Chanukah: Finding the Oil

One of the most widely-known miracles of the Chanukah story involves the finding of the flask of pure oil. When the Jews returned to the Temple it appeared that all of the sealed containers of pure olive oil had been contaminated by the Syrian-Greeks and there was none left with which to light the Menorah. By Divine Providence a single sealed flask of oil was found and this miraculously fueled the lamps of the Menorah for seven days while more oil was prepared.

From the description of the Temple given in Tractate Middos (the tractate dedicated to recording the measurements of the Temple) we learn that the main storage area for oil was located in the southwest chamber of the Women's Courtyard – the Chamber of the Oil. Certainly all of the containers in this chamber would have been defiled, and it is more likely that the flask was found somewhere else. Here I present two opinions given by the commentators as to where this flask may have been found.

1. In the Sanctuary
The Talmud states that "when the Greeks entered the Sanctuary they defiled all of the oil in the Sanctuary." From here we learn that oil was stored in the Sanctuary as well. There were thirty-eight cells, or small rooms, built around three sides of the Sanctuary and the special olive oil used for the Menorah may have been stored here.

The Sanctuary. Area of the
small rooms is highlighted.

Some maintain that the flask of oil of the Chanukah story was found in the Sanctuary. There was a room in the Sanctuary (possibly one of the cells) or, according to a slightly different version, a niche in the wall, which was closed off by a door and sealed with the seal of the High Priest (see Siddur of Rokeach, Chanukah; Orchos Chaim, Hil. Chanukah 1; Kol Bo 44). This area had somehow escaped the notice of the Syrian-Greeks and when it was later opened by the Jews it was found to contain a single flask of olive oil. According to this view, it was not the flask itself which was sealed with the seal of the High Priest but rather the area in which it was found.

2. Beneath the Altar

Southwest corner of the Altar

At the southwest corner of the Altar's top were two receptacles where the wine and water libations were poured. The libations flowed down through the Altar into a deep subterranean cavity called the Shissin. Once every seventy years the Kohanim would enter the Shissin through an access hole in the Courtyard floor in order to empty it of the congealed wine. One opinion maintains that the sealed flask of oil was found within the Shissin, apparently hidden there by a quick-thinking Kohen before the Temple was taken (Otzar Hamidrashim, Chanukah, p.193). As for why the Jews were exploring the Shissin at this time, the Altar was in the process of being rebuilt and it is therefore likely that they stumbled upon this flask of oil as they were removing the old stones from the lowest level of the Altar.

Chanukah: Rebuilding the Altar

Rebuilding the Altar of the Temple

One of the more shocking discoveries made by the Maccabees after expelling the Syrian-Greeks from the Temple was that the Outer Altar had been used for idol worship. Although the stones of the Altar were attached to the ground and legally impervious to the defilement of idol worship, the Jews felt that it was unconscionable to resume the holy sacrificial service on such stones. One of the lesser-known facts of the Chanukah story is that amidst the cleaning up of the Temple, searching for pure oil, and assembling a new Menorah, the Jews also dismantled the entire Altar and rebuilt it using new stones. See this earlier class for a more detailed description of the Outer Altar.

The stones of the original Altar were stored within the Hall of the Fire, a large structure built into the northern wall of the Courtyard. The main purpose of the Hall was to serve as sleeping quarters for the watch of Kohanim currently on duty and it also provided them a place to warm themselves during the day, a necessary amenity since they had to walk around barefoot on cold marble floors as they performed the sacrificial service. The large warming fire located here gave it its name.

Chamber of Receipts. Three of the original
Altar stones are displayed above the fireplace.

In each of the four corners of Hall of the Fire were smaller chambers. The northeast contained the Chamber of Receipts where the Kohanim would issue receipts to individuals purchasing wine, oil, and flour from the Temple treasury. It was in this chamber that the stones of the Altar were stored. Now, it was impossible to fit a volume of stones the size of the Altar into this very small chamber. It is therefore likely that this chamber had a massive basement within the tunnels beneath the floor of the Courtyard where the large majority of the stones were stored, while some of the stones were left on display in the chamber upstairs to serve as a reminder of the miraculous events of the Chanukah story.

