herod’s Temple has never seen a beautiful building” (b. Baba Batra 4a). What was the essence of the Temple’s splendor? The Talmud states that it was built of “stones of yellow and white marble” or “stones of yellow, black and white marble” (b. Baba Batra 4a). This seems to be false, but we are told by Josephus that Herod intended to plate the Temple with gold, and that its entire façade, which faced east, was covered with heavy gold plates. At sunrise, the reflection of the sunlight was so brilliant that it could blind unwary onlookers. The other walls were also plated with gold, though only in their lower parts; their upper parts were the pure white color of the stone of which they were built, causing the Temple to resemble a snow-clad mountain from afar. The parapets around the edges of the roofs were fitted with golden spikes. My share is with those scholars who maintain that in spite of the fact that the Mishnah was redacted many years after the destruction of the Second Temple, and that its evidence should be cautiously examined, the information preserved therein, especially in tractates Tamid and Middot, is authentic, presenting a Temple and rites that did exist; that they were recorded in a hope that the Temple will soon be rebuilt.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

290

Outside the Temple Precinct

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Many other literary sources pertaining to the period at our concern – from the time of its restoration in year 538 bce, to its destruction in year 70 ce were consulted. Not only Jewish, but also Pagan and Christian, written in a variety of languages: Greek, Latin, Aramaic and Hebrew. Most were available to the scholarly world already in the 19th c, when “The Quest for the Temple” spread beyond the limited circles of Jewish commentators, becoming an interest also of Christian scholars. The Dead Sea Scrolls, especially the Temple Scroll, published by Yigael Yadin in 1977 (the Hebrew edition) and 1983 (the English edition), brought new source materials to the fore, providing important information about the pre-Herodian Temple that was not available before; not all of it utopic or idealistic. As for the archaeological remains, these are quite few, since the Temple itself was long destroyed; only the impressive remains of the walls of the Herodian precinct survive. But, surprisingly, also many underground water cisterns. In spite of the fact that their existence, location and layout were known to the scholarly world since the second half of the 19th c., nobody before had paid attention to their story pertaining to the Temple, as was detailed here. An exhaustive examination of all available literary sources and of the said (and other) archaeological remains, lay behind the studies presented in this book, and the renovations are numerous. They result from an interdisciplinary approach: – An attentive reading of the literary sources, being aware to variances occurring in MSS. – Comparisons with other ancient temples and depictions on coins. – Unravelling the “hidden story” underlying some of the extant water cisterns which turned out to be very telling archaeological residues. These renovations are listed below according to the progress in my research over a period of more than 40 years. 1. The construction of the Lower Level aqueduct from Hebron Hills on the south, to the Temple Mount across a cemetery that extended on the western slope of present Mount Zion, is reflected in the legal controversy between the Sadducees and the Pharisees recorded in m. Yad. 4:7. Moreover, it seems that this historical event was the cause of this controversy. Discoveries which directly shed light on the religious and halakhic concerns of Second Temple Jewish society, while not totally absent are quite rare. Thus, a discovery that can illuminate the historical context of a halakhic discussion – particularly with reference to Sadducean law about which we know so little – is to be regarded as of utmost significance (Chapter XV). 2. The messibah mentioned in m. Mid. 4:5, a component of the Herodian Temple, was a graded passage in the thickness of the northern wall of the Temple, leading to its roof. Similar passages are known in other Hellenistic and Roman temples of the ancient east (Chapter XIII).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

XVI. Conclusions

291

3. The detailed description of the Temple given in m. Mid., compiled immediately after the destruction of the Temple, can serve as a blue-print for a detailed 3-D reconstruction of the Temple. This reconstruction was reproduced in Steinsaltz’s edition of tractate Middot, being thus spread beyond solely academic circles (Chapter XI). 4. The golden vine as described in the Latin version of Josephus, Jewish Antiquities XV: 394–395 (the Greek version being corrupted), decorating the Sanctuary portal, was supported by columns surrounded by trellis of golden flowers. This portal is depicted on a tetra-drachm of Bar-Kokhba; the Porch portal being depicted on a di-drachm of Bar-Kokhba. Many scholars had claimed that the tetra-drachms of Bar-Kokhba depict the Temple’s façade, but this façade was plain, with no attached columns or pilasters (Chapter XII). 5. Water Cistern no. 5 underneath the upper platform of the Herodian precinct (Ḥaram al-Sharif) is a most important relic of the Second Temple. It points upon the exact location and orientation of the Altar, Temple and of the Gates and Chambers of the Inner Court (ʿAzarah). The common orientation and axis of symmetry of all these components was 9.7° south of due east. The present Muslim rock is irrelevant for locating any component of the Jewish Temple (Chapter VI). The validity of these conclusions was confirmed from two other, independent directions (infra nos. 6 and 7). 6. A new reading and interpretation of Cols. 31:10–33:13 of the Temple Scroll, describing the pre-Herodian House of the Laver and House of the Utensils provides a literary evidence for the said orientation of the Temple. The western end of Cistern no. 5 – a geological fissure – is to be identified with the “pit (‫)מחילה‬ which extended downward into the land” into which the water of the Laver were drained, mentioned in the Temple Scroll, Col. 32:12–14. This is an independent literary evidence indicating the validity of conclusion no. 5 (Chapter IX). 7. An astronomical evidence that corroborates the same conclusion  – the Temple’s orientation being 9.7° south of due east – is indicated by the fact that the sunrise azimuth on the date the Second Temple was consecrated (Adar 3rd, 6th year of King Darius I = March 12, 515 bce), was 99.7°. An astonishing, unexpected evidence, derived from an entirely different discipline than the archaeological and literary evidences (Chapter VII). 8. The morning Tamid ritual was associated with a punctual scrutiny over the course of the sun. This started near cockcrow when it was still dark outside. The slaughtering priest did not begin the slaughter before dawn was announced; Shema and other prayers were recited towards sunrise. Hence, watching after the exact hour of sunrise was crucial for the daily, morning Tamid sacrifice in the Temple. Thus the sunrise azimuth could be predicted with certainty. Also, in early times it was practiced by Temple priests to face the rising sun saying: ‘Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever’ (Ps 44:24).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

292

Outside the Temple Precinct

This practice was abrogated by Joḥanan the high priest (the Hasmonean John Hyrcanus) (Chapter VII). 9. Water Cistern no. 5 was the Gullah cistern of the Mishnah that provided for the entire needs of the ʿAzarah. It was feeding the Laver of the Herodian Temple by means of a water wheel (Chapter X). 10. Water Cistern no. 5 also indicates that the Gullah Chamber was among the chambers located at the south of the ʿAzarah. Hence, unlike Maimonides and many other rabbinic commentators that followed him, the correct version pertaining to the respective location of the Chambers of the north and south is that given in m. Mid. 5:3–4, not that given in BT Yoma 19a. Namely, the Wood, Gullah and Hewn Stone Chambers were on the south, and those of the north were Rinsing, Parwah and Salt. An archaeological relic of the Temple is thus solving a contradiction between two rabbinic clauses (Chapter VIII). 11. Three other water cistern located below the north-east corner of the upper platform of the Temple Mount (Cisterns nos. 2, 34, 37), point upon the location of the Chamber called House of Stone (beth even), mentioned in m. Parah 3:1. This Chamber, located at the north-east and outside of the walled Temple, served as the dwelling of the High Priest in the week before the Day of Atonement (Chapter V). 12. The Firstlings Gate was a gate in the southern side of the Latticed Railing / Grille that surrounded the Outer, Second Court of the Temple, 1 × ​1 stadia in dimensions; it was not a gate of the Inner Court (ʿAzarah), as is given erroneously, in most prints. The thirteen gates breached by the Greek kings mentioned in the opening clause of m. Mid. 2:3, were those of the Railing – a component of the pre-Herodian Temple. A detailed graphical reconstruction of the Latticed Railing is presented as well (Chapter IV). 13. The writ of rights given by the Seleucid king Antiochus III concerning the sacredness of the Temple of Jerusalem (Ant. 12, 145–146), pertains to the building project of the high priest Simeon the Just. This building project, under-evaluated so far, is examined in detail. It included the elevation and leveling of the Outer Court, surrounding it by porticos and by the Latticed Railing (Chapter III). His building project determined the area and level of “The Second Sacred Precinct” of the later Herodian Temple. 14. It is quite possible that the Temple Source of the Temple Scroll was composed in reaction to, and even in protest against the building project of Simeon the Just. The Temple Scroll was edited ca. 50 years later, as a reaction and protest against the reforms of the Hasmoneans in the Temple. 15. Four stages are to be differentiated in the evolution of the Temple Mount: The Restoration period; the project of Simeon the Just, who extended the Temple Mount to be 1 × ​1 stadia; the time of the Hasmonean John Hyrcanus, who extended the Temple Mount to be 500 × ​500 cubits, to meet prophet Ezekiel’s

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

XVI. Conclusions

293

vision; and the time of Herod the Great, who farther extended the Temple Mount to the south, west and north (Chapter II). 16. The floors of the gate houses of the ʿAzara were not level to their entire length; eleven stairs led up from their outer entrances to the level of the Inner Court. 17. A composite double triclinium with a decorative fountain uncovered to the west of Wilson’s Arch, next to the road leading up to the Temple Mount, served as the official dinning-hall for the presidents (prytaneis) of the Council (prytaneion) of Jerusalem. In its state of preservation, it seems that this unique triclinium is the most impressive Herodian building uncovered so far in Jerusalem (Chapter XIV). The interdisciplinary approach turned out to be very rewarding.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

And let me end by the statement with which I had started: My motivation to delve into these issues was never a messianic aspiration to rebuild a new Temple. My interest was purely academic.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved. Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-09 13:26:33.

List of Original Publications I.1 “538 bce–70 ce: The Temple (Beyt Ha-Miqdash) and its Mount.” Pages 37–71 in Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade. Edited by O. Grabar and B. Z. Kedar. Jerusalem and Austin, TX: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi and University of Texas Press, 2009 (selected passages). I.2 “Jerusalem, Archaeology of”. Pages 777–81 in vol. II of T&T Clark Encyclopedia of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Daniel M. Gurtner and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. London – New York – Oxford – New Delhi – Sydney: T&T Clark, 2020. II. “Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount.” Révue Biblique 120/3 (2013): 321–61 (co-authored with M. Edelcopp). III. “The Pre-Herodian Temple: The Building Project of Simeon the Just on the Temple Mount.” Révue Biblique 114/4 (2011): 558–74. IV. “Segregating the Sacred: The Inner Court (ʿAzara) and the Grill (Soreg) of the Second Temple and their Gates.” Acts of Conference, Providence (forthcoming). V. “On the Chamber called House of Stone (beth even), which was facing the north– east corner of the Temple building (birah) (Mishnah, Parah 3:1).” New Studies on Jerusalem 14 (2008): 121–32 (Hebrew). VI. “The Location of the Second Temple and the Layout of its Court’s Gates and Chambers: A New Proposal.” Pages 209–33 in The Jerusalem Perspective: 150 Years of archaeological Research. Edited by K. Galor and G. Avni. New York, Eisenbrowns, 2011. VII. “Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever” (Ps 44:24). On Jerusalem Temple Orientation, Dedication and the Sun Rise.” Judaïsm Ancien  / Ancient Judaism 10 (2022): 253–95 (co-authored with Jonathan Devor and Roy Albag).

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

VIII. Published here for the first time. IX. “The Pre-Herodian Temple: Reassessing the House of the Laver and the House of Utensils of the Temple Scroll.” Révue Biblique 116/4 (2009): 505–526. X. “Water-Wheels at Service in the Second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.” Pages 239– 46 in Cura Aquarum in Jordan. Edited by Christoph Ohlig. Siegburg: DWhG, 2008. XI. “The Structure of the Second Temple – A New Reconstruction.” Pages 260–71 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Edited by Hillel Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994. XII. “The Golden Vine, the Sanctuary Portal and its Depiction on the Bar-Kokhba Coins.” JJA 19/20 (1993–94): 56–61.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:19:57.

296

List of Original Publications

XIII. “The Mesibbah of the Second Temple in Jerusalem According to the Tractate Middot.” IEJ 36 (1986): 215–33. XIV. “The ‘Free Masons Hall’ – A Composite Herodian Triclinium and Fountain to the West of the Temple Mount.” NSAJR 10 (2016): 15*-38* (co-authored with Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah).

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

XV. “A Sadducean Halakha and the Jerusalem Aqueduct.” The Jerusalem Cathedra 2 (1982): 25–39.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:19:57.

Bibliography

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Literary Sources Apocalypse of Baruch (Syriac), A New Translation and Introduction by A. F. J.  Klijn. Pages 615–52 in vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 Vols. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985. Athenaeus of Naucratis, The Deipnosophists or Banquet of the Learned of Athenæus. Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36921). Babylonian Talmud, ed. Soncino, early 16th c.; Vilna edition: Romm brothers Press, 1854; Modern Hebrew edition by A. Steinsaltz. Jerusalem: The Israeli Institute for Talmudic Publications, 1967–2010. English tr. with notes, glossary and indices under the editorship of I. Epstein, The Talmud. 35 Vols. London: Soncino Press, 1935–52. Ben Sira. A. Kahana, “The Words of Simeon Ben Sira”. Pages 435–530 in vol. II of The Apocrypha. Edited by A. Kahana. Tel Aviv: Masada, 1956 (Hebrew); M. Z. Segal, Sefer Ben Sira ha-Shalem, 2nd rev. and expanded edition. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1959 (Hebrew); The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance, and an Analysis of the Vocabulary. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1973 (Hebrew); P. C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. Leiden – New York: Brill, 1997. Greek text: Ziegler J. ed., Sapientia Iesu filii Sirach. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1980. English translation: The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes, P. W. Skehan; Introduction and Commentary by A. A. Di Lella. The Anchor Bible, 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Dio Cassius, Historia Romana: Dio’s Roman History (with English transl. by E. Cary). IX Vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA–London, 1914–1927 (reprinted 1968–1970). Diodore of Sicily, Bibliotheca. LCL. London: Heinemann; 1933–1954, 1960–1963. Florus, Epitome. Epitome of Roman history. LCL. London: Heinemann, 1966. Frontinus, De Aquis. Frontinus, Sextus Julius, Stratagems Aqueducts of Rome. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014. Josephus. Translated by Henry St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965. (https://www.loebclassics.com/view/josephus-jewish_ antiquities/1930/pb_LCL489.447.xml?result=1&rskey=xvxX0C Josephus, Opera. B. Niese (ed.), FIavi Josephi Opera. IV Vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1885– 1890 (reprinted 1955). Jerusalem Talmud. ed. Venice, 1523/4; Talmud Yerushalmi according to Ms. Or. 4720 (Scal. 3) of the Leiden University Library with Reconstructions and Corrections. Jerusalem: The Academy of Hebrew Language, 2005; Eng. trans. H. W. Guggenheimer, The Jerusalem Talmud. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000–8. Letter of Aristeas. Moses Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates: Letter of Aristeas. New York: Ktav, 1951; Shutt, R. J. H. “Letter of Aristeas.” Pages 7–34 in vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

