OPINIONS: The Mishnah (4:6) teaches that the area of the Heichal was 100 by 100 Amos, with a height of 100 Amos. The Mishnah continues and describes the different components that comprised the 100-Amah height. It begins by saying that the Otem comprised the first six Amos of the Heichal's height.

What was the Otem?

(a) The RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) writes that the Otem was a solid building that was built beneath the ground as a foundation, on which the walls were erected.

The Rambam (in Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 4:3) also writes that a solid, closed area six Amos high was built to serve as a foundation for the Heichal.

(b) The KESEF MISHNEH (ibid.) cites the RASH who writes that the Otem was like a threshold six Amos high above the ground. It was a solid building, like a sealed well. The Rash writes that there were steps next to the Ulam (immediately in front of the Heichal) via which one walked from the Ulam up to the Heichal, as well as steps one used to descend from the Heichal.

The Kesef Mishneh writes that the Rash explains this way because if the Otem was inside the ground as the Rambam writes, then the Mishnah would not have included it in the measurement of the height of the Heichal. (The TOSFOS YOM TOV (DH ha'Otem) explains that since the Mishnah states the height of the Heichal, it presumably is referring to the visible height of the Heichal, above the ground.) The Kesef Mishneh adds that since the Rambam writes (in Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah) that the Otem was like a foundation, it is reasonable to assume that the Rambam maintains that the Otem was not buried in the ground, similar to the explanation of the Rash.

(c) The TOSFOS YOM TOV questions the Kesef Mishneh's assertion that the Rambam agrees with the Rash. The Rambam (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 6:1) writes that "the Mikdash was not level, but was built like a slope." The Rambam proceeds to describe how one gradually ascends when walking from the Eastern Gate of the Har ha'Bayis until one reaches the Ulam. However, at the end of his description (6:4), the Rambam states that the Ulam and the Heichal were on the same level! Consequently, it cannot be that there were stairs between the Ulam and the threshold of the Heichal.

Therefore, the Tosfos Yom Tov explains that according to the Rambam, the Ulam was also built on the Otem. The Otem was six Amos higher than the area in front of it. This indeed is expressed by the Mishnah earlier (3:6, 36a), which says that there were twelve steps between the Mizbe'ach and the Ulam, and each step was a half-Amah high, making the total height six Amos.

The Tosfos Yom Tov explains that the reason why the Rambam writes (in Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah) that the Otem was only "like" a foundation, implying that it did not actually serve as a foundation, is that it was not an ordinary foundation for a building. A normal foundation is entirely underground. The Otem, in contrast, was recognizable from the outside of the Ulam as an elevated area. (D. BLOOM)

QUESTION: The Mishnah (5:3) describes the six Lishkos that were in the Azarah. One of them was the Beis ha'Parvah, which had a Mikvah atop its roof in which the Kohen Gadol performed his immersions on Yom Kippur.

The Mishnah in Yoma (30a) says that the Mikvah atop Beis ha'Parvah was in an area that was Kadosh, sanctified.

How could the roof be a sanctified area? The Gemara in Pesachim (86a) teaches that the roofs above the Azarah were not sanctified.

(a) TOSFOS in Yoma (31a, DH v'Chulan) answers that the Beis ha'Parvah was built underground, and its rooftop was level with the ground of the Azarah. Rooftops which are level with the ground of the Azarah are sanctified, as the Gemara in Pesachim says. (See Insights to Yoma 25:1:b.)

(b) The RA'AVAD (Tamid 30b-31a) says that the reason why the rooftops in the Azarah were not sanctified is that when the structures were built initially, prior to the sanctification of the area, the roofs served as Mechitzos, partitions that prevented the Kedushah of the Azarah from reaching the area above the rooftops. The rest of the airspace of the Azarah (inside the rooms that had roofs, and in the outside areas that had no roofs) was sanctified.

When the Beis ha'Parvah was built, the airspace above it had already become sanctified (since it was built some time after the rest of the Beis ha'Mikdash was built), and thus the roof did not serve as a Mechitzah. Consequently, the area above the Beis ha'Parvah remained sanctified. (Alternatively, when the Azarah was initially built, the builders had positive intent to leave the rooftops unsanctified. All other areas, though, became sanctified, including the airspace. As a result, when any structure was built later the airspace above its roof remained sanctified.)