Chanukah: The Cheil and the Soreg

Introduction

At the heart of the Chanukah story is the Holy Temple. It was here that the persecution of the Jews began under the rule of Antiochus who ordered that the Temple be desecrated and converted into a place of pagan worship. Mattisyahu, son of Yochanan the High Priest, fled to the countryside where he became the father of the Jewish resistance. His sons and followers, the Maccabees, fought bravely against all odds and were aided by Divine Providence to eventually return to Jerusalem and bring the Temple back to Jewish hands. It is their miraculous victories and efforts to restore the sacrificial service to its earlier glory which we commemorate on the holiday of Chanukah.

In these upcoming posts I would like to explore the connection between the physical structure of the Second Temple and some of the core elements of the Chanukah story.

The Cheil and the Soreg

The Cheil and Soreg outside of the Women's Courtyard

Standing at a distance of 10 cubits outside the walls of the Courtyard on all four sides was a low wall, half a cubit high. This wall, as well as the area between it and the Courtyard walls, was referred to as the Cheil. A wooden latticework fence, 10 handbreadths high, was built atop this wall and was called the Soreg.

The purpose of both the wall and the fence was to mark the point beyond which no one contaminated with corpse-tumah, nor any non-Jew, could pass. Archaeologists have discovered one of the marker stones from the Cheil and the inscription (written in Greek) reads, "Any foreigner who passes beyond the wall and fence surrounding the Temple has only himself to blame for the fact that his death will follow."

Marker stone from the Cheil

When the Syrian-Greek kings occupied the Temple during the years leading up to the events of the Chanukah story they made thirteen breaches in the Soreg fence to demonstrate their disdain at having been barred from entering. After the Maccabees regained control of the Temple they repaired these breaches and the Sages instituted that anyone who passes by one of the repaired breaches must bow down to give thanks to God for destroying the foreign regime and abolishing their evil decrees.

Al Hanissim ("For the Miracles") is a prayer of thanksgiving recited during the holiday which gives a brief synopsis of all of the historical events of the Chanukah story. One of the lines reads, "They breached the walls of my Tower," a reference to the enemies of the Jews breaching the Soreg fence which surrounded the Temple (i.e., "Tower"). While the heathen marauders were bent upon breaking down the dividing lines between all nations of the world, our Sages underscored the importance of preserving our Jewish identity by specifically choosing to include the breaching of the Soreg in our liturgy.

The Chassidic masters are quoted as saying that this incident served as the precedent for eating latkehs on Chanukah. To commemorate the repairs made to the breached Soreg the Jewish people contrived a dish – the potato pancake – which resembled a patch (as in a patch on a garment). This Chanukah staple was originally called a latteh, which is the Yiddish word for patch, and over time this became latkeh.

The Mystery of Bar Kokhba by Leibel Reznick

I was recently introduced to one of R' Leibel Reznick's books titled The Mystery of Bar Kokhba (Jason Aronson, 1996). In it the author attempts to shed some light on the enigmatic figure of Shimon Bar Kochba, the military leader who led the Jewish revolt against Rome some decades after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.

One of the more intriguing theories which R' Reznick presents is that Bar Kochba not only recaptured Jerusalem from Roman hands but proceeded to build the Third Temple upon the Temple Mount. Included among his many proofs for this theory is the fact that the raised platform which exists today on the Temple Mount is precisely the correct size to have served as the Courtyard floor of the Third Temple. He writes that this platform measures 540 feet from east to west by 550 feet from north to south and is thus too large to have been the 187x135-amah Courtyard of the Second Temple and too small to have been the 500x500-amah Temple Mount of the Second Temple. Rather, the raised platform may have been the Courtyard of the Third Temple built by Bar Kochba which, according to the prophecy of Ezekiel, measured 346 amos from north to south and 340 amos from east to west.