298

Bibliography

Leviticus Rabbah. M. Margaliot, Midrash Va-Yikra Rabbah: A Critical Edition Based on Manuscripts and Geniza Fragments with Variants and Notes. 5 Vols. Jerusalem and New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1954 (Hebrew). I Maccabees, ed. U. Rappaport, The First Book of Maccabees: Introduction, Hebrew translation, and commentary. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2004 (Hebrew). Eng. trans. J. A. Goldstein, I Maccabees. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. II Maccabees, ed. Daniel Schwartz. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2005 (Hebrew); Eng. trans. J. A. Goldstein, II Maccabees. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. Maimonidis Commentarius in Mischnam. Ed. Solomon D. Sassoon (Corpus Codicum Hebraicorum Mediiaevi Pars 1. v. 3 [the Rambam’s autograph]). Vol. 1: Introductio. Zeraim et Moed. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard 1956; Vol. 3. Neziqim, pars II, et Qodaschim. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1966. Massekhet Semaḥot, ed. Michael Higger. New York: Bloch, 1931. Megillat Taʻanit, ed. Vered Noʻam. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2003. Includes the Scholion; ed. Lichtenstein, HUCA 8–9 (1931–1932). Mishnah Middot. Albeck, Ḥ. The Six Orders of the Mishnah: The Order of Holy Things. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1957; A. Z. Kaufman, The Temple of Jerusalem: Tractate Middot. Jerusalem: Har-Yeraeh, 1991 (Hebrew). German tr. O. Holtzmann, Mischna Middot (Von den Massen des Tempels): Text, Übersetzung und Erklärung. Giessen: Topelmann, 1913. Midrash Tanḥuma to Exodus, ed. Buber. Jerusalem: Eshkol, 1972. Mishnah. Ḥ. Albeck, Shishah Sidre Mishnah. Tel Aviv and Jerusalem: Dvir, 1954–1958 ( Hebrew:); Mishnah ed. Pinchas Kehati. Jerusalem: Heikhal Shlomo,4 1973 (Hebrew); English tr. H. Danby, The Mishnah. Oxford: Clarendon Pres, 1933; J. Neusner, The Mishnah. A New Translation. Rensselaer, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1988. Mishnah MSS (All were accessed on Feb. 22–23, 2023). – Budapest, Akademia, Kaufmann A 50, folio 70v https://www.nli.org.il/he/discover/ manuscripts/hebrew-manuscripts/viewerpage?vid=MANUSCRIPTS&docid=P​N​X​_​M​ A​N​U​SC ​ ​R​IP ​T ​S ​ 9​ ​9​0​0​0​1​9​1​0​4​7​0​2​0​5​1​7​1​-1#$FL16074006. – Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, T-S E 1.118, frag. 001r https://www.nli.org. i​l​/​h​e​/​d​i​s​c​o​v​e​r​/​m​a​n​u​s​c​r​i​p​t​s​/​h​e​b​r​e​w​-​m​a​n​u​s​c​r​i​p​t​s​/​v​i​e​w​e​r​p​a​g​e​?​v​i​d​= ​M​A​N​U​S​C​R​I​P​T​S​&​d​ o​c​id​ ​=P ​N ​ X_MANUSCRIPTS990051159470205171-1#$FL169679838. – Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek 95, folios 500v and 500r https://www.nli.org.il/h​ e​/​d​i​s​c​o​v​e​r​/​m​a​n​u​s​c​r​i​p​t​s​/​h​e​b​r​e​w​-​m​a​n​u​s​c​r​i​p​t​s​/​v​i​e​w​e​r​p​a​g​e​?​v​i​d​= ​M​A​N​U​S​C​R​I​P​T​S​&​d​o​c​i​ d​=P ​N ​ ​X_MANUSCRIPTS990001265430205171-1#$FL50151167. – Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod.hebr. 6 (https://www.nli.org.il/he/discover/ manuscripts/hebrew-manuscripts/viewerpage?vid=MANUSCRIPTS&docid=PNX_M​ A​N​U​SC ​ ​R​IP ​ TS990001264640205171-1#$FL16666975. – New York, Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS) MS Rab. 1623, top of folio 139r (https:// w​w​w​.​n​l​i​.​o​r​g​.​i​l​/​h​e​/​d​i​s​c​o​v​e​r​/​m​a​n​u​s​c​r​i​p​t​s​/​h​e​b​r​e​w​-​m​a​n​u​s​c​r​i​p​t​s​/​v​i​e​w​e​r​p​a​g​e​?​v​i​d​= ​M​A​N​U​S​ C​R​IP ​T ​S ​& ​ d​ ocid=PNX_MANUSCRIPTS990000545830205171-1#$FL29548836. – Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, 3173  – de Rossi 138 https://www.nli.org.il/he/discover/ manuscripts/hebrew-manuscripts/viewerpage?vid=MANUSCRIPTS&docid=PNX_M​ A​N​U​SC ​ ​RIPTS990000706800205171-1#$FL32362190.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Bibliography

299

– Vatican, Bibliotheca Apostolica, Ebr. 134, folio 79v (https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_ Vat.ebr.134). (The) Mishnah on which the Palestinian Talmud rests (‫)מתניתא דתלמודא דבני מערבא‬, edited for the syndics of the University Press from the unique manuscript preserved in the University Library of Cambridge Add. 470.1 by W. H. Lowe. Cambridge: University Press, 1883. Mishnaiyot with 71 commentaries, Vilna, 1909 (Hebrew). Nachmanides, Torat Ha-Adam. Venice: Publisher unknown, 1595. Pausanias, Guide to ancient Greece, ed. Ch. Habicht. LCL. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana, ed. S. Buber. Lyck: Meqitzei Nirdamim, 1868 (Hebrew); B. Mandel­baum, Pesikta de-Rav Kahana According to an Oxford Manuscript, With Variants from all Known Manuscripts and Geniza Fragments and Parallel Passages with Commentary and Introduction. 2 Vols. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962 (Hebrew with English Introduction); W. G. Braude and I. J. Kapstein, Pesikta deRav Kahana: R. Kahana’s Compilation of Discourses for Sabbath and Festal Days, translated from Hebrew and Aramaic. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1975; J. Neusner, Pesiqta de Rab Kahana: An Analytical Translation, 2 vols. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987. Pesiqta Rabbati, ed. Ish-Shalom. Vienna: Y. Kaizer, 1880. Philo, De Vita Contemplativa. Philo of Alexandria: On the Contemplative Life. Introduction, Translation and Commentary by J. E. Taylor. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Philo, Spec. Leges = On the Special Laws; Virtues = On the Virtues; Legat = The Embassy to Gaius. English translation by Francis H. Colson, vol. 10. LCL. Cambridge, MA and London: Heinemann, 1962. Pliny, Natural History. English translation by Harris Rackham. LCL. 10 Vols. London and Cambridge, MA: Heinemann, 1938–63. Polybius, Histories. Edited by B. C. McGing. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Protevangelium Iacobi. The Protevangelium of James. Pages 421–438 in vol. 1 of New Testament Apocrypha: Revised edition. Edited by W. Schneemelcher, Eng. tr. edited by R. McLachlan Wilson. Cambridge: J. Clarke, 1991. Rambam (Maimonides), “Regulations for reciting Shema (The Laws of Kri’at Shema)” (https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912952/jewish/Kriat-Shema-ChapterOne.htm [accessed on Jan. 1, 2022]). Rambam, Mishneh Torah. Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Cook, 1963. Rambam, Mishneh Torah. The Book of Service, Beit Habechirah (translated by Eliyahu Touger) https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1007198/jewish/Beit-H​a​b​e​c​h​i​ r​a​h​-C ​ ​ha​ ​p​te​ ​r​-5​ .htm (accessed on Feb. 22, 2023). Seder Olam Rabbah. Complete. Edited by M. Y. Weinstock. Jerusalem: Maʿayan HaCho­ ch­ma, 1956. Seder Olam. Critical Edition, Commentary and Introduction. Edited by C. Milikowsky. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2013. Septuagint. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007 Sifrei Bamidbar. Edited by H. S. Horovitz. Leipzig: G. Fock, 1917. Critical edition with a commentary by M. Kahana. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, the Hebrew University, 2011; Eng. tr. J. Neusner, Sifre to Numbers. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

300

Bibliography

Suetonius, Lives of Roman Emperors. Augustus. LCL. Translated by J. C. Rolfe. London: Heinemann, 1950–1951. Tacitus, The Histories. 4 Vols. Translated by Clifford H. Moore. LCL. London: Heinemann, 1925–37. Tosefta. Tosephta based on the Erfurt and Vienna codices with parallels and variants. Edited by M. S. Zuckermandel. Pasewalk: Published by the author, 1881; New edition with Supplement to the Tosephta by S. Liebermann. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1970. Temple Scroll. Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll. 3 Vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977 (Hebrew); J. Maier and R. T. White, The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation and Commentary. JSOTSup 34. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1985. Tosefta Ki-Fshuṭa, Part IV, Seder Moʿed. Edited by S. Lieberman. Newark: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962. Tosefta. Critical edition by S. Lieberman. Jerusalem and New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1955–88 (Hebrew); J. Neusner and R. S. Sarason, The Tosefta translated from the Hebrew, Second Division: Moʿed (The Order of Appointed Times). Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1981. Tractate “Mourning” (Semaḥot): Regulations relating to Death, Burial, and Mourning. Edited by D. Zlotnick. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966. Vegetius, Epitome of military science. Translated with notes and introduction by N. P. Milner. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1996. Vitruvius, De Architectura. Translated by F. Granger, On Architecture. Vol. I. LCL. London: Heinemann, 1970. Xenophon, Cyropaedia. Project Gutenberg, 2009 (https://www.gutenberg.org/f​il​e​ ​s​/2​ 0​ ​8​5​ /​2​0​8​5​-h​ ​/2​ ​0​8​5​-h​ .htm).

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Scholarly Literature Adkins, L. and Adkins, R. A. Dictionary of Roman Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Ådna, J. Jerusalemer Tempel und Tempelmarkt im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999. Aḥituv, Sh. and Mazar, A. (eds.). The History of Jerusalem (Sefer Yerushalaim): The Biblical Period. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2000 (Hebrew). Aibeschuetz, E. Ha Bait Ha Sheni Be Tifarto: Binyan Hordus. Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Cook, 1996 (Hebrew). Albeck, Ḥ. “The Sanhedrin and Its President.” Zion 8 (1943): 165–78 (Hebrew). –. Introduction to the Mishnah. Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik and Dvir, 1959 (Hebrew). Alon, G. “Prairetin [‫]פראירתין‬. On the history of the Priesthood at the Close of the Second Temple.” Pages 48–76 in vol. I of Studies in Jewish History in the times of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud. Tel- Aviv: HaKibbutz HaMeuḥad, 1967 (Hebrew) (published also earlier in Tarbiz 13 [1941]: 1–24). –. “The Bounds of the Laws of Levitical Cleanness.” Pages 190–234 in Jews, Judaism and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish history in the times of the Second Temple and Talmud. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, the Hebrew University, 1977 (translated from the Hebrew by Israel Abrahams).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Bibliography

301

–. The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age, I. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, the Hebrew University, 1980. Alpert Nakhai, B. “Syro-Palestinian Temples.” Pages 169–74 in vol. 5 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Edited by Eric M. Meyers. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Ambraseys, N. N. Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: A Multidisciplinary Study of Seismicity Up To 1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Amiran, D. H. K. Arieh E. and Turcotte, T. ”Earthquakes in Israel and Adjacent Areas: Macroseismic Observations since 100 b.c.e.” IEJ 44 (1994): 261–305. Amiran, R. “The Water Supply of Jerusalem.” Qadmoniot 1 (1968): 13–18 (Hebrew). Amit, D. “The Water Works at the Doq (Dagon) Fortress.” Pages 359–62 in The Judaean Desert and the Dead Sea. Edited by Zvi Ilan. Tel Aviv: Nature Reserve Society, 1974 (Hebrew). –. “A New Survey of the Water Works at Alexandrium (Sartaba).” Pages 24–26 in Ancient Aqueducts in Israel. Edited By David Amit, Yizhar Hirschfeld and Joseph Patrich. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 1979 (Hebrew). Amy, R. “Temples à éscaliers.” Syria 27 (1950): 82–136. Anderson, Hugh. “3 Maccabees: A New Translation and Introduction.” Pages 510–12 in vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Andrae, W. Hatra. 2 Vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1908, 1912. Ariel, I. The Holy Temple of Jerusalem: Carta Encyclopedia. Jerusalem: Carta and The Temple Institute, 2005 (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah, M. (ed.). Sefer Yerushalaim: The Nature, History and Development of Jerusalem from Its Beginning to the Present. Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik, 1956 (Hebrew). –. “The Second Temple.” Pages 392–418 in Sefer Yerushalayim: The Nature, History and Development of Jerusalem from its Beginning to the Present. Edited by M. Avi-Yonah. Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik and Dvir, 1956 (Hebrew). –. “Archaeology and Topography.” Pages 305–19 in Sefer Yerushalayim: The Nature, History and Development of Jerusalem from its Beginning to the Present. Edited by M. AviYonah. Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik and Dvir, 1956 (Hebrew). –. “The Façade of Herod’s Temple  – An Attempted Reconstruction.” Pages 327–35 in Religions in Antiquity  – Essays in Memory of E. R. Goodenough. Edited by Jacob Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 1968. –. “Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period.” Qadmoniot 1 (1968): 19–27 (Hebrew). Avraham, A. “Addressing the Issue of the Temple Mount Pavement During the Herodian Period.” New Studies on Jerusalem 13 (2007): 87–96. Badawy, A. “Au grand temple d’Hermoupolis-ouest: l’installation hydraulique.” RA 48 (1956): 140–54. Bagatti, B. “La posizione del tempio erodiano di Gerusalemme.” Biblica 46 (1965): 428– 44. –. Recherches sur la site du Temple de Jérusalem (I–VII siecle). Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1979. Bahat, D. Carta’s Great Historical Atlas on the of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Carta, 1989 (Hebrew).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