This approach explains why the Beis ha'Parvah was named for the person who built it (see Insights to Yoma 35:1), while no other part of the Azarah was named for a particular person. Since the Beis ha'Parvah was built later and was not part of the original construction of the Azarah, it had an independent identity and assumed the name of the person who built it. (M. KORNFELD)

(c) The EZRAS KOHANIM (Midos 5:3, DH Shalosh #1 and DH v'Al Gago) suggests that the roof of the Beis ha'Parvah was sanctified because it contained a door which led to the sanctified area of the Azarah. Since the roof opened into the sanctified Azarah, the roof itself became sanctified. (The Gemara in Pesachim (86a), however, implies that the only time a roof is sanctified is when it is equal to ground level.) (See also Insights to Yoma 30:2.)

OPINIONS: The Mishnah (5:3) describes the six Lishkos that were in the Azarah. One of them was the Beis ha'Parvah, which had a Mikvah atop its roof in which the Kohen Gadol performed his immersions on Yom Kippur. The Mishnah in Yoma (30a) says that the Mikvah atop Beis ha'Parvah was in an area that was Kadosh, sanctified (see previous Insight).

The Gemara in Yoma (35a) says that this chamber was named after Parvah the "Amgusha," the "magician."

Why was part of the holy Beis ha'Mikdash named after a sorcerer?

(a) RASHI in Yoma writes that it was Parvah who built this chamber. The ROSH here adds that Parvah must have been a Jew, because a Nochri would not have been allowed to build a part of the Beis ha'Mikdash (see Shekalim 4a, Erchin 6a).

Why, though, did they name this chamber after its architect, something they did not do for any other part of Beis ha'Mikdash? Perhaps it was given the name of the person who built it in order to show that it was built after the rest of the Azarah was built. This fact has Halachic ramifications: since the Beis ha'Parvah was not part of the original construction of the Azarah, even its roof was sanctified, as explained earlier (see previous Insight).

(b) The RASH points out that the Mishnah here says that the Beis ha'Parvah was used as the place in which the hides of Kodshim were salted. Accordingly, it was called "Parvah" because of the hides of cows ("Parim") that were salted there. (Although the hides of all animals were salted there, the word "Parvah" was chosen presumably because it also happened to be the name of the person who designed it. Thus, the Rash's explanation does not contradict the Gemara in Yoma.)

(c) TOSFOS (DH Parvah) relates an incident recorded by the ARUCH. This particular sorcerer clandestinely dug an underground tunnel from outside the Beis ha'Mikdash in order to be able to see the Kohen Gadol perform the Avodah. The Kohanim discovered him as he dug the tunnel and captured him, and they named the place where they caught him, "Beis ha'Parvah." The RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos to Midos 5:3) says that he dug a hole through the wall of the Azarah, and that the Kohanim killed him at that spot. Apparently, they name that place "Beis ha'Parvah" in commemoration of the miracle that Parvah was caught in time, before he entered the Azarah.

(d) The TIFERES YISRAEL in Midos suggests that this chamber was named in honor of Parvah because he developed an ingenious system, which seemed almost magical, for transporting water to the Mikvah on its roof. (See also Insights to Yoma 35:1.)

QUESTIONS: The Mishnah (5:4) teaches that one of the three Lishkos in the southern part of the Azarah was the Lishkas ha'Gazis. The Mishnah says that the Sanhedrin Gedolah convened in the Lishkas ha'Gazis. This means that they sat in the part of the Lishkas ha'Gazis that was not sanctified.

Similarly, the Gemara in Yoma (25a) cites a Beraisa that describes how the Payesos were performed in the Lishkas ha'Gazis. The Zaken (elder Kohen) sat in the western part of the Lishkas ha'Gazis, which was not sanctified (and thus he was permitted to sit), and the Payis was done in the eastern part. Half of the Lishkah was in an unsanctified area of the Azarah, and half was in a sanctified area.