R' Reznick does list some counter arguments to the claim that a Third Temple was built in Jerusalem. To those I would like to add the following observations:

1. The platform is not rectangular.
The photo below shows the Temple Mount along with the approximate dimensions of the raised platform, measured using Google's Distance Measurement Tool.

The raised platform upon the Temple Mount (Google Maps)

Now, although the measurements are approximate, the platform is obviously not rectangular but trapezoidal and the dimensions stated by R' Reznick only hold true on two of the four sides (the north and west). For this platform to have been the rectangular Courtyard of the Third Temple we must assume that, over time, the structure either eroded or was dismantled, producing the current shape of the platform today.

2. The Courtyard of the Third Temple does not measure 346 by 340 amos.
A careful reading of Tosafos Yom Tov, whom R' Reznick cites as the source for his dimensions of the Third Temple, reveals that the interior of the Courtyard measures only 312 amos from north to south and 317 amos from east to west. See Diagram A below.

Even if we assume that the raised platform encompasses the thickness of the Courtyard walls - which were 6 amos thick - this would result in an area of only 324 by 329 amos. See Diagram B below.

Another point which emerges here is that the Third Temple Courtyard is longer from east to west than from north to south, while the platform dimensions are the opposite, being longer from north to south than from east to west. The approach (apparently) taken by the author to correct this inconsistency was to include the dimensions of the large entrance halls built outside the Courtyard gates in the north, south, and east. Each hall was 11 amos long, so by including the two halls in the north and south (22 amos) and the one hall in the east (11 amos), the "Courtyard" now measures 346 by 340 amos. See Diagram C.

Dimensions of the Third Temple Courtyard: Three Possibilities

3. This theory is inconsistent with R' Reznick's view regarding the Altar.
One of R' Reznick's other theories is that the Dome of the Rock is not, as popularly believed, the place of the Holy of Holies but rather the location of the Outer Altar. The location of the Outer Altar was the same in the First, Second, and (speedily in our days) the Third Temple, thus if we are to maintain that the current raised platform represents the Courtyard of the Third Temple then the location of the Altar would be at its center. As seen in the overlay below, the center of the Third Temple does not coincide with the Dome of the Rock.

Plan of the Third Temple overlayed upon the Temple Mount

View of the Chamber of the Nazirites

During Temple times, an individual could accept upon themselves the vow of a nazirite. A nazirite is a man or woman who, for a set period of time, does not drink wine, cut their hair, or contract corpse-tumah. When the term of their vow is complete the individual was required to come to the Temple and offer certain sacrifices. The meat of the offering was brought to the Chamber of the Nazirites located in the southeast corner of the Women's Courtyard. In this chamber the meat was cooked and the nazirite would receive a haircut and then the cut hair would be thrown into the fire beneath the pot cooking the offering. Nazirites were not permitted to eat their offerings in this chamber but would take them out of the Temple into the city, either to prevent overcrowding in the Women's Courtyard or because it was more appropriate to eat inside a room with a roof and not under the open sky.

Location of the Nitzotz Chamber

The Chamber of Nitzotz [ניצוץ] was located at the westernmost gate in the northern wall of the Courtyard and consisted of a terrace extending out above the gate. This terrace was left open to the sky while the area beneath it, in front of the gate, was enclosed by three walls. This chamber was one of the locations where guards were posted in the Temple: a Kohen guard stood above on the terrace while a Levi assistant stood below on ground level. On the ground floor of this chamber the Kohanim maintained a fire which was kept burning constantly and would be used to relight the Altar fire should it ever be extinguished.

There is a debate among the commentators whether the Chamber of Nitzotz was located on the outside of the Courtyard (north of the wall) or the inside (south of the wall). This debate may be partially resolved based on the translation of the word nitzotz. Some maintain that it means spark, on account of the fire which was kept burning in this chamber, while others maintain that it means ray of sunlight since the sun would shine through the numerous fenestrations in the back wall of this chamber (opposite the gate) and illuminate its interior (Rosh). I would like to show that according to the latter opinion this chamber must have been located on the interior of the Courtyard.