302

Bibliography

–. “The Herodian Temple.” Pages 38–58 in vol 3 of The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period. Edited by William Horbury, W. D. Davies and John Sturdy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. –. The Western Wall Tunnels: Touching the Stones of Our Heritage. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2002. –. “Jesus and the Herodian Temple Mount.” Pages 300–8 in Jesus and Archaeology. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2006. –. “The Architectural Origins of Herod’s Temple Mount.” Pages 235–45 in Herod and Augustus. Papers Presented at the IJS Conference, 21st–23rd June 2005. Edited by David M. Jacobson and Nikos Kokkinos. Leiden – Boston: Brill 2009. –. The Jerusalem Western Wall Tunnel. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2013. – and Maeir, A. “New Finds in the Study of the Western Wall Tunnels.” New Studies on Jerusalem 3 (1997): 25–28 (Hebrew). Baillet, M. Milik J. T. and de Vaux, R. (eds.). Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumran. DJD 3. 2 Vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Bar-Kochva, B. Pseudo-Hecataeus, On the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora. Hellenistic Culture and Society 21. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1996. Barag, D. “The Shewbread Table and the Façade of the Temple on the Bar Kokhba Coins.” Qadmoniot 20. 77–78 (1987): 22–25 (Hebrew). –. “The Table of the Shewbread and the Façade of the Temple on Coins of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” Pages 272–76 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, expanded edition. Edited by Hillel Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Barclay, J. T. The City of the Great King: or, Jerusalem as It Was, as It Is, and as It Is to Be. Philadelphia: J. Challen, 1858. Baron, S. A Social and ReIigious History of the Jews, I. Philadelphia: Columbia University Press, 1952. Baumgarten, J. M. “The Essene Avoidance of Oil and the Laws of Purity.” RQ 6.2 (1967): 183–92. –. Studies in Qumran Law. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Bedford, Peter R. Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Belmonte, M. Shaltout, J. A. and Fekri, M. “Astronomy, Landscape and Symbolism: A Study on the Orientations of Ancient Egyptian Temples.” Pages 213–84 in In Search of Cosmic Order: Selected Essays on Egyptian Archaeoastronomy. Edited by Martin Belmonte, Juan Antonio and Shaltout M. A. Mosalam. Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities Press, 2009. Ben-Ari, M. “The Ḥel  – The Temple’s Security Zone.” New Studies on Jerusalem 9 (2004): 61–82 (Hebrew). –. “Zones of Sanctity in the Temple Mount”. PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan 2007 (Hebrew). Ben-David, A. “Ha-Middah ha-Yerushalmit: An Archaeological Solution of a TalmudicMetrological Problem.” IEJ 19 (1969): 159–69. –. “The Hebrew-Phoenician Cubit.” PEQ 110 (1978): 27–28. Ben Dov, M. “The Seleucid Acra  – South of the Temple Mount.” Cathedra 18 (1981): 22–36 (Hebrew). –. Jerusalem Fortifications: The City Walls, the Gates and the Temple Mount. Tel Aviv: Zmora-Bitan, 1983 (Hebrew).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Bibliography

303

–. In the Shadow of the Temple: The Discovery of Ancient Jerusalem. Trans. from the Hebrew by Ina Friedman. Jerusalem: Keter 1985. Benovitz, M. “Herod and Hanukkah.” Zion 68 (2003): 5–40. Bergquist, B. The Archaic Greek Temenos: A Study of Structure and Function. Lund: Gleerup, 1967. Bennett, G. G. “Calculating Astronomical Refract in Navigation.” Journal of Navigation 35 (1982): 255–59. Bickerman, E. J. “Une proclamation séleucide relative au temple de Jérusalem.” Syria 25 (1946): 67–85. –. “A Jewish Festal Letter of 124 b.c.e. (2 Macc 1:1–9).” Pages 408–31 in vol. 1 of Elias J. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007. Blackman, A. M. “Purification (Egyptian).” Page 476 in vol. 10 of Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Edited by James Hastings. New York: Charles Scribner’s sons, 1951. Blatt, F. The Latin Josephus I, Introduction. Acta Jutlandica 30. I. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1958. Bliss, F. J. and Dickie, A. C. Excavations at Jerusalem 1894–1897. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1898). Bodi, D. Jerusalem à l’époque perse. “levons-nous et batissons” (Nehemie 2, 18). Paris: Geuthner, ca. 2002. Branham, Joan R. “Penetrating the Sacred: Breaches and Barriers in the Jerusalem Temple.” Pages 6–24 in Thresholds of the Sacred: Architectural, Art Historical, Liturgical, and Theological Perspectives on Religious Screens, East and West. Edited by Sharon E. J. Gerstel. Dumbarton Oaks: Harvard University Press, 2006. Brooke, G. J., (ed.). Temple Scroll Studies. Papers presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Bruyère, B. and Manteuffel, J. Tell Edfou, I. Cairo:  Institut français d’archeologie orientale, 1939. Büchler, A. Die Priester und der Cultus im letzten Jahrzehnt des jerusalemischen Tempels. Wien: A. Hölder, 1895. –. “The Fore-Court of Women and the Brass Gate in the Temple of Jerusalem.” JQR 10 (1898): 678–718. –. Das Synedrion in Jerusalem und das grosse Beth-Din in der Quaderkammer des Jerusalemischen Tempels. Wien: Israelitisch-Theologische Lehranstalt 1902. –. The Priests and their Cult in the last decade of the Temple in Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1966 (Hebrew). Burgoyne, Michael H. “1187–1260: The Farthest Mosque (al-Masjid al-Aqsa) under Ayyubid Rule.” Pages 150–75, 399 in Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade. Edited by Oleg Grabar and Benjamin Z. Kedar. Jerusalem and Austin, TX: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi and University of Texas Press, 2009. –. “Smaller Domes in the Ḥaram al-Sharif Reconsidered.” Pages 164–69, with a map on p. 177 in Ayyubid Jerusalem: The Holy City in Context 1187–1250. Edited by R. Hillenbrand and S. Auld. London: Altajir Trust, 2009. Burkert, W. Greek Religion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985. –. “Oriental Symposia: Contrasts and Parallels.” Pages 1–24 in Dining in a Classical Context. Edited by William J. Slater. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

304

Bibliography

Burrell, B. Gleason K. L. and Netzer, E. “Uncovering Herod’s Seaside Palace.” BA 19 (1993): 50–57, 76. Busink, Theodore A. Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomon bis Herodes: eine archäologisch-historische Studie unter Berücksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempelbaus, vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1970; Vol. 2: Von Ezekiel bis Middot. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Butler, H. C. Syria, Publications of the Princeton Archaeological Expedition to Syria, Division II: Architecture, Section B: Southern Syria, Part 2: The Southern Hauran. Leyden: Brill 1909. Camp, J. M. The Athenian Agora: Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens, London: Thames and Hudson, 1986. Casson, L. “Speed under Sail of Ancient Ships.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 82 (1951): 136–48. Chassinat, E. and Daumas, F. Le Temple de Dendara, II. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1947. Chyutin, M. Architecture and Utopia in the Temple Era. New York: T&T Clark 2006. Callmer, C. “Antike Bibliotheken.” Opuscula Archaeologica III (1944): 145–93. Conder, C. R. and Kitchner, H. H. The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs, 3. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1883. Cook, A. B. Zeus II.I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1925. Cotton, H. and Wörrle, M. “Seleukos IV to Heliodoros: A New Dossier of Royal Correspondence from Israel.” ZPE 159 (2007): 191–205. Cotton, H. et al. Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae: A Multi-Lingual Corpus of the Inscriptions from Alexander to Muhammad, vol. 1: Jerusalem, Part 1. Berlin – New York: De Gruyter, 2010. Dalman, G. “Der Zweite Tempel zu Jerusalem.” PJb 5 (1909): 29–57. –. Orte und Wege Jesu. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1924. –. Sites and Ways: Studies in the Topography of the Gospels. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1935. Daumas, F. Dendara et le Temple de Hathor. Cairo: Impr. de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1969. Davis, D. and Kloner, A. “A Burial Cave of the Late Israelite Period on the Slopes of Mt. Zion.” Qadmoniot 11 (1978):16–19 (Hebrew). Dentzer, J. M. Le motif du banquet couché dans le Proche–Orient et le monde grec du VIIe au IVe siècle avant J.-C. Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 1982. Derenbourg, J. Essai sur l’histoire et la geographie de la Palestine. Paris: Impr. impériale, 1867. Di Segni, L. “The Water Supply of Roman and Byzantine Palestine in Literary and Epigraphical Sources.” Pages 37–67 in The Aqueducts of Israel. Edited by David Amit, Joseph Patrich and Yizhar Hirschfeld. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 46. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2002. Dinsmoor, W. B. The Architecture of Ancient Greece3. London: Batsford, 1950. Downey, S. B. Mesopotamian Religious Architecture: Alexander through the Parthians. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988. Dunbabin, K.“Triclinium and Stibadium.” Pages 121–48 in Dining in a Classical Context. Edited by William J. Slater. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991. –. “Convivial spaces: dining and entertainment in the Roman villa.” JRA 9 (1996): 66–81. –. “Ut Greaco More Biberetur: Greeks and Romans on the Dining Coach.” Pages 81–101 in Meals in a Social Context: Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Bibliography

305

Roman world. (Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity 1). Edited by Inge Nielsen and Hanne S. Nielsen. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998. –. The Roman Banquet: Images of Conviviality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Edelman, Diana V. The Origins of the ‘Second’ Temple: Persian Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem. London: Taylor and Francis, 2005. Eibeschütz, E. “The Sanctuary and the Porch in the Second Temple: An Examination and Clarifications of the Rabbinic Sources.” Sinai 87 (1980): 226–37 (Hebrew). –. The Second Temple in its Splendor. Herod’s Building. Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1996 (Hebrew). Eisenstein, J. D. “Temple of Jerusalem.” Cols. 85–97 in vol. 12 of The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1906. Eliav, Yaron Z. “A Mount without a Temple. The Temple Mount from 70 c.e. to the midfifth century.” PhD diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999 (Hebrew). –. God’s Mountain – The Temple Mount in Time, Place and Memory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005. Elior, R. “From Priestly (and Early Christian) Mount Zion to Rabbinic Temple Mount.” Pages 309–19 in Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade. Edited by Oleg Grabar and Benjamin Z. Kedar. Jerusalem and Austin, TX: Yad Yizhak BenZvi and University of Texas Press, 2009. Ephʿal, I. (ed.). History of Eretz Israel: Israel and Judea in the Biblical Period. Jerusalem: Keter and Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 1984. Epstein, I., trans. Babylonian Talmud, Seder Moʿed. London: Soncino, 1961. Epstein, N. Introduction to the Mishnaic Text. 2 Vols. Jerusalem: Magnes Press – The Hebrew University, 1948 (Hebrew). Ermidoro, S. Commensality and Ceremonial Meals in the Neo-Assyrian Period. Antichistica 8. Studi Orientali 3. Venezia: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari – Digital Publishing, 2015. Feldman, Y. “Water System at Hyrcania.” Pages 326–35 in The Judaean Desert and the Dead Sea. Edited by Zvi Ilan. Tel Aviv: Nature Reserve Society, 1974 (Hebrew). Fergusson, J. The Temples of the Jews and the other Buildings in the Haram Area at Jerusalem. London: J. Murray, 1878. Finkelstein, I., Koch, I., and Lipschits, O. “The Mound on the Mount: A Possible Solution to the Problem with Jerusalem.” The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11 (2011). E-article # 12. Finkelstein, L. “The Pharisees: Their Origin and Their Philosophy.” HTR 22 (1929): 185– 261. –. The Pharisees: the sociological background of their faith3. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962. Foerster, G. Masada V, The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Final Reports: The Buildings, Stratigraphy and Architecture. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1995. Forbes, R. J. Studies in Ancient Technology, I. Leiden: Brill, 1955. Fried, Lisbeth S. The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Galling, K.“Die Terpole des Alexanders Janneaus.” Festschrift für Otto Eissfeldt. Zeitschrift für die AIttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77 (1958): 49–62. Garcia Martinez, F. “Sources et composition du Rouleau du Temple.” Henoch 13 (1991): 219–32.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

306

Bibliography

–. “The Temple Scroll and the New Jerusalem.” Pages 431–60 in vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Flint W. Peter and James C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 1999. –. “Temple Scroll.” Pages 927–33 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Laurence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. – and Tigchelaar, E. J. C. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. Leiden – New York – Cologne: Brill, 1996. Garsiel, M. (ed.), ʻOlam HaMiqra (The Bible World), I Kings. Tel Aviv: Davidson – Itai, 1998 (Hebrew). Gawlikowski, M. “The Development of the City of Hatra.” Pages 73–80 in Hatra: Politics, Culture and Religion between Parthia and Rome. Proceedings of the conference held at the University of Amsterdam, December 18–20 2009. Oriens et Occidens 21. Edited by Lucinda Dirven. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 2013. Geiger, A. Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel2. Frankfurt am Main: Madda 1928. Germer Durand, „Dernieres Nouvelles de Jerusalem.“ RB 10 (1901): 108. Geva, H. “Jerusalem. The Second Temple Period.” Pages 698–804 in vol. 2 of The New Encyclopedia of Excavations in the Holy Land. Pages 1801–25 in vol. 5. Edited by Ephraim Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993, 2008. Gibson, S. The Cave of John the Baptist: The Stunning Archaeological Discovery that has Redefined Christian history. London: Century, 2004. – and Jacobson, David M. Below the Temple Mount: A sourcebook on the cisterns, subterranean chambers and conduits of the Ḥaram al-Sharif. BAR International Series, 637. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, 1996. Ginzberg, L. An Unknown Jewish Sect. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1967. Glaser, F. “Fountains and Nymphaea.” Pages 413–51 in vol. 2 of Technology and Change in History: Handbook of Ancient Water Technology. Edited by Örjan Wikander. Leiden– Boston–Köln: Brill, 2000. Gonen, R. “Was the Site of the Jerusalem Temple Originally a Cemetery?” BAR 11 (1985): 44–55. González García, A. C. and Belmonte, J. A. “Sacred Architecture Orientation Across the Mediterranean: A Comparative Statistical Analysis.” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 14 (2014): 95–113. Goodenough, E. R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, vol. 1. New York: Pantheon Books, 1953. –. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, vol. 4. New York: Pantheon Books, 1954. Graetz, H. History of the Jews. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1956. Grafman, R. “Herod’s foot and Robinson’s arch.” IEJ 20 (1970): 60–66. Greenfield, J. C. “The marzeaḥ as a Social Institution.” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scien­ tia­rum Hungaricae 22 (1974): 451–55. Guttmann, A. Rabbinic Judaism in the Making. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1970. Ḥachlıli, R. ”The Niche and the Ark in Ancient Synagogues.” BASOR 223 (1976): 43–54. –. “Ancient Burial Customs Preserved in Jericho Hills.” BAR 5:4 (1979): 28–35. –. “A Jewish Cemetery of the Second Temple Period at Jericho.” Qadmoniot 12 (1979): 62–66 (Hebrew). Hadas, M. Aristeas to Philocrates: Letter of Aristeas. New York: Ktav, 1951.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Bibliography