(a) Which half of the Lishkas ha'Gazis was built in an unsanctified area?

(b) How could half of the Lishkas ha'Gazis be built in a sanctified area? The Gemara in Yoma says that the Lishkas ha'Gazis was built like a "basilica," which Rashi explains is a house on the upper story of another structure. The Gemara in Pesachim (86a; see above, Insight #2) says that roofs and upper stories of structures in the Azarah were not sanctified. How, then, could any part of the Lishkas ha'Gazis be sanctified?

(a) Most Acharonim explain that the northern part of the Lishkas ha'Gazis was built in an unsanctified area. Their logic is as follows.

The Gemara in Yoma (19a) lists the Lishkas ha'Gazis as one of the Lishkos on the northern side of the Azarah. It is possible that it straddled the border of the Azarah, so that half of it was north of the Azarah on Har ha'Bayis (and not sanctified) and half (the southern half) was in the Azarah. The Zaken sat on the western side of the half of the Lishkah which extended beyond the northern border of the Azarah, and thus the Kohanim sat in the unsanctified part (as it is forbidden to sit in the sanctified part of the Azarah). The Payis was done in the eastern side of the southern half of the Lishkah, the half which was in the Azarah and was sanctified. Similarly, the Sanhedrin sat in the northern half, the half that was not sanctified.

The EZRAS KOHANIM asks why the Zaken was required to sit specifically in the western side of the northern half of the Azarah. Since the entire northern half of the Lishkah was not sanctified, the Zaken could have sat in the eastern side as well! Similarly, why was it necessary to perform the Payis specifically in the eastern side of the part of the Lishkah which was in the Azarah? The entire southern half of the Lishkah was in the Azarah, and thus the Payis could have been done anywhere throughout that area!

Perhaps the answer is that the Chachamim wanted the Zaken to be as close to the Shechinah as possible, and thus they instituted that he sit in the western side of the Lishkah, which was closer to the Kodesh ha'Kodashim (which was in the west of the Azarah). In contrast, the Chachamim wanted the Payis to be done as far away from the Shechinah as possible, because "it is not respectful for a crowd to congregate in the place of the Shechinah," as the Gemara says in Yoma (26a).

This is the opinion of most of the Acharonim. However, the RAMBAM (Perush ha'Mishnayos) writes based on the Gemara in Yoma that the western side was unsanctified in order for the Zaken to sit there, while the eastern side (where the Payis was done) was sanctified and thus the Kohanim had to stand while they were there. How is it possible that the western side of the Lishkah was unsanctified if the Lishkas ha'Gazis was in the eastern part of the Azarah? The eastern side of the Lishkah is the only part that could possibly have been unsanctified (as it could have protruded past the eastern border of the Azarah). How could the western side of the Lishkah be unsanctified?

The EZRAS KOHANIM here suggests that the Lishkas ha'Gazis was not in the north-eastern part of the Azarah. Rather, it was set apart from the other Lishkos and was in the north-*western* part of the Azarah. If it was built along the western wall of the Azarah, its western section may have protruded beyond the western wall of the Azarah, and thus that section was outside of the Azarah. It was in that half of the Lishkah, which was not in the Azarah, that the Zaken sat.

(b) The EZRAS KOHANIM and SHILTEI HA'GIBORIM point out that the ground level of Har ha'Bayis was much lower than that of the Azarah. Consequently, if the Lishkas ha'Gazis extended northward from within the Azarah, passing the border of the Azarah to the area over Har ha'Bayis, then the part of the Lishkah that extended over Har ha'Bayis would be much higher than the ground level of Har ha'Bayis. When the Gemara in Yoma says that the Lishkas ha'Gazis was like a "basilica," it refers to the side of the Lishkah that protruded from the Azarah over Har ha'Bayis; that part of the Lishkah was much higher than the ground level, like an upper story, or "basilica." However, since it was on level ground with the Azarah, it would have been sanctified if not for the doorway that led out to Har ha'Bayis, because the Gemara in Pesachim (86a) says that any upper story on ground level with the Azarah is sanctified. (See YA'AVETZ, CHOK NASAN; see also Insights to Yoma 25:1.)