If the Chamber of Nitzotz was outside the Courtyard then the wall opposite the gate would be the chamber's northern wall. Since, in the northern hemisphere, the sun always travels in the southern portion of the sky, the northern wall of this (or any) chamber would never see any direct sunlight during the large majority of the year. The only exception would be during the longest days of the summer. During the summer the sun rises in the northeast and sets in the northwest, so for a few hours in the mornings and evenings the sun would be in the northern part of the sky and able to shine into the openings of the northern wall.

It would be something of a misnomer to call this the "Chamber of the Ray" if it only receives direct rays of sunlight for such a limited time during the year (unless the intent is literally lashon sagi nahar). When we take into account one further fact it makes it all but impossible that this chamber was located in the north. As noted by Rambam and others, there was a roof covering the entire expanse of the Temple Mount up to the Temple walls. Any chamber just outside the Courtyard walls would have therefore been in shadow the entire day all year round.

Placing the Chamber of Nitzotz within the Courtyard avoids the shadow of the Temple Mount roof and also has the "wall of many fenestrations" in the south and exposed to sunlight. I was curious, though, about the shadow of the Sanctuary Building and the Courtyard walls which might affect the amount of light reaching the Chamber of Nitzotz and so I prepared three sun studies to examine the effect of the shadows within the Courtyard on this chamber. In the first one [Winter] we are looking at the Courtyard from above, with the Chamber of Nitzotz in the upper left corner and the Sanctuary Building to the bottom and right of center. Here the shadow of the Sanctuary Building does, in fact, block sunlight from the chamber during the early hours of the morning, although the chamber remains in direct sunlight for most of the day until the evening when the shadow of the western Courtyard wall falls across it.


In the sun study for Spring (which would also apply to the Fall) the sun is higher in the sky and the shadow of the Sanctuary Building covers the Chamber of Nitzotz for the entire morning (compare with the Winter sun study). Here the chamber is in direct sunlight for only a few hours in the afternoon.


In the sun study for Summer the shadow of the Sanctuary does not encroach upon the chamber at all, leaving it in direct sun all the way until evening when it is finally overtaken by the shadow of the western Courtyard wall. All in all, the Chamber of Nitzotz receives a great deal of sunlight through its southern wall.

---

SUMMARY According to the view that the word "nitzotz" means "ray of sunlight" the Chamber of Nitzotz must have been located on the interior of the Courtyard.

---

Choice of Scale in the Lego® Model

When I first started thinking about building a model of the Temple out of Lego^® bricks, choosing the appropriate scale was an important consideration. It became obvious very quickly that a tabletop model would lack too many of the finer details since there are no Lego^® bricks small enough to model them.

Scale Size of an Amah

Rather than pick an arbitrary scale such as 1:50 or 1:100 I wanted to use a scale where the basic unit of measurement in the Temple - the amah - corresponds to a standard Lego^® brick. The smallest Lego^® brick for this purpose is the 1x1 tile which measures 8 mm (0.31 inches) to a side. Using the 1x1 tile as the equivalent of a one-amah floor tile, the Main Courtyard (135x187 amos) would be roughly 4x5 feet and the height of the Sanctuary Building (100 amos) would be almost 3 feet. Although already bigger than any Lego^® set you can buy, there are some important features which would be difficult (but perhaps not impossible) to model, such as the steps - all of which are half an amah tall and half an amah deep.

The next larger brick is the 2x2 tile which is 16 mm (0.63 inches) to a side. With this as a one-amah tile, the Main Courtyard would be 7x10 feet and the Sanctuary Building would be over 5 feet tall. In this scale it is much easier to build important details into the model, and the model as a whole will have a lot more presence, giving viewers a greater sense of what it might have felt like to stand in the Temple. A model built to this scale is approximately 1:29.

Example

To make sure that my chosen scale would work even for the smaller details, I decided to build a prototype of the Menorah. The Menorah stood 3 amos tall, which in this scale comes to just under 2 inches. Working with my existing Lego^® collection, I hit upon the design shown below. I tried a number of models with individual arms, three on each side, to hold the lamps, although none of these really worked for me (but I would gladly take suggestions).