307

Hampel, I. “Megillat Taʿanit”. PhD diss., Tel Aviv University, 1976 (Hebrew). Handy, L. K. “On the Dating and Dates of Solomon’s Reign.” Pages 96–105 in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. Edited by Lowell K. Handy. Leiden–New York–Köln: Brill, 1997. Haran, M. “Ezekiel’s Temple.” Cols. 346–56 in vol. 5 of Encyclopaedia Biblica. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1968 (Hebrew). –. “The Plan of Ezekiel’s Temple.” Pages 204–18 in Olam Ha Thanakh: Ezekiel. Edited by Menahem Haran et al. Tel Aviv: Davidson – Itai, 1996 (Hebrew). Hawari, Maḥmud. Ayyubid Jerusalem (1187–1250): An Architectural and Archaeological Study. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2007. Hayward, C. T. R. The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook. London: Routledge, 1996. Hekker, M. “The Water Supply of Jerusalem in Ancient Times.” Pages 191–218 in Sefer Yerushalayim. Edited by Michael Avi-Yonah. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1956 (Hebrew). Hellström, P. “Formal Banqueting at Labraunda.” Pages 99–104 in Architecture and Society in Hecatomnid Caria. Edited by Tullia Linders and Pontus Hellström. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 1989. –. “The Andrones at Labraynda. Dining halls for Protohellenistic kings.” Pages 164–69 in Basileia. Die Paläste der Hellenistischen Könige. Edited by Wolfram Hoepfner and Gunnar Brands. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1996. Heltzer, M. and Kokhman, M. (eds.). ʿOlam HaTanakh. Sifrei Ezra VeNehemiah. Tel Aviv: Davidson – Itai, 1996 (Hebrew). Hengel, M. Charlesworth, J. H. and Mendels, D. “The Polemical Character of ‘On Kingship’ in the Temple Scroll: An Attempt at Dating 11QTemple.” JJS 37 (1986): 28–38, republished in D. Mendels, Identity, Religion and Historiography: Studies in Hellenistic History. JSPSup 24. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998: 365–78. Herzog, Z. “Solomon’s Temple: Its Reconstructed Plan and Archaeological Parallels.” Pages 155–74 in Sefer Yerushalayim: The Biblical Period. Edited by Shmuel Aḥituv and Amiḥai Mazar. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2000 (Hebrew). Hildesheimer, E. Die Beschreibung des herodianischen Tempels im Tractate Middot und bei Flavius Josephus. Berlin: Driesner, 1877. Hubbard, R. P. S. “The Topography of Ancient Jerusalem.” PEQ 98 (1966): 130–54. Hollis, F. J. “The Sun-Cult and the Temple at Jerusalem.” Pages 87–110 in Myth and Ritual: Essays on the Myth and Ritual of the Hebrews in Relation to the Culture Pattern of the Ancient East. Edited by Samuel H. Hooke. Oxford and London: Oxford University Press, 1933. –. The Archaeology of Herod’s Temple, with a commentary on the tractate Middoth. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1934. Holtzmann, O. Die Mischna Middot: Text, Übersetzung und Erklärung. Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1913. Hopper, R. J. The Acropolis, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971. Horowitz, A. “Solomon’s Temple.” Pages 150–52 in Sefer Yerushalaim: The Biblical Period. Edited by Shmuel Aḥitov and Amiḥai Mazar. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2000 (Hebrew). Humphrey, J. W., Oleson J. P., and Sherwood, A. N. Greek and Roman Technology. A Sourcebook. London: Routledge, 1998. Hurvitz, A. “The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code: VIII.” RB 81 (1974): 41–43.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

308

Bibliography

–. “The Archaeological-Historical Dispute Concerning the Antiquity of the Biblical Literature in the Light of the Philological Study of the Hebrew.” Pages 34–46 in The Dispute Concerning the Historicity of the Bible. Edited by Lee I. Levine and Amiḥai Mazar. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2001 (Hebrew). Isaac, B. “A donation for Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem.” IEJ 33 (1983): 86–92. Jacobson, D. “Ideas Concerning the Plan of Herod’s Temple.” PEQ 112 (1980): 33–40. –. “The Plan of Herod’s Temple.” BAIAS 10 (1990–91): 36–66. –. “The Jerusalem Temple of Herod the Great.” Pages 145–76 in The World of the Herods. Volume 1 of the International Conference the World of the Herods and the Nabataeans Held at the British Museum, 17–19 April 2001. Edited by Nikos Kokkinos. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 2007. – and Gibson, Sh. “A Monumental Stairway on the Temple Mount.” IEJ 45 (1995): 162–70. Jacobson, O. “On the Significance of the Sun Cult in the Universal Myths and in Ancient Religions.” PhD diss., University of Haifa, Israel, 2015. Japhet, S. “The Temple of the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology.” Pages 345–82 in Sefer Yerushalaim: The Biblical Period. Edited by Shmuel Aḥitov and Amiḥai Mazar. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2000 (Hebrew). Jastrow, M. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic literature, with an index of Scriptural Quotations. New York: Pardes Pub. House, 1903. Jellicoe, S. The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1968; repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1978. Jeremias, J. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: Study Edition. London: SCM, 1969. Jong de, A. Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Kanael, B. “Altjüdische Münzen.” Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 17 (1967): 256–72. Kapah, I. (ed.). The Mishnah with the Commentary of Maimonides: Seder Qodashim. Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1967 (Hebrew). Kaufman, A. S. “Determining the Length of the Medium Cubit.” PEQ 116 (1984): 120–32. –. Tractate Middot, Jerusalem: Har Yera’eh, 1991 (Hebrew). –. The Temple Mount: Where is the Holy of Holies? Jerusalem: Har Yera’eh, 2004. Kaufmann, C. M. Handbuch der Christlichen Archaeologie2. Paderborn: F. Schoeningh, 1913. Ken-Tor, R. Agnon, A. Enzel, Y. Stein, M. Marco S. and Negendank, J. F. W. “HighResolution Geological Record of Historic Earthquakes in the Dead Sea Basin.” Journal of Geophysical Research 106/B2 (2001): 2221–34. Kindler, A. “Coins of the Bar-Kokhba War.” Pages 159–77 in The Bar-Kokhba RevoIt. Issues in Jewish History 10. Edited by Aharon Oppenheimer. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1980 (Hebrew). Klausner, Y. Israeli History: Studies in the History of Israel II. Jerusalem: Judaism and Humanity, 1924 (Hebrew). Klausner, J. In: The World History of the Jewish People. The Hellenistic Age. Vol. 6: Political History of Jewish Palestine from 332 b.c.e. to 67 b.c. E. Edited by Avraham Schalit. Tel-Aviv: Massadah, Jewish History Publications, 1979. Kloner, A. “The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period.” PhD diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1980.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Bibliography

309

Knohl, I. “Between Voice and Silence: The Relationship between Prayer and Temple Cult.” JBL 115 (1996): 17–30. Kochman, M. (ed.). Olam HaTanakh: Trei Assar. Tel Aviv: Davidson – Itai, 1996 (Hebrew). Kraeling, C. H. “The Episode of the Roman Standards at Jerusalem.” HTR 35 (1942): 263–89. –. The Excavations at Dura-Europus, Final Report VIII, 1: The Synagogue. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956. Krencker, D. and Zschietzschmann, W. Römische Tempel in Syrien, I. Berlin und Leipzig: W. de Gruyter and Co., 1938. Kropnick (Karu), B. and Silbermann, A. M. A Dictionary of the Talmud, the Midrash and the Targum with Quotations from Sources, vol. 2. Tel Aviv: ʿAm ʿOlam, 1970. Kümmel, A. Materialen zur Topographie des alten Jerusalem: Begleittext zu der Karte der Materialen zur Topographie des alten Jerusalem. Halle: Verlag des Deutschen Palaestina-Vereins, 1904. –. Materialien zur Topographie des alten Jerusalem: Begleittext zu der “Karte der Materialien zur Topographie des alten Jerusalem”, Leipzig: Deutscher Verein zur Erforschung Palaestinas, 1906. Landels, J. G. Engineering in the Ancient World. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978. Laperrousaz, E. M. “Angle Sud-Est du “Temple de Salomon” ou vestiges de l’“Acra des Seleucides?”: Un faux probleme.” Syria 52 (1975): 241–59. –. “King Solomon’s Wall still supports the Temple Mount.” BAR 13/3 (1987): 34–44. –. “Does the Temple Scroll Date from the First or Second Century bce?.” Pages 91–98 in Temple Scroll Studies. Papers presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. –. “Quelques remarques sur la trace de l’enceinte de la ville et du temple de Jérusalem à l’époque perse.” Syria 67 (1990): 609–31. Lauterbach, J. Z. Rabbinical Essays: The Sadducees and the Pharisees. New York: Ktav, 1973. Le Moyne, J. Les Sadducéens. Paris: Lecoffre, 1972. Leszynsky, R. Die Sadduzaer. Berlin: Mayer and Müller, 1912. Lehmann, Ph.W. Roman Wall Paintings from Boscoreale in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Cambridge, MA: Archaeological Institute of America, 1953. Lemaire, A. and Lozachmeur, H. “Birah / Birta‘ en Arameen.” Syria 64 (1987): 261–66. Levine, L. I. “Pharisees, Sadducees and Hasmonean Politics.” Pages 61–83 in Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. Abraham Schalit memorial volume. Edited by Aharon Oppenheimer, Uriel Rappaport and Menḥem Stern. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and Ministry of Defense, 1980 (Hebrew). –. “Josephus’ description of the Jerusalem Temple; ’War’, ‘Antiquities’, and other sources.” Pages 233–46 in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. Edited by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers. Leiden: Brill, 1994. –. Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 b.c.e.–70 c.e.), Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2002.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

310

Bibliography

Levy, J. Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, 2. Aufl., mit Nachträgen und Berichtigungen von Lazarus Goldschmidt, vol. 4. Berlin: B. Harz, 1924. Licht, I. S. “Ezra, The Apocryphal book of Ezra.” Pages 151–55 in Encyclopedia Miqrait 6. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1971 (Hebrew). Lieberman, S. Tosefta Ki-Fshuṭah (Hebrew), vol. 1. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1955. –. Greek and Greekness in Israel. Studies in lifestyles in Eretz Israel during the Mishnah and Talmudic period. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1963 (Hebrew). –. Siphre Zutta (The Midrash of Lydda). New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1968 (Hebrew). Lifshitz, B. “Notes d’épigraphie grecque.” RB 70 (1963): 255–57. Luria, B. Z. “The Temple Mount in the Restoration Period.” Beit Miqra 26.3 (1981): 206– 16 (Hebrew). Madden, F. W. Coins of the Jews2. London: Trübner, 1881. Magen, Y. “The Gates of the Temple Mount According to Josephus and the Mishnah.” Cathedra 14 (1980): 41–54 (Hebrew). –. “Bet Ha-Mesibbah in the Temple Scroll and in the Mishnah.” Eretz Israel 17 (Brawer Volume) (1984): 226–35 (Hebrew), English summary, p. 10*. –. “Mount Gerizim -̶ A Temple City.” Qadmoniot 120 (2001): 74–118 (Hebrew). –. “The Temple of Yahveh on Mount Gerizim and in Jerusalem.” Eretz Israel 29 (Ephraim Stern Volume) (2009): 277–97 (Hebrew). Magli, G. Architecture, Astronomy and Sacred Landscape in Ancient Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Maier, J. “The Architectural History of the Temple in Jerusalem in the Light of the Temple Scroll.” Pages 23–62 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Maiuri, A. The Great Centuries of Painting: Roman Painting. Geneva: Skira, 1953. Mandel, P. “Birah as an Architectural Term in Rabbinic Literature.” Tarbiz 61 (1992): 195–217 (Hebrew). Mantel, H. Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961. Mariette, A. E. Dendérah, I, III, Paris-Cairo, 1875; repr. Hildesheim-New York: G. Olms, 1981. Mazar, A. “The Ancient Aqueducts of Jerusalem.” Qadmoniot 5 (1973): 120–25 (Hebrew). –. “Temples of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages and the Iron Age.” Pages 161–87 in The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. Edited by Aharon Kempinsky and Ronni Reich, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1992 (Hebrew). –. “A Survey of the Aqueducts of Jerusalem.” Pages 211–23 in The Ancient Aqueducts of Israel. Edited by David Amit, Joseph Patrich and Yizhar Hirschfeld. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 46. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2002. Mazar, B. “The Temple Mount.” Pages 463–68 in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology. Edited by Jannet Amitai. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985. Mazar, E. The Walls of the Temple Mount. Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 2011.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Bibliography

311

McKenzie, J. S. et al. The Nabataean Temple at Khirbet et-Tannur, Jordan: Final Report on Nelson Glueck’s 1937 Excavation, vol. 1: Architecture and Religion. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 67–68. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research 2013. Meir, E. “Barqai’: An Explanation of an unclear term.” Judea and Samaria Research Studies 17 (2008): 93–101 (Hebrew). Meshel, Z. and Amit, D. “The Water Supply of the Cypros Fortress.” Qadmoniot 12 (1979): 67–77 (Hebrew). Meshorer, Y. Jewish Coins in the Second Temple Period. Tel Aviv: ʿAm HaSefer, 1966 (Hebrew). –. Ancient Jewish Coinage, II. New York: Amphora Books, 1982. Mesnil du Buisson, Comte du. Le peintures de la synagogue de Doura Europos. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1939. Meyers, E. M. Jewish Ossuaries, Reburial and Rebirth. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971. Mildenberg, L. The Coinage of The Bar-Kokhba War. Aarau  – Frankfurt  – Salzburg: Sauerlaender,1984. –. “The Bar Kokhba Didrachm.” INJ 8 (1984–1985): 33–36, Pl. 25. Milgrom, J. “Challenge to Sun-Worship Interpretation of Temple Scroll’s Gilded Staircase.” BAR XI/1 (1985): 70–73. Milik, J. T. Ten Years of Discoveries in the Wilderness of Judaea. London: SCM Press, 1959. –. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, III. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. Miller, S. G. The Prytaneion: Its Function and Architectural Form. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978. Mommert, C. Topographie des alten Jerusalem, Zweiter Teil: Das Solomonische Temple und Palast-quartier auf Moriah. Leipzig: E. Haberland, 1903. Muehsam, A. Coin and Temple: A Study of the Architectural Representations on Ancient Jewish Coins. Leiden: Brill, 1966. Mulder, O. Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50 an exegetical study of the significance of Simon the High Priest as climax to the Praise of the fathers in Ben Sira’s concept of the history of Israel. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 78. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003. Naʾaman, N. “Hiram of Tyre in the Book of Kings and in the Tyrian Records.” JNES 78 (2019): 75–85. Naimann, Y. P. Surveyor’s Booklet (Quntras ha-Modded) on Measuring the Temple Mount. Jerusalem: Sh. Zuckermann, 1902 (Hebrew). Netzer, E. “The Hasmonean and Herodian Winter Palaces at Jericho.” IEJ 25 (1975): 89–100. –. “The Winter Palaces of the Judaean Kings at Jericho at the End of the Second Temple Period.” BASOR 228 (1977): 1–13. –. Greater Herodium. Qedem 13. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1981. –. Masada III: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Final Reports: The Buildings, Stratigraphy and Architecture. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1991. –. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations, vol. I: Stratigraphy and Architecture. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1996.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

312

Bibliography

–. The Palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi and the Israel Exploration Society, 2001. –. The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. –. “The Form and Function of Courts and Gates that Surrounded the Second Temple.” Qadmoniot 38/130 (2006): 97–106 (Hebrew). –. Kalman Y. and Loris R. “A Hasmonean Synagogue at Jericho.” Qadmoniot 117 (1999): 17–24 (Hebrew). Neusner, J. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purity. Leiden: Brill, 1977. –. A History of Mishnaic Law of Holy Things, vol. 5: Tamid, Middot. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Nielsen, I. Hellenistic Palaces. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1994. –. “Royal Banquets: The Development of Royal Banquets and Banqueting Halls from Alexander to the Tetrarchs.” Pages 102–133 in Meals in a Social Context: Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman world. Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity 1. Edited by Inge Nielsen and Hanne S. Nielsen. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998. –. Housing the Chosen: The Architectural Context of Mystery Groups and Religious Associations in the Ancient World. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014. –. “The Assembly Rooms of Religious Groups in the Hellenistic and Roman Near East: A Comparative Study.” Pages 47–74 in Religious Identities in the Levant from Alexander to Muhammed: Continuity and Change. Edited by Michael Blömer, Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja. Turnhout: Brepols, 2015. – and Nielsen, H. S. (eds.). Meals in a Social Context: Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman world. Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity 1. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998. Nowicka, M. La maison privée dans l’Egypte ptolémaïque. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1969. O’Connor, M.-J. “Der Tempel in Jerusalem von Solomon bis Herodes.” Welt und Umwelt der Bibel 13/3 (1999): 3–9. Oded, B. History of Eretz Israel: Israel and Judea in the Biblical Period. Jerusalem: Keter and Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 1984 (Hebrew). Oleson, J. P. Greek and Roman Mechanical Water-Lifting Devices: The History of a Technology. Phoenix Supplement 16. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984. –. “Water-Lifting Devices at Herculaneum and Pompeii in the Context of Roman Technology.” Pages 67–75 in Cura Aquarum in Campania. Edited by Nathalie de Haan and Gemma C. M. Jansen. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Onn, A. and Weksler–Bdolah, Sh. “Wilson’s Arch and the Great Causeway in the Second Temple and Roman Periods in Light of Recent Excavations.” Qadmoniot 140 (2010): 109–22 (Hebrew). – and Weksler–Bdolah, Sh. “A Monument (Nympheon?) and other remains from the second Temple Period West of the Temple Mount: the Excavations of the Giant causeway 2010–2011.” NSAJR 5 (2011): 187–99 (Hebrew). – and Weksler-Bdolah S. Jerusalem: The Western Wall Tunnels. HA-ESI 128 (2016) http:// www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=25120&mag_id=124 – Weksler–Bdolah Sh. and Bar-Nathan, R. “Jerusalem, The Old City, Wilson’s Arch and the Great Causeway.” ESI 123 (published 15/08/2011) http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/ Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1738&mag_id=118 – Weksler–Bdolah Sh. and Patrich, J. “A Herodian Triclinium with Fountain along the Road Leading to the Temple Mount.” Qadmoniot 151 (2016): 39–48 (Hebrew).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Bibliography

313

Orlinski, H. M. “Review of Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates (1951).” Crozer Quarterly 29 (1952): 201–5. Parker, R. A. and Dubberstein, W. H. Babylonian Chronology, 626 b.c.–a.d. 4. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1971. Parrot, A. The Temple of Jerusalem. Trans. B. Hooke. London: SCM, 1957. Patrich, J. “A Sadducean Halakha and the Jerusalem Aqueduct.” The Jerusalem Cathedra 2 (1982): 25–39. –. “The Mesibbah of the Temple according to the Tractate Middot.” IEJ 36 (1986): 215–33. –. “The Mesibbah of the Temple according to the Tractate Middot.” Cathedra 42 (1987): 39–52 (Hebrew). –. “The Structure of the Second Temple: A New Reconstruction.” Qadmoniot 21. 81–82 (1988): 32–40 (Hebrew). –. “Reconstructing the Magnificent Temple Herod Built.” Bible Review 4/5 (1988): 16–29. –. “The Golden Vine, the Sanctuary Portal and its’ Depiction on the Bar-Kokhba Coins.” JJA 19/20 (1993–94): 56–61. –. “The Structure of the Second Temple  – A New Reconstruction.” Pages 260–71 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Edited by Hillel Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994. –. Archaeological Survey of Israel: Map of Mar-Saba (315). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. The Archaeological Survey of Israel, 1995. –. “The Formation of the Nabatean Capital.” Pages 197–218 in Judaea and the Greco– Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence. Edited by Klaus Fittschen and Gideon Foerster. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. –. “Herod’s Theater in Jerusalem – a new proposal.” IEJ 52 (2002): 231–39. –. “On the Lost Circus of Aelia Capitolina.” SCI XXI (2002): 173–88. –. “The Location of the Second Temple: A New Proposal.” New Jerusalem Studies 12 (2006): 41–48 (Hebrew). –. “Differences between Herod’s Temple and that of the Hasmonaeans: Reflections on the ‘House of the Utensils’ and the ‘House of the Laver’ of the Temple Scroll.” NSAJR 1 (2007): 41–53 (Hebrew). –. “The Second Temple and its Courts: a new proposal about their location on the Temple Mount.” Eretz Israel 28 (2007) (Tedi Kollek Volume): 173–83 (Hebrew). –. “Differences between Herod’s Temple and that of the Hasmonaeans: Reflections on the ‘House of the Utensils’ and the ‘House of the Laver’ of the Temple Scroll.” NSAJR 1 (2007): 1:41–53 (Hebrew). –. “Water-Wheels at Service in the Second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.” Pages 239–46 in Cura Aquarum in Jordan. Edited by Christoph Ohlig. Siegburg: DWhG, 2008. –. “On the Chamber called House of Stone (beth even), which was facing the north–east corner of the Temple building (birah) (Mishnah, Parah 3:1).” New Studies on Jerusalem 14 (2008): 121–32 (Hebrew). –. “538 bce–70 ce: The Temple (Beyt Ha-Miqdash) and its Mount.” Pages 37–71 in Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade. Edited by Oleg Grabar and Benjamin Z. Kedar. Jerusalem and Austin, TX: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi and University of Texas Press, 2009. –. “The Pre-Herodian Temple I: Reassessing the House of the Laver and the House of Utensils of the Temple Scroll.” RB 116/4 (2009): 505–26. –. “The Location of the Second Temple and the Layout of its Court’s Gates and Chambers: A New Proposal.” Pages 209–33 in The Jerusalem Perspective: 150 Years of archae-

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

314

Bibliography

ological Research. Edited by Katherina Galor and Gideon Avni. New York: Eisenbrauns, 2011. –. “The Pre-Herodian Temple II: The Building Project of Simeon the Just on the Temple Mount.” RB 114/4 (2011): 558–74. –. “On the Number of Gates of the Temple’s Great Court (ᶜAzara) and the Gates of the Grille (soreg): Current Scholarship and a New Proposal.” New Jerusalem Studies 19 (2013): 213–30 (Hebrew). –. “Jerusalem, Archaeology of.” Pages 777–81 in vol. II of T&T Clark Encyclopedia of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Daniel M. Gurtner and L. T. Stuckenbruck. London – New York – Oxford – New Delhi – Sydney: T&T Clark, 2020. –. “The Temple and its Mount: Location and Layout.” Pages 263–326 in vol. I of The History of Jerusalem (Sefer Yerushalaim). The Second Temple Period (332 bce–70 ce). Edited by Ishaiah Gafni, Ronni Reich and Joshua Schwartz. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2020 (Hebrew). – and Edelcopp, M. “Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount.” RB 120/3 (2013): 321–61. Pearson, H. F. Guide de la synagogue de Doura Europos. Beyrouth: Impr. catholique, 1940. Peleg, Y. “The Metrology of the Cubit from the Herodian to the Mishnah Period (37 b.c.e.–200 c.e.).” Unpublished M. A. thesis, Bar Ilan University, 2003. –. “Review of The Temple Mount: Where is the Holy of Holies? by A. S. Kaufman.” Cathedra 117 (2005): 157–63 (Hebrew). –. “The Meaning of the Word Xystos in the Writings of Josephus.” New Studies on Jerusalem 12 (2006): 73–82 (Hebrew). –. “The Pre-Herodian Sanctified Temple Area and Outer Court.” New Studies on Jerusalem 14 (2008): 169–94 (Hebrew). Peleg–Barkat, O. “The Herodian Architectural Decoration in light of the Finds from the Temple Mount Excavations.” PhD diss. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2007. Petrie, F. W. M. Hyksos and Israelite Cities. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1906. Porath, Y. “Caesarea: The IAA Expedition”. HA 105 (1996): 37–46 (Hebrew). Price, M. J. and Trell, B. Coins and their Cities: Architecture on the Ancient Coins of Greece, Rome and Palestine. London – Detroit: Vecchi, 1977. Puech, E. “Fragments du plus ancien exemplaire du Rouleau du Temple (4Q524).” Pages 19–64 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies. Cambridge, 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by Moshe J. Bernstein, Florentino Garcia Martinez, and John Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. –. “524. 4QRouleau du Temple.” Pages 85–114, Pl. VII–VIII, Figs. 1–2 in DJD XXV: Qumran grotte 4, XVIII: textes hébreux (4Q521–4Q528, 4Q576–4Q579). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Qimron, E. “Lul and Belul.” Lešonénu 38 (1974): 225–27 (Hebrew). Qoren, Z. Ve-Asu Li Miqdash, Jerusalem: The Wailing Wall Heritage Foundation, 2007. Rappaport, U. “When was Aristeas Letter Composed?” Pages 37–50 in vol. 1 of Studies in the History of the People and Land of Israel. Tel Aviv: University of Haifa, 1970 (Hebrew). –. “Simeon the Just.” Page 602 in vol. 18 of Encyclopedia Judaica2. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA in association with the Keter Pub. House, 2007.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Bibliography

315

Raḥmani, L. Y. “A Tomb on Shain Hill, Jerusalem.” IEJ 8 (1958): 101–5. –. “Jewish Rock-Cut Tombs in Jerusalem.” ʿAtiqot 3 (1961): 93–120. –. “Review article on E. Meyers, Jewish Ossuaries: Reburial and Rebirth.” IEJ 23/2 (1973): 121–26. –. “Depictions of Menorot on Ossuaries.” Qadmoniot 13. 51–52 (1980): 114–17. Regev, E. The Hasmoneans: Ideology, Archaeology, Identity. Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Reich, R. “Two Possible Miqwa’ot on the Temple Mount.” IEJ 39 (1989): 63–65. – and Billig, Y. “Excavations near the Temple Mount and Robinson’s Arch, 1994–1996.” Pages 340–50 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, expanded edition. Edited by Hillel Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Reidinger, E. F. “The Temple Mount Platform in Jerusalem from Solomon to Herod: An Archaeological Re-Examination.” Assaf. Studies in Art History 9 (2004): 1–64. Reifenberg, A. Coins of the Jews2. Jerusalem: R. Mass, 1947. Reisner, G. A. et al. Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908–1910, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924. Rengstrof, K. H. A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus. Vol. III. Leiden: Brill, 1979. Reuther, O. “Parthian Architecture.” Pages 411–44 in A Survey of Persian Art I. Edited by Arthur U. Pope. London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1938. Ritmeyer, L. P. “Locating the Original Temple Mount.” BAR 18.2 (1992): 24–45, 64–65. –. The Temple and the Rock. Harrogate: Ritmeyer Archaeological Design, 1996. –. The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Carta, 2006. Rochemonteix, Le Marquis de and E. Chassinat: Le Temple d’Edfou, III. Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1897. Rozenberg, S. and Mevorah, D. (eds.). Herod the Great: The King’s Final Journey. Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 2013. Sachs, A. J. and Hunger, H. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Diaries from 652 b.c. to 262 b.c. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988. Safrai, Sh. “The Ritual in the Second Temple.” Pages 369–91 in Sefer Yerushalaim. The Nature, History and Evolution of Jerusalem from its Earliest to our own Days. Edited by Michael Avi-Yonah. Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik and Dvir, 1956 (Hebrew). –. PiIgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple. Tel Aviv: ʿAm HaSefer, 1965 (Hebrew). –. The Jewish People in the First Century, I. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1973. –. “The Temple.” Pages 865–907 in The Jewish People in the First Century. Edited by Shmuel Safrai and Menaḥem Stern. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976. Salzman, M. R. On Roman time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Sanders, J. A. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan IV: The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. Schalit, A. Namenwörterbuch zu Flavius Josephus, Suppl. I. Leiden: Brill, 1968. –. König Herodes. Der Mann und sein Werk. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969. Schick, C. „Die Wasserversorgung der Stadt Jerusalem.“ ZDPV I (1878): 132–76. –. Die Stiftshütte, der Tempel in Jerusalem und der Tempelplatz der Jetztzeit. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1896.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

316

Bibliography

Schiffman, L. H. “Architecture and the Law: The Temple and its Courtyards in the Temple Scroll.” Pages 267–84 in From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism I. Edited by Jacob Neusner et al. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989. –. “The Construction of the Temple According to the Temple Scroll.” RQ 17 (1996): 555– 71. –. “The House of the Laver in the Temple Scroll.” Eretz Israel 26 (1999): 169*–75*. –. “Descriptions of the Jerusalem Temple in Josephus and the Temple Scroll.” Pages 69– 82 in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 27–31 January 1999. Edited by David Goodblatt, Avinoam Pinnick and Daniel R. Schwartz. STDJ 37. Leiden: Brill, 2001. –. “The Structures in the Inner Court of the Temple according to the Temple Scroll.” Pages 171–80 in Fifty Years of Dead Sea Scrolls Research: Studies in Memory of Jacob Licht. Edited by Gershon Brin and Bilhah Nitzan. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2001 (Hebrew). Schiøler, T. Roman and Islamic Water Lifting Wheels. Odense: Odense University Press, 1973. Schürer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 b.c.–a.d. 135). Revised and edited by Géza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and M. Black, vol. 2. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979. –. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 b.c.–a.d. 135), vol. 3/1, edited by Géza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. Schuller, E. M. “Prayers and Psalms from the Pre-Maccabean Period.” Dead Sea Discoveries 13 (2006): 306–18. Schwabe, M. “A Jewish Sepulchral Inscription.” IEJ 1 (1950–51): 52. Schwartz, J. “Be՚er HaQar, Bor Îeqer and the Seleucid Acra.” Cathedra 37 (1985): 3–16 (Hebrew). –. “The Temple in Jerusalem. Bira and Baris in archaeology and literature.” Pages 29–49 in The Centrality of Jerusalem: Historical Perspectives. Edited by Marcel Poorthius and Chanah Safrai. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. –. “Temple Ritual in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 237–62 in The History of Jerusalem (Sefer Yerushalaim): The Second Temple Period (332 bce–70 ce), 1. Edited by Ishaiah Gafni, Ronni Reich and Joshua Schwartz. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2020 (Hebrew). –. “ ‘To Stand – Perhaps to Sit.’ Sitting and Standing in the ʿAzara in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 167–89 in Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity. Edited by Alberdina Houtman, Marcel Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz. Leiden, Boston, and Köln: Brill, 1998. – and Peleg, Y. “Are The ‘Halachic Temple Mount’ and the ‘Outer Court’ of Josephus one and the Same?” Pages 207–22 in Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism: Louis H. Feldman Jubilee Volume. Edited by Shaye J. D. Cohen and Joshua Schwartz. Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2007. Scott, R. B. Y. “The Hebrew Cubit.” JBL 77 (1958): 205–14. –. “Weights and Measures of the Bible.” BA 22/2 (1959): 22–41. Scranton, R. “The Architecture of the Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates at Kourion.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 57 (1967): 65–83.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Bibliography