[Lego^® enthusiasts will notice that the model is built studs down. This approach allowed for a number of additional and accurate details, such as open receptacles on top for the seven lamps, use of the 1x1 slopes to smoothly connect the arms to the body, and the studs on the 2x2 plate serving as the base give the impression of feet.]

Menorah modeled in Bricksmith

Lego^® is a trademark of the LEGO Group of companies which does not sponsor, authorize or endorse this site

Ashes of the Parah Adumah

In Temple times the concept of tumah and taharah [ritual purity] was a daily concern, affecting people, utensils, and food. It was given special attention at this time of year as people began preparing to ascend to the Temple for the Festival of Succos and needed to be tahor [ritually pure] in order to do so. Tumah [contamination] comes in many forms and its severity depends upon the source of the contamination. The most severe form of tumah is that which derives from contact with, or being under the same roof as, a human corpse. According to Jewish law the only way to become purified from corpse tumah is to be sprinkled with spring water which has been mixed with the ashes of a parah adumah [red cow].

Mount of Olives (Wikimedia Commons)

The preparation of the parah adumah took place on the Mount of Olives east of the Temple. After the cow was slaughtered and burned, its ashes were divided into three parts. One third of the ashes was kept in a secure location on the Mount of Olives itself, another third was kept in the Temple (see below), and the remaining ashes were distributed among the twenty-four watches of Kohanim. The leaders of these watches would take the ashes to their hometowns in order to provide purification to people in their region of the country, thereby sparing them the need to travel all the way to Jerusalem.

The ashes of the parah adumah were stored in a stone jug
just outside the gate leading into the Women's Courtyard.

The stone jug holding the ashes stored in the Temple was kept in a niche in the wall just outside the gate of the Women's Courtyard (Tiferes Yisrael to Parah 3:3 #23).

Which Temple is Tractate Middos Describing?

Tractate Middos describes the Second Temple, but it is not immediately obvious which Second Temple is being described, for this building underwent a major renovation during which some modifications were introduced to the overall design. At the conclusion of the Babylonian exile, the Jews returned to Jerusalem in 353 BCE and built the Second Temple. This structure stood until 19 BCE when it was taken down and built anew by the Roman governor Herod (See Bava Basra 3b-4a for the story of why Herod took it upon himself to rebuild the Temple.) His purpose was simply to refurbish the Temple which had fallen into disrepair and in this he was successful, as the Gemara states, “Whoever has not seen the Temple [as rebuilt by Herod] has not seen a majestic building” (Sukkah 51b). Even so, there is evidence that he engineered more than just aesthetic improvements. A comparison of the two first-hand accounts of the Second Temple — Tractate Middos written by the Tanna R' Eliezer ben Yaakov and the works of Flavius Josephus — reveals a number of significant differences. These differences collectively suggest that Tractate Middos and Josephus are describing two separate structures. Consider the following:

1. Middos 2:1 states that the the Temple Mount measured 500 amos by 500 amos, while Josephus writes that Herod undertook to rebuild the Temple “larger in compass” and so expanded the original dimensions of the Temple Mount (Antiquities, XV 11:1). The current shape of the Temple Mount (as rebuilt by Herod) is trapezoidal and measures 1601 feet on the west, 922 feet on the south, 1530 feet on the east, and 1042 feet on the north (Resnick, Holy Temple). Contemporary opinions on the size of an amah are in the range of 18-24 inches; 500 amos would therefore be equivilant to between 750 and 1000 feet. Thus, not only is the Herodian Temple Mount not square, but its eastern and western sides are clearly longer than 500 amos.

2. Middos 1:3 states that there was one gate in the western wall of the the Temple Mount, while Josephus says that there were four (Antiquities, XV 11:5).

Israel Museum model of the Herodian Second Temple. To the left of center is the western Temple Mount wall and the elevated walkways provide access to two of the four gates leading into the Herodian Temple Mount from this side.

3. Middos 2:6 states that there were two gates in the western wall of the Courtyard, while Josephus does not mention any gates in this wall.

4. Middos 1:3 states that the eastern gate of the the Temple Mount featured above it a design of Shushan, the Persian capital. According to most commentators (Rav, Tosafos Yom Tov, Rambam, Meleches Shlomo) the purpose of this design was to instill in the people an awe of the Persian Empire which controlled the region at the time. It would be a strange thing indeed for Herod, a Roman governor, to reconstruct this monument paying tribute to a defeated foreign power.

     Aside from the examples above which come from the Mishnah itself, Tiferes Yisrael's commentary (whose view I follow in my computer model) also deviates from the account of Josephus and the archeological record:

5. In Middos 2:5 §37 he concludes that there was but one gate, located in the east, which provided access to the Women's Courtyard from the Temple Mount, while Josephus writes that there were additional gates in the north and south (Wars, V 5:2).

Israel Museum model showing the Women's Courtyard from the northeast. Aside from the entrance into the Women's Courtyard from the east there were additional entrances in its northern and southern walls.

6. In Middos Diagram §8 he writes that the entire expanse of the the Temple Mount up to the walls of the Temple was covered by a roof, while Josephus makes no mention of what was certainly a  remarkable architectural achievement.

7. In Middos 2:3 §26 he writes that all the gateways of the Temple had frames with diagonal cornerpieces, copying the design used by King Solomon in the First Temple, while archaeological evidence shows that typical Herodian gateways lacked such a feature.

Israel Museum model, southern wall of the Temple Mount, showing typical Herodian-style gateways.

8. In Middos 1:6 §(5) he writes that the walls of the Temple were comprised of a repeating pattern of three courses of stone followed by one course of wood, while Josephus and the archaeological evidence show the walls to be of solid stone.

---

SUMMARY A comparison of the text of Tractate Middos and the works of Josephus indicates that the the two sources are describing different buildings.

---

Columns of the Temple

Just inside the walls of the Temple Mount ran a cedar-covered portico supported by marble columns.

View of the Israel Museum Temple model. Columns of the Temple Mount
are visible on the left side of this photo.

Josephus writes that the columns of the Herodian Temple were hewn from single blocks of white marble whose natural beauty rendered additional carvings or painting unnecessary. In Herod's palace at Masada there are similar columns, each of which was comprised of drum-shaped sections which were fitted together and plastered. This outer surface was then carved and painted to appear as a single piece of stone. The same technique may have been used in the Temple, fooling the eye of Josephus and testifying to the Herodian artisans' mastery of their craft.

The design of the columns which I use in my computer model is based on archeological evidence found in Persepolis (in modern Iran), the capital of the Persian Empire. The Jewish artisans who returned from the Persian-held lands to Jerusalem may have borrowed elements of the royal architecture they saw in Persepolis and incorporated this style into the columns of the Second Temple.

Column of the Second Temple

The columns stood 25 amos tall and each measured "as wide as three men can reach." A man’s reach is about 4 amos, thus the columns had a circumference of 12 amos and a diameter of 3.8 amos. The columns were spaced approximately 15 amos apart (on centers) and arranged in three rows along the walls of the Temple Mount, with the first row of columns engaged with (partially set into) those walls.

Sefer Ezras Kohanim — ספר עזרת כהנים

The work Ezras Kohanim by R' Yehoshua Yosef HaKohen (originally printed in Warsaw, 1873) is an indispensable tool and resource for any serious student of Tractate Middos. The author cites an impressive variety of sources related to the Mishnah, many of them hard to find and/or out of print, and spends much time analyzing the various opinions, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of each. There are also numerous diagrams throughout the text.

This work was recently reprinted in a two-volume set by Mifal Torah Hamikdash, under the guidance of Rabbi Avrohom Yeshayah Neuwirth. The difference between the printings available up till now and this new one is like night and day and much credit is due Rabbi Neuwirth for all of his efforts in making this remarkable sefer more accessible to the public.