317

Segal, M. “Calculating the End: Inner-Danielic Chronological Developments.” Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018): 287–96. Segal, M. Z. Sefer Ben Sira ha-Shalem, 2nd rev. and expanded edition. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1959 (Hebrew). Serna, M. N. (ed.). ʻOlam HaMiqra (The Bible World): Psalms. Tel Aviv: Davidson – Itai, 1998 (Hebrew). Shaḥar, Y. “The Concept of the Temple Mount in the Second Temple Period.” New Studies on Jerusalem 14 (2008): 203–10 (Hebrew with an English abstract on p. 41*). Shatzman, I. “Appendix H.” Pages 646–59 in: Yosef Ben Matityahu ([Titus] Flavius Josephus), History of the Jewish War Against the Romans (tr. L. Ulman). Jerusalem: Carmel, 2009 (Hebrew). Shefer, Sh. The Temple: Its Description, Shape and Figure. Jerusalem: Yefe Nof, 1962 (Hebrew). Shukrun, E. and Reich, R. “The Area to the East of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem during the Second Temple, Roman and Byzantine Periods in Light of the 1995–1998 Excavations.” New Studies on Jerusalem 5 (2000): 113–16 (Hebrew). Shutt, R. J. H. “Letter of Aristeas.” Pages 7–34 in vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983–85. Simons, J. J. Jerusalem in the Old Testament: Researches and Theories. Leiden: Brill, 1952. Skehan, P. W. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes, Introduction and Commentary by A. A. di Lella (Anchor Bible, 39). New York: Doubleday, 1987. Slater, W. J. (ed.). Dining in a Classical Context. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991. Smallwood, Edith M. The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Smith, D. E. From Symposium to Eucharist. The Banquet in the Early Christian World. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Smith, G. A. Jerusalem: The Topography, Economics and history from the earliest times to a.d. 70, I. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1907 (repr. Jerusalem: Ariel Pub. House, 1975). Smith, M. “Helios in Palestine.” Eretz Israel 16 (1982): 199*–214*. Starcky, J. “Salles de banquets rituels dans les sanctuaires orientaux.” Syria 26 (1949): 62–85. Solomon, A. “The New Jerusalem Scroll from Qumran: A Critical Reconstructed Version”. PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 2006 (Hebrew). –. “What was the purpose of the Hasmonaic hall in the Western Wall Tunnel.” New Studies on Jerusalem 21 (2015): 69–80. Sporty, L. D. “Identifying the Curving Line on the Bar-Kokhba Temple Coin.” BA 46 (1983), 121–23. Stegemann, H. “The Origins of the Temple Scroll.” Pages 235–56 in IOSOT Congress Volume. Jerusalem 1986. Edited by John A. Emerton. VTSup 40. Leiden: Brill, 1988. –. “The Literary Composition of the Temple Scroll and its Status at Qumran. Pages 123– 48 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

318

Bibliography

Steinberg, Shalom D. B. The Shape of the Second Temple based on tractate Middot and other references in the Talmud, with appended drawings. Jerusalem: H. Vegshel, 1994 (Hebrew). Stern, M. “The Second Temple Period.” Pages 177–296 in History of the Jewish People, l. Edited by H. H. Ben Sasson. Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1969 (Hebrew). –. The Documents for the Hasmonaean Revolt. Tel Aviv: Ha-Kibbutz Ha-Meuḥad, 1973 (Hebrew). Stern, M. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 Vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974–84. –. History of Eretz Israel: The Hellenistic Period and the Hasmonaean Period (332– 37 bce). Jerusalem: Keter and Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 1981 (Hebrew). –. “Social and Political Realignments in Herodian Jerusalem.” The Jerusalem Cathedra 2 (1982): 40–62. Stern, S. Calendars in Antiquity. Empires, States and Societies. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Stiebel, G. D. “The Κρήνη of Jerusalem”: A Herodian Nymphaeum at Jerusalem.” NSAJR 7 (2013): 148–58. Stierlin, H. Cités du Désert: Pétra, Palmyre, Hatra. Paris: Seuil 1987. Stinespring, W. F. “Wilson’s Arch and Masonic Hall, Summer 1966.” BA 30 (1967): 27–31. Sussman, V. Ornamented Jewish Oil-Lamps: From the Destruction of the Second TempIe Through the Bar-Kokhba Revolt. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1972 (Hebrew). Szymanska, H., and Babraj, K Krzysztof. “Marea: Season 2002.” Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean, XIV: Reports 2002 (2003): 40–46. Tabory, Y. Jewish Festivals in the time of the Mishnah and Talmud. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2000. Tadmor, Ḥ. “The Days of the Redemption.” Pages 251–83 in History of Eretz Israel: Israel and Judea in the Biblical Period. Edited by Israel Ephʿal. Jerusalem: Keter and Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 1984 (Hebrew). Tammuz, O. “Mare clausum? Sailing Seasons in the Mediterranean in Early Antiquity.” Mediterranean Historical Review 20 (2005): 145–62. Tcherikover, A. “Was Jerusalem a ‘Polis’?” IEJ 14 (1964): 61–78. Tchernowitz, C. History of the Halakha, vol. l, part 2. New York: Publishing Committee, 1936 (Hebrew). Thiering, B. “The Date of Composition of the Temple Scroll.” Pages 99–120 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Travlos, J. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens. New York: Hacker Art Books, 1980. Trell, B. “Architectura Numismatica Orientalis: A Short Guide to the Numismatic Formulae of Roman Syrian Die-Makers.” Numismatic Chronicle, 7th Series, 10 (1970): 38, fig. 74. Tsafrir, Y. “The Location of the Seleucid Acra in Jerusalem.” RB 82 (1975 ): 501–21. –. “The Walls of Jerusalem in the Period of Nehemiah.” Cathedra 4 (1977): 31–42 (Hebrew). –. “The Desert Fortresses of Judaea in the Second Temple Period.” The Jerusalem Cathedra 2 (1982): 120–45. Urbach, E. E. “The Derasha as a Basis of the Halakha and the Problem of the Soferim.” Tarbiz 27 (1958): 166–82 (Hebrew).

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Bibliography

319

–. The Sages: Their Concept and Beliefs. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, the Hebrew University, 1975 (Hebrew). English tr. by I. Abrahams, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994. VanderKam, J. C. Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time. London-New York: Routledge, 1998. Venit, M. S. “The Painted Tomb from Wardian and the Antiquity of the Saqiya in Egypt.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 26 (1989): 219–22. Vincent, L.-H. “Le temple Herodien d’après la Mišnah.” RB 61 (1954): 5–35, 398–418. – and Steve, A.-M. Jérusalem de l’ancien testament, 2e partie. Paris: Gabalda, 1956. Vogt, E. „Vom Tempel zum Felsendom.“ Biblica 55 (1974): 23–64. Vogüé, de M. Le temple de Jérusalem: Monographie du Haram-ech-Chérif, suivie d’un Essai sur la topographie de la Ville-Sainte. Paris: Noblet and Baudry, 1864. von Hesberg, H. “The Significance of the Cities in the Kingdom of Herod.” Pages 9–25 in Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence. Edited by Klaus Fittschen and Gideon Foerster. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Wacholder B. Z.  The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983. Warren, C. Underground Jerusalem. London: R. Bentley, 1876. – and Conder, C. R. The Survey of Western Palestine: Jerusalem. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1884. Watson, C. M. “The Site of the Temple.” PEFQS 28 (1896): 47–60, 226–28. Watzinger, C. Denkmäler Palästinas, II. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1935. Wecowsk, M. The Rise of the Greek Aristocratic Banquet, Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Weisman, Z. (ed.). ʻOlam HaMiqra (The Bible World): Psalms. Tel Aviv: Davidson – Itai, 1998 (Hebrew). Weksler–Bdolah, Sh. “The Environs of the Temple Mount Between its Destruction in 70 ce and Madaba Map: The Archaeological Evidence from Southeastern Jerusalem.” NSAJR 8 (2014): 190–209 (Hebrew). Wendel, C. Der Thoraschrein im Altertum. Halle Saale: M. Niemeyer, 1950. Wightman, G. J. “Temple fortresses in Jerusalem, part I: The Ptolemaic and Seleucid Acras.” BAIAS 9 (1989–1990): 29–40. Wilkinson, J. “Ancient Jerusalem – Its Water Supply and Population.” PEQ 106 (1974): 33–51. Wilkinson, Richard H. The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames and Hudson 2000. Will, E. “Salles à Banquet à Palmyra.” Topoi. Orient–Occident 7 (1997): 873–87. Williams, G. A. “Geological Limitations on the Precambrian History of Earth and Moon Rotation Track.” Reviews on Geophysics 38 (2000): 37–59. Williamson, Ch.G. “A room with a view. Karian landscape on display through the andrones at Labraunda.” Pages 123–40 in Labrys: Studies presented to Pontus Hellström. Boreas, Acta Universitais Upsaliensis 35. Edited by L. Karlsson, S. Carlsson and J. B. Kullberg. Uppsala: University of Uppsala, 2014. Wilson, Ch. Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem, 1865: Notes. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1866.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

320

Bibliography

–. Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem in the Years 1864 to 1865, and Sheet 1: “Ḥaram Grounds and c.”. rev. ed. Southampton: Ordnance Survey Office, 1876; Facsimile Edition, Jerusalem: Ariel, 1980. –. “The Masonry of the Haram Wall.” PEFQS 12 (1880): 21–30. –. and Warren Ch. The Recovery of Jerusalem. London: R. Bentley, 1871. Wilson, M. and Wills, L. “Literary Sources of the ‘Temple Scroll’.” HTR 75 (1982): 275– 88 Wischnitzer, R. “Maimonides’ Drawings of the Temple.” JJA 1 (1981): 16–27. Wise, M. O. A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 19. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990. Wissowa, G. “Consecratio,” “Dedicatio.” Cols iii, 2:896–902 and iv, 1:2356–59 in Paulys Realencyklopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1900 and 2001 respectively. –. Religion und Kultus der Römer. München: Beck, 1912. Worrell, W. H. “Sepulchral Cup Marks Pools and Conduits Near Jerusalem.” AASOR 2–3 (1921–1922): 80–94. Wright, G. R. H. “Structure of the Qasr Bint Farʿun – A Preliminary Review.” PEQ 93 (1961): 1–14, 25–26. –. Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine. Leiden – Köln: Brill, 1985. Yadin, Y. “The First Temple.” Pages 176–190 in Sefer Yerushalaim: The Nature, History and Development of Jerusalem from its Beginning to the Present. Edited by Michael Avi-Yonah. Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik and Dvir, 1956 (Hebrew). –. The Temple Scroll. 3 Vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977 (Hebrew edition); 1983 (English edition). –. The Temple Scroll: The Hidden Law of the Dead Sea Sect. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1985. Yeivin, Sh. “Solomon’s Temple.” Pages 328–46 in vol. 5 of Encyclopedia Miqrait. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1968 (Hebrew). –. “The Temple Vessels.” Pages 341–46 in vol. 5 of Encyclopedia Miqrait. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1968 (Hebrew). –. “David.” Pages 641–2 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia Miqraʾit. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1973 (Hebrew). Zayadine, F., Larché, F. and Dentzer-Feydy, J. Le Qasr al-Bint de Petra: L’architecture, le décor, la chronologie et les dieux. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 2003. Zeitlin, S. “Takkanot Ezra.” JQR 8 (1917–18): 61–74. –. “Sadducees and Pharisees.” Horeb 3 (1936–37): 65–89 (Hebrew). –. “Hanukkah: Its Origin and Its Significance.” JQR 29 (1938): 1–36. –. “Johanan the High Priest Abrogations and Decrees.” Pages 569–79 in Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman. Edited by Meir Ben-Ḥorin, Bernard D. Weinryb and Solomon Zeitlin. Leiden-Philadelphia: Brill, 1962. Ziegler, J. (ed.). Sapientia Iesu filii Sirach, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980.

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-03-22 11:20:22.

Index of Literary Sources

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Hebrew Bible Exodus 20:22 29:38–42 30:7–8 30:18–21 40:17 40:31–32

179 141 141 110, 185 129 110, 185

Deuteronomy 27:5–6 34:1

179 97

1 Samuel 24:16–24 26:3

116 97

2 Samuel 5:11 7:1–2 24:18–25

132 132 26

1 Kings 3:2 6:1, 37–38 7:12 7:23–26 7:27–39 8:1–2, 53 8:55–56

129 129, 130 71 34, 110 123 129 130

2 Kings 16:15 21:5 23:12

141 71 71

Jeremiah 16:5 LXX

269

Ezekiel 8:16 42:15–20 LXX 42:16–20

32, 43, 56, 126, 140, 147, 174, 185 27 9 27, 67, 81, 97

45:2 LXX 47:1

9, 116 184

Amos 6:4–7

264

Zechariah 3:7 4:2–3 4:9 6:9–14 14:4

32 183 4 208 97

Ezra 1–6 1:2–4 1:8–10 3:1–8 3:12–13 4:24 5:13–16 6:2–5 6:7–8 6:8–10 6:15 6:16–18 6:19

4, 5 4 30, 71 4 4, 116, 131, 177, 186 5 141 4, 116, 174, 177 4, 30, 71, 180 116 5, 140 131 131 131

Nehemiah 2:8 3:26–31 7:2–3 8:16 10:34 12:27 13:7

32, 71 26, 33 32, 71 32, 71 141 129 32, 71

Chronicles

32, 71, 97, 110

1 Chronicles 21:15–28 29:1, 19 LXX

116 98

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-14 08:32:42.