Animated Temple Tour Intro

In addition to the still images which I use in my Beis Hamikdash slideshows, I have also been interested in using the same virtual model to create an animated tour of the Mikdash. Here is an idea I have for part of the opening title sequence. Like all of my other 3D shots, this is modeled and rendered in Cinema 4D.

View of the Short Columns

To the north of the Altar, within the butchering area, were eight short columns from which the sacrificial animals would be hung for flaying. The columns were shorter than a man’s height and topped by a square piece of heavy cedar. This block of wood was not fastened to the columns but remained in place due to its own weight. Along three sides of the cedar block, except for the western side, were affixed a row of three iron hooks. One handbreadth of the hook protruded from the block and 2 handbreadths were embedded in the wood.

View of the Salt Chamber

Early in the morning a Kohen prepares a supply of salt for the day's service.

Shown is the interior of the Salt Chamber. It was located in the southeastern corner of the Courtyard and served as a repository of a large quantity of salt. The Temple used this salt for three main purposes: 1) to apply to every offering which was burned on the Altar; 2) to sprinkle on the Altar's ramp to absorb the oils and blood which spilled there and thereby prevent the Kohanim from slipping; 3) to tan the hides of sacrificial animals.



salt2 from Yoav Elan on Vimeo.

Sun Study of the Temple Walls: Other Issues

In the previous post I used a sun study of the Temple walls to help determine whether the interior wall height of the Courtyard was 40 amos or 70 amos. As I described there, this was based on the premise that the second row of rings from the Altar must be exposed to direct sunlight even on the shortest day of winter. After watching the sun study animation I thought that this criterion could be used in other places where the exact Temple measurements are disputed to rule out one or more of the opinions.

The first question I wanted to address is how the 24 rings to the north of the Altar were oriented. The Mishnah tells us that the rings were arranged on the floor of the Courtyard in a number of rows running from east to west and that these rows either contained 4 rings each or 6 rings each. All agree that the total length from north to south allowed for the rings is 24 amos and that the distance between the Altar and the first row of rings is 8 amos.


• Opinion #1 Each row had 6 rings from east to west. There were 4 rows in total and the space between the row centers would be 8 amos. This would put the second row of rings 16 amos (8 + 8 = 16) away from the northern edge of the Altar.


• Opinion #2 Each row had 4 rings from east to west. There were 6 rows in total and the space between the row centers would be 4.8 amos. This would put the second row of rings 12.8 amos (8 + 4.8 = 12.8) away from the northern edge of the Altar.

There does not seem to be any indication in the sources that the orientation of the rows would make any practical difference. If, however, it can be shown  that one of these orientations fails to have the second row of rings in full sunlight during the shortest days of winter then this orientation may be ruled out.

Once the height of the Courtyard walls have been set at 40 amos, the shadow cast by the Altar becomes the most influential factor. The closer the second row of rings is to the Altar, the more likely it is to fall within that shadow, and it is therefore Opinion #2 which stands to be eliminated. Well, upon closer inspection I see that Opinion #2 is the one I used in my original sun study and the second row of rings was clearly in direct sunlight. So it emerges that both opinions meet the criterion and neither can be eliminated on the basis of the Altar's shadow.

The other question is the north-to-south placement of the Altar within the Courtyard. Although the dimensions of the Courtyard are given in the Mishnah, some details are omitted, and one of those details is how far the Altar was from the southern Courtyard wall. Various opinions are given among the commentators, but the shortest distance on record is that of the Tanna, R' Eliezer ben Yaakov, who maintains that the Altar was only 5.5 amos from the southern wall. If it can be shown that when the Altar is this close to the south, the shadow of the southern wall falls upon the second row of rings then this opinion may be ruled out. Here is another sun study animation with the Altar placed according to the opinion of R' Eliezer ben Yaakov:



As it turns out, the shadow of the southern wall does not approach the rings at all, and thus we must conclude that the sun study cannot shed any light upon the issue of where the Altar was placed.

---

SUMMARY The sun study of the Temple walls does not help determine the orientation of the 24 rings north of the Altar nor does it help determine the north-south placement of the Altar.

---