322 2 Chronicles 3:1 3:2

Index of Literary Sources 4:1–6 5:1–3 7:5

26, 116 129

110 129 129

Early Jewish Writings Apocalypse of Baruch (Syriac) 10:19 215 Ben Sira. Sapientia Iesu filii Sirach 32:1–2 265 50:1–12 9, 32, 34, 36–37, 56, 63, 65, 66, 72, 74, 76, 174– 75 Damascus Document 12:15–17 286 Josephus

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Against Apion 1.198 46, 178, 179 2.83–84 11 2.103 70 2.103–104 80 21.154 131 Jewish Antiquities 8.64 116 8.65 212 8.70 180, 228 8.77–78 219 9.297–301 140 11.11–13 4 11.99 5 11.107 131 11.297–301 7 11.302 63 11.310 174 11.326–339 63 11.347 63 12.43 63 12.129–144 8 12.136 3, 289 12.138–146 8, 36, 65, 67, 190 12.141 8, 67, 190 12.142 70 12.145–146 36, 65, 70, 76, 77, 86, 292 12.157 63 12.224 34, 63 12.249–250 10, 11

12.252 19, 38 12.323–325 132, 133 12.372 277 12.377–383 39 13.45–46 12, 144 13.55 8 13.181 39, 76 13.182 39 13.215–217 38 13.237 282 13.249 287 13.258 287 13.284 286 13.288–296 285 13.307 44 13.372–373 12, 286 13.374 287 13.408–409 285 14.5 76 14.34–36 220 14.56–76 13 14.57–69 44 14.58 14 14.72–73 14 14.105–109 209, 215 14.175 284 14.190–200 14 14.216 15 14.370–380 134 14.465–488 14, 44 15.3–4 284 15.5–7 284 15.318 265 15.325 283 15.368–372 284 15.380–425 214 15.391 214 15.393 214, 215 15.394 143, 214, 215 15.394–395 (Latin)  214, 220 15.395–425 173 15.396 45, 49 15.400 40, 50, 55, 58, 73, 74, 76, 116 15.401 28, 73

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-14 08:32:42.

Index of Literary Sources

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

15.403–408 96 15.409 21 15.410 75, 268 15.416–417 75, 77 15.417 50, 51, 70, 73, 76 15.418 75, 117, 119, 126, 174 15.420 76 15.421–423 134 15.424 44 16.162–166 15 16.172–176 284 17.42 284 17.149–155 214 17.259 75 18.17 285 18.55–59 283 18.93 96 18.261–309 15 19.278–291 17 19.294 76 19.278–291 15 20.6–14 96 20.11 270 20.131 13 20.189–190 266, 271 20.194 271 20.220–221 28, 45, 49, 72, 118 20.251 285 Jewish War 1.67 285 1.75 21, 44 1.110–111 285 1.118 21 1.141–148 14, 44 1.152–154 14 1.271–281 134 1.343–375 14, 44 1.358 284 1.420 283 1.648–653 214 2.128 147 2.169–174 283 2.184–203 15 2.293–308 17 2.341 70 2.344 268, 271 2.400 75 2.408–421 10, 13, 17 4.182 70, 75, 77 4.581 271 5.7 75 5.18 76 5.136–162 19, 26, 38, 80

323

5.139 41, 60, 81 5.144 93, 271 5.145 44 5.163–183 22 5.177 265 5.180–181 265 5.184–185 28, 81 5.184–247 173, 214 5.186 46 5.187 73, 76 5.190–192 48, 49 5.190–206 50, 51, 70, 80, 82 5.195–197 51, 66, 76, 79 5.201–205 82, 119, 120, 126, 169 5.207–209 214 5.208–213 214, 215 5.208–221 214, 215, 223 5.209 215 5.210 214, 219 5.211–214 143, 214, 215 5.215–219 215 5.216–218 215 5.220–221 212, 215, 235 5.222–227 214, 215, 223 5.224 215 5.225 179 5.227 70, 80 5.230–237 80 5.238–246 21 5.280–319 287 5.508 39 5.532 270, 271 6.83–93 18 6.93–95 18 6.124–126 51, 70 6.191 271 6.237–293 18 6.244–253 18 6.252–266 17 6.294 13 6.324–325 268, 271 6.354 93, 271 6.377 268, 271 7.163–177 287 Letter of Aristeas 84–91 9, 44, 114, 116, 143, 175, 188–190, 198, 215 112–115 287 180–300 7, 266 I Maccabees 25 1:20–24 11, 214–15

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-14 08:32:42.

324 1:31–33 1:33–35 3:45 4:2 4:36–61 6:4 6:48, 51–54, 62 9:54–57 10:18–20, 25–45 11:27, 37, 57 12:36–37 13:49–52 14:7 14:35 14:36–37 14:41 15:7

Index of Literary Sources 11 38 38 38 11, 37, 38, 214 37 39 11, 39 12 12 39, 44 38 38 12 38 12 12

III Maccabees 1:8–2:24

63

Philo De Vita Contemplativa 27 147, 148 64–89 148, 265 On the Special Laws 1:71 50 1:279 148 On the Virtues 164 148 The Embassy to Gaius 38 (302) 283 156–57 15 181–261 15 311–19 15

II Maccabees 1:1–10 133 1:10–2:18 133 3:3 8 3:4 13 3:7–30 10 4 10 5:11–16, 21 11 9:16 8 10:3 132 11:25 12

Temple Scroll 4:10 30:5–7 31:10–33:13 32:12–15 33:8–13 38:12–14 42:7–9

180 187 135, 146, 291 182, 185, 187, 291 185, 186 27 242

Rabbinic Literature Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 90a

214, 215

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

ʿErubin 2a 214 102a 215 Pesaḥim 57a

214, 215

Yoma 2a 91, 95 2b 93 8b 92, 94, 272 10a 94 11a 96 19a 122, 125, 161–71, 292 21a 125 21b 5, 215

24b 125 25a 125, 170 26a 277 31a 95, 113, 120, 124, 162, 169, 279 33b 215 37a 215 37b 215 39a 64, 242 39b 214 51b–52a 215 54a 83, 215 62b 160 69a 63 Sukkah 48b 51b

12, 277 108, 147, 204, 214, 215, 289

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-14 08:32:42.

325

Index of Literary Sources Megillah 29a 275 Ketubot 106a

83, 215

Qiddushin 66a

12, 285

Baba Batra 4a 204, 214, 215, 289 25a 146 Sanhedrin 42b 277 Horayot 13b 276 Zebaḥim 63a 234 104b 103 Menaḥot 28b 221 98b–99a 215 99a,b 215 107b 214, 215 Tamid 31b

160, 215

Jerusalem Talmud, Venice Sheqalim 19a 13 49a 13 6:3 (Vilna) 215 51b 215

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Yoma 38c 92, 93, 272 39a 276 41a 113, 215, 279 42b 215 Sukkah 54d–55a

108, 147

Leviticus Rabbah. Midrash Va-Yikra Rabbah 13:5 63 Massekhet Semaḥot / Tractate “Mourning” 9:2 273, 275 Megillat Taʻanit 63, 129–31, 276, 285 Midrash Tanḥuma to Exodus 283

Mishnah Berakhot 1:2

144

Maʿaser Śeni 3:8

125

Bikkurim 3:3–4

16

ʿErubin 10:11 10:14

215 135, 168, 193, 196, 198

Sheqalim 1:5 4:4 5:1 5:2 5:6 6:1–2 6:3 6:4 8:4–5

190 215 13 13, 83 191 5, 85 85, 87 215 215

Yoma 1:1 1:3 1:4 3:1 3:2 3:3 3:10 3:11 5:1 5:2 5:3

95, 165 92, 95 94 94 143 95 95 110, 193, 215 13 94, 215 5, 109 215

Sukkah 4:9 5:4 5:5

277 108, 146, 147, 160 144

Taʿanit 4:6

18

Ḥagigah 3:8

285

Sanhedrin 1:5 4:2

281 281, 284

Shebuot 2:2

281

ʿEduyyot 7:4 8:4

281 187

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-14 08:32:42.

326 Avot 1:2

34

Zebaḥim 12:5

103

Menaḥot 11:5–6

215

Tamid 1:1 1:2 1:4 1:4–2:1 2:1 3:2 3:4 3:7 3:7–8 4:1 7:1 7:3

124, 141, 289 83, 142, 190, 241 109 126, 168, 181, 193 110 168 143 191 143, 215, 233 214 111, 160, 196 215 13

Middot

32, 82, 124, 141, 155, 161, 163, 165, 169, 173, 175, 181, 201–203, 227– 44, 289, 291 83 13, 33, 43, 45, 55, 73, 108 121, 190 82, 162 83 11, 179 122 122 190 241 9, 27, 43, 59, 61, 73, 97, 116 11, 45, 50–52, 70, 79, 80, 85, 121, 214, 223, 234, 292 116 36, 45, 85, 87, 114, 121, 124, 125, 170, 184, 189 135 178, 179 114, 179, 198 111, 168 113, 179, 198, 214, 215 110, 118, 135, 168, 178, 186, 187, 193, 214, 234 214, 223, 231 214, 219

1:1 1:3 1:4 1:4–5 1:5 1:6 1:6–8 1:7 1:8 1:9 2:1 2:3

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Index of Literary Sources

2:4 2:6 2:6–3:6 3:1 3:2 3:3 3:4 3:6 3:7 3:8

4:1 4:2 4:3

5:3–4

214, 215 214, 233 116, 180, 211, 215, 228, 229, 232 215, 229, 234 116, 180, 212, 215, 227, 229, 232–34, 243, 244, 290 116, 180, 204, 215, 233– 36 36, 118, 119, 180, 204, 214, 215, 232–35 214, 228 36, 46, 178 125 121, 123, 125, 126, 170, 198, 214, 242 93, 95, 135, 168, 169, 181, 183, 188, 190, 193 122, 161–71, 292

Kelim 1:6–8 1:8 10:1 15:2 15:6 17:9

76 52, 221 285 285 187 111

ʾOhalot 5:5

285

Parah 3:1 3:5 8:11

55, 91–103, 292 56, 64, 146 274, 283

Teharot 8:9

275

Miqwot 1:1 1:4 6:8

274 274 124

Makhshirin 5:9

274

Yadaim 1:2 4:7 4:15

93 273, 283, 286, 290 273

4:4 4:5 4:6 4:7 4:6–7 5:1 5:2 5:3 5:4

Mishnah MSS (All were accessed on Feb. 22–23, 2023). British Library, Harley 5508 122, 123, 161, 162

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-14 08:32:42.

327

Index of Literary Sources Budapest, Akademia, Kaufmann A 50, folio 70v 122, 161 Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, T-S E 1.118, frag. 001r 161 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek 95, folios 500v and 500r 161, 162 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. ebr. 6 162 New York, Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS) MS Rab. 1623, top of folio 139r 122, 162 Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, 3173 – de Rossi 138 122, 161 Vatican, Bibliotheca Apostolica, Ebr. 134, folio 79v 91, 122, 162 (The) Mishnah on which the Palestinian Talmud rests (‫)מתניתא דתלמודא דבני מערבא‬ 161, 273 Nachmanides, Torat Ha-Adam 42a 275 Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana (ed. Buber) 177a 94 Pesiqta Rabbati 5a 129 Rambam (Maimonides) Mishneh Torah. The Book of Service, Beit Habechirah 116, 123 4:12 242 5:17 163 8:2, 4 116, 177

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Regulations for reciting Shema 1:11–12 144 Seder Olam Rabbah 7:2 129, 131

Sifrei Bamidbar, Sifre to Numbers (Kahana) 84 94 142 160 Tosefta Berakhot 4:8

264

Maʿaser Śeni 2:13–15

125

Sheqalim 2:14 2:15 3:6 3:13 3:13–15

13 83 215 143, 215 215

Yoma 1:1 1:2 1:8 2:12 2:14

92 94 276 215 215

Sukkah 3:16

277

Ḥagiga 2:9

284

Menaḥot 13:19

214

Kelim (Baba Qama) 1:7 210, 215, 233 1:11 233 ʾOhalot 4:6

275

Miqwaot 1:1 4:2 4:6 5:5

274 195 283 124

Yadaim 1:9

283

New Testament and Apocrypha Matthew 4:5–7 21:12–14 21:18–24:2

17 17 17

27:45, 50–54 27:51 28:1–3

250 215 250

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-14 08:32:42.

328

Index of Literary Sources

Mark 7:14–53 10:22–24 11:15–17 11:27–13:2 15:43

17 17, 28, 45, 49, 72 17 17 270

Luke 2:21–24 2:41–50 4:9–12 19:45 20:1–21:38

16 16 17 17 17

23:44 23:50

250 270

John 2:15–18

17

Acts 3:2 4:1 5:24–26 21:26–29

17 13 13 70

Protevangelium Iacobi 10:1 215

Greek and Roman Literature Athenaeus of Naucratis

Pliny

Deipnosophistai 5.196–197 266 5.204–6 266 12.538c 266

Natural History 5.70 Polybius

Dio Cassius

Histories 3, 289 31.3.7 266

Historia Romana 27.16.4 14, 270

Suetonius

Diodore of Sicily

Augustus 70.1 251

Bibliotheca 17.16.4 266

Tacitus

Florus Epitome 1.40.30

209, 214, 220

Frontinus Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

3, 20, 289

De Aquis 1.7–8 286 2.127 276 Herodotus History 7.54 139 Pausanias Guide to Ancient Greece 1.22.6 268 10.2–31 264

The Histories 5.5.5 214, 220 5.8.1 3, 289 5.9.1 13 5.12.1 20, 48 Vegetius Epitome of Military Science 4.39.7 134 Vitruvius De Architectura 4.5.1 139 6.7.5 261, 271 10.4.4 194 Xenophon Cyropaedia 8.1.23 139

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-14 08:32:42.

Index of Personal Names

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Abba Shaul ​79, 92 Abba Yose son of Ḥanan ​85 Agrippa, Augustus’ aide ​297 Agrippa I ​14, 16, 20, 64, 91, 118, 266, 269, 270 Agrippa II ​64, 91, 94, 266 Aḥab, king of Israel ​59 Alcimos, high priest ​39 Alexander Jannaeus ​12–14, 19, 21, 38, 41, 46, 56, 113, 176, 220, 277, 285–87 ​ Alexander the Great ​7, 63 Antigonos of Socho ​64 Antiochus III, the Great ​8–11, 36, 37, 63, 65, 67, 70, 76, 77, 86, 190, 292 Antiochus IV, Epiphanius ​9–11, 19, 37, 38, 80, 134, 145, 174 Antiochus V ​39, 56, 76 Antiochus VII, Sidetes ​12, 282 Araunah the Jebusite ​26 Archelaus, Herod’s son ​14, 269, 270 Aristeas of Emmaus, grammateus ​270 Aristobulus II, see also Judas Aristobulus II ​ 13 Artaxerxes I, Achaemenid king ​6 Artaxerxes III, Achaemenid king ​7, 140 Augustus ​15 Bagoses, chief military Persian officer (strategos) ​7, 140 Ben Gurion, Jerusalem council member ​270 Ben Kalba Savoua, Jerusalem council member ​270 Ben Nakdimon, Jerusalem council member ​ 270 Ben Tzitzit, Jerusalem council member ​270 Caesar ​see Julius Caesar Caligula, Roman emperor ​14 Cambyses, son of Cyrus ​137 Cestius, governor of Syria ​70 Claudius, Roman emperor ​15, 118, 270 Crassus, Marcus Licinius, proconsul of Syria ​ 14, 209 Cyrus, Achaemenid king ​4, 5, 8, 30, 33, 139, 177

Darius I, Achaemenid king ​4, 5, 8, 131, 136, 137, 139, 149, 174, 291 Eliezer b. Yaʿacob ​82, 114, 124, 169, 173, 184, 189, 201 Eliezer son of Hyrcanus, Rabbi ​285 Elionaeus son of Cantheras, high priest ​64, 91 Elyehoenai b. Haqqof, high priest  ​64, 91 Eusebius, Church historian, bishop of Caesarea Maritima ​250 Ezra ​6, 64, 91, 131, 132, 274 Florus, governor of Judea ​17 Gabinius, procurator of Syria ​209 Haggai, prophet ​4, 5 Ḥanamel the Egyptian, high priest ​64, 91 Ḥananus son of Ḥananus, high priest ​70 Heliodorus, high rank Seleucid minister ​10 Hecataeus of Abdera, Greek historian ​32, 46 Herod the Great ​11, 12, 14, 20–22, 44, 46, 56, 64, 91, 94, 112, 133, 134, 173, 189, 201, 204, 205, 219, 238, 267, 268, 270, 283, 284, 289 Hyrcanus, son of Tobias ​267 ​ Ishmael b. Phiabi, high priest ​64, 91 Jannaeus, see Alexander Jannaeus Jason, high priest ​10 Jeshua, son of Jehozadak, high priest ​4, 5 Jesus Christ ​16, 17, 49, 270 John II, high priest ​7 John Hyrcanus I ​12, 19, 21, 27, 30, 38, 41, 43, 46, 56, 60, 64, 81, 91, 96, 113, 142, 175, 178, 285–87, 292 John Hyrcanus II ​14, 44 John of Gischala ​17, 18 Jonathan, brother of Judas Maccabeus ​38, 39, 44, 45, 55, 56, 76, 144 Jonathan b. Joseph of Raseiniai, Lithuania ​ 165, 167, 201, 243 Joseph of Arimathea, Jerusalem council member ​270

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-14 08:33:04.

330

Index of Personal Names

Judas Aristobulus ​I ​12 Judas Aristobulus II ​13 Judas Maccabaeus ​11, 12, 37–40, 45, 55, 56, 74, 76, 132, 133 Julius Caesar ​14, 15 Ktesibius of Alexandria, Greek engineer (mid 3rd c.) ​195 Lysias, Seleucid military commander ​39, 56 Malalas, Church historian  ​250 Mattathias Antigonus ​14, 44, 134 Menelaus, high priest ​10 Nabonidus ​4 Neapolitanus, a Roman envoy ​70 Nebuchadnezzar, Babylonian king ​4 Nehemiah ​6, 19, 27, 30–33, 41, 43, 55, 71, 72, 116, 129 Nero, Roman emperor ​17, 271

Pollion (Hillel the Elder) ​284 Polybius ​3, 289 Pompey ​13, 14, 43, 220 Pontius Pilate ​282, 283 Ptolemy II Philadelphus ​7, 63, 266 Ptolemy IV Philopator ​8, 63, 70, 266 Ptolemy VIII ​65 Ptolemy XIII ​238 Ptolemy son of Habubu ​39 Salome Alexandra ​13, 14, 285 Samaias (Shamai) ​284 Seleucus IV Philopator ​8, 10 Sheshbazzar ​4, 5, 174 Simeon, brother of Judas Maccabeus ​12 ​ Simeon I, high priest ​63 Simeon II, the Just, high priest ​63–71 Sosius, Gaius, Roman governor of Syria ​14 Sulpicius Severus, Christian historian ​18 Titus ​17–20, 48, 223, 224

Onias, high priest ​10 Ornan the Jebusite ​116 Orosius, Christian author ​18

Vespasian ​17, 18

Petronius, governor of Syria  ​14 Philo of Alexandria, Jewish philosopher  ​15, 50, 70, 147, 148, 265, 272, 283 Philo of Byzantium, a Hellenistic engineer ​ 188

Yohanan the High Priest, see also John Hyrcanus ​64, 91

Xerxes, Achaemenid king ​139

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Zechariah, prophet ​5, 6, 183 Zerubbabel ​4, 5, 131, 174

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-14 08:33:04.

Index of Geographic Names Aber Nahara satrapy ​137, 139, 140 Abu Mina, Egypt ​194 Abydos, Egypt ​87 Alexandrium ​287 Armant, Egypt ​195 Astypalaia, Greece ​86 Athens ​48, 87, 103, 263–64, 267, 268 Baalbek ​48, 198 Babylon ​4, 136–38, 149 Baetocece (Ḥossn Soleiman), Syria ​238 Beit Sheʿarim ​225 Bet Kerem ​179 Borsippa, Mesopotamia ​138 Boscoreale, Italy ​219 Caesarea Maritima ​19, 195 Corinth ​263 Cosa, Italy ​194, 195 Cypros ​287 Damascus ​48, 178 Delos ​86, 261, 269 Delphi ​264 Dendara, Egypt ​212, 238, 240, 241 Doq (Dagon) ​287 Dura Europos ​217, 224, 269

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Edfu, Egypt ​138, 198, 212, 238 Elephantine ​138 Ephesus ​86, 241 Eretria, Greece ​263 ʿEtam spring ​278, 283, 287 Faium, Egypt  ​195 Ḥatra ​87, 238, 239 Heliopolis, Egypt ​138 Herculaneum  ​194, 219 Hermopolis (Ashmonein), Egypt ​194, 198 Herodium ​267, 283 Ḥorvat Susiya ​225 Hyrcania  ​287 Hyrcania Valley ​100

Jericho ​265–67, 269, 277, 278, 283, 286, 287 Jerusalem – Acra / Akra fortress ​11, 19, 26, 33, 35, 38, 39, 57, 60, 62, 68, 81 – Acra hill ​38, 41, 60, 61, 80, 81 – Ancient topography ​25, 26, 29, 80 – Antonia fortress ​18, 21, 22, 49, 96, 268 – Baris ​21, 32, 41, 44, 91, 97, 103, 146, 268 – City of David ​11, 19, 21, 26, 38, 42, 56 – Council Chamber (bouleterion) ​22, 271 – Double Gate ​41, 45, 53, 55, 60, 103, 112 – Har HaMoriah, see also Mount Zion (Temple Mount) ​25 – Ḥaram al Sharif ​9, 26, 28, 39–41, 57–59, 61, 62, 69, 73, 74, 98–100, 109, 113, 135, 173, 174, 183, 196, 235, 274, 291 – Hulda Gates ​13, 20, 45 – Mount Zion (at present) ​113, 278–280, 282 – Mount Zion (Temple Mount) ​11, 25, 38, 39, 144 – Office of Pinḥas ​190 – Ophel / Ophlas ​26, 41, 80 – Palace of the Hasmonaeans ​21 – prytaneion ​22, 271, 272, 293 – Royal Stoa ​16, 17, 41, 46, 49, 50, 56, 60, 112, 204, 214 – “Solomon’s Hall/Porch” ​28 – Temple structure and components see Subject Index – Triple Gate ​16, 45, 48, 53, 55, 60, 103, 120 – Wilson’s Arch ​113, 123, 247, 249, 250, 254, 271, 293 – Xistos ​22, 271 Kafr Manda, Egypt ​195 Khirbet Abu-Tabaq ​100 Knidos ​264 Kochav Hayarden ​225 Kom Umbo, Egypt ​198 Kourion, Cyprus ​269 Lake Mareotis, Egypt ​265 Luxor, Egypt ​138 Lykosoura, Arcadia ​86

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:53:02.

332

Index of Geographic Names

Machaerus ​267, 287 Madinat Habu, Egypt  ​195 Marea, Egypt ​195 Masada ​261, 267, 287 Miletus ​271 Mount Gerizim ​33, 52, 59, 72, 82, 119, 120, 126, 174 Naʿaran Springs ​283 Naḥal Artas ​283 Nemi, Italy ​195 Olympia ​9, 48, 271, 272 Olynthus ​263 Ostia ​194, 263, 269

Rome, Aqua Marcia  ​286 – Arch of Titus ​19, 217 – ​Temples ​132, 220 Sagalossos ​271 Samaria  ​/ Sebaste ​48, 59, 238, 241 Saqqara, Egypt  ​59, 138 Sardis ​269 ​ Siʿa, Ḥauran ​87 Sidon ​219 Stobi ​269 Syria ​281 Tel Beth Shean ​59 Tel Dan ​28, 59 Termessos ​271 Tzuba, kibbutz  ​100

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Palmyra ​48, 198, 263, 266, 269 Pella, Greece ​263 Pergamon ​70, 111, 112, 263, 271 Petra ​48, 113, 211, 236–38 Philippi ​271 Pompeii ​194, 219, 251, 263, 270 Priene ​271

Qasr el-ʿAbd, Jordan ​267 Qumran Caves ​286

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:53:02.

Index of Subjects Abrogations of Joḥanan the high priest ​145, 276 Ark of Covenant ​5, 129, 222 Aule ​34, 66, 76

Molten Sea of Solomon ​34, 110, 113, 123, 185, 186, 188, 198

Bar-Kokhba coinage ​205, 206, 217, 221–23, 291 “Barqai” ​144 Birah ​30, 32, 55, 71, 91, 97, 98 Brazen altar ​178 Brazen bases (mechonoth) ​ 123 ​

Oracle of the high priest ​5

Cubit length ​41, 111, 112 “Cyrus Cylinder”, decree, memorandum ​4 Day of Atonement ​8, 13, 79, 80, 91, 92, 94, 95, 113, 126, 143, 162, 169, 170, 210, 278, 292 Degrees of holiness ​79 Edict of Rights of Antiochus III ​67–70 Essenes ​147–48, 160, 265 First Temple / Solomon’s Temple ​4–6, 17, 19, 26–28, 33, 34, 55, 71, 80, 116, 123, 131, 132, 134, 135, 137, 139, 140, 144, 150, 174, 178–80, 186, 188, 212, 219, 222, 224, 228, 242, 270, 289 Golden Vine  ​217–25

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

Hanukkah ​11, 16, 49, 129, 131–34, 146 Hieron ​39, 48, 67, 73, 75, 76 Jewish commentators ​83, 85, 96, 110, 121, 123–25, 145, 165, 169–71, 183, 201, 227– 29, 274, 290, 292 Kutim ​63 Mechane / muchni ​110, 142, 168, 181, 193–96 Mesibbah  ​227–44 Miqveh / Miqwa’ot ​9, 22, 46, 67, 74, 95, 124, 126, 127, 162, 169, 170, 249, 250, 274, 277

Nyzok ​273–76, 281, 285

Parairtin (ex-high priests) ​53, 92–96, 100, 103 Passover ​15–17, 113, 131, 179, 198, 204 Peribolos ​34, 39, 44, 46, 66, 67, 73–77 Peshitta ​ 228 Pharisees ​13, 17, 94, 273–77, 279, 281, 284, 285, 290 Priestly house of Zadoq ​12, 175 Red heifer ​56, 64, 91–95 Returnees of Zion ​132, 134, 136, 139, 149 Sadducees ​13, 17, 94, 273–277, 281, 284, 285, 290 Samaritans ​63 Sanhedrin ​16, 133, 169, 281, 284, 285 Septuagint ​ 7, 131, 228, 266 Seven supervisors of the Temple ​83 Shavuʿot (Pentecost) ​15, 16 Shema prayer ​143–44, 291 Symposium ​262–65 Tabernacles (Sukkot) ​4, 12, 15, 17, 124, 133, 150, 179, 221, 277 Tamid sacrifice ​94, 95, 141, 146, 160, 291 Teichos ​ 39 Temple chambers (cells) – Abtinas ​83, 94, 162 – Beit HaDeshen ​103 – Boulevtin ​92, 94 – Exile / Golah, see also Gullah ​119, 122, 123, 161, 162 – Gullah ​117, 118, 122–24, 126, 127, 161, 162, 168, 169, 181, 183, 188, 196, 292 – Hewn Stone (Gazith) ​122–25, 127, 142, 143, 161–63, 169, 170, 190, 281, 292 – Parhedrin / palhedrin ​91–96, 100, 101, 103, 162

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:52:49.

334

Index of Subjects – Corinthian ​140 – Flame, see also Nitzotz ​83, 88, 121 – Firstlings ​16, 83, 85, 88, 121, 124, 126, 292 – House of the Hearth ​83, 88, 120–22, 125– 27, 142, 146, 179 – Jechoniah ​88 – Kindling (ʿAzara) ​83, 85, 88, 121, 124 – Kindling (Railing) ​88, 121, 126 – nameless (on the west of the Railing) ​88 – Nikanor’s (ʿAzara) ​83, 88, 121, 140 – Nikanor’s (Railing) ​85, 88 – Nitzotz ​120, 121, 125, 126, 127, 143 – Offering (ʿAzara) ​83, 88, 121, 124, 126 – Offering (Railing)  ​85, 88 – Song ​85, 88, 121 – Upper ​85, 88, 121, 125, 147, 170 – Water (ʿAzara) ​83, 88, 93, 95, 113, 114, 117, 118, 120, 121, 124, 126, 127, 162, 168, 169, 181, 184, 188, 189, 196 – Water (Railing) ​85, 88 – Women’s ​85, 88 Temple structure and components ​201–15 – Dimensions ​207 Therapeutai ​147–48, 160 Two tablets of the Law ​5 Tyropoeon valley wooden bridge ​14 Water-Wheels ​193–99 Zoroastrians ​139

Copyright © 2024. Mohr Siebeck. All rights reserved.

– Parwah ​95, 113, 120, 122, 125–27, 161, 162, 170, 171, 241, 242, 292 – Rinsing ​122, 123, 125–27, 161, 162, 165, 170, 171, 181, 188, 198, 241, 242 – Salt ​121–23, 126, 127, 161–63, 165, 170, 171, 292 – Wood ​93, 95, 122–24, 161–63, 169, 225, 292 – ​House of the Laver ​82, 135, 142, 146, 173–91 – ​House of Stone (beth even) ​91–103, 292 – House of Utensils  ​82, 135, 173–91 Temple cisterns – Acra cistern (bor hqr / Hakar Well) ​38, 60, 193, 198, 199 – Bir Rumaneh ​235 – Gullah ​55, 119, 123, 135, 168, 169, 181– 84, 193, 196, 292 – no. 1 ​55, 103, 123 – no. 3 ​67, 121 – no. 5 ​27, 53, 55, 67, 100, 102, 108, 111– 15, 118, 119, 123, 126, 127, 135, 148, 168, 169, 171, 174, 181–88, 190, 196, 291, 292 – no. 7 (“Large Sea”, al-bahr) ​56, 74 – no.  8 ​74 – nos. 37, 34, and 2 ​53, 67, 98, 103, 292 Temple courts: Women’s ​17, 32, 52, 65, 108, 117–19, 140, 147 Temple gates – Brass  ​118

Patrich, Joseph. The Jerusalem Temple and the Temple Mount : Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2024. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=7425553. Created from nottingham on 2024-04-08 08:52:49.