Daf Ditty Pesachim 63: Beit Pagi/Walls of Jerusalem

1
Prooftext for Mishna Ex 34:25

You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with anything leavened; and the sacrifice of the
Feast of Passover shall not be left lying until morning.

RASHI

2
MISHNA: One who slaughters the Paschal lamb with leavened bread still in his possession
violates a negative commandment, as the Torah states:

3
 -‫ ַדּם‬,‫ָחֵמץ‬-‫ִתְשַׁחט ַﬠל‬-‫כה ל ֹא‬ 25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened
‫ ֶזַבח ַחג‬,‫ָיִלין ַלֹבֶּקר‬-‫ִזְבִחי; ְול ֹא‬ bread; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover be left
.‫ַהָפַּסח‬ unto the morning.
Ex 34:25

“You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the sacrifice of
the festival of Passover be left until the morning”

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who slaughters the daily afternoon offering on Passover eve with
leaven in his possession violates the commandment.

Rabbi Shimon says: One who slaughters the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth of Nisan for its
own purpose with leaven in his possession is liable; but if he slaughtered it for a different
purpose, he is exempt.

And for all other offerings that one slaughters on Passover eve, when owning leaven is prohibited,
whether he slaughtered them for their own purpose or he slaughtered them for a different
purpose, he is exempt.

And during the festival of Passover, if one slaughtered the Paschal lamb for its own purpose, he
is exempt. Since a Paschal lamb that is slaughtered for its own purpose at an improper time is
disqualified, it is not an offering at all and there is no violation of the commandment: “You shall
not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread.”

However, if he slaughtered it for a different purpose and thereby validated the sacrifice as a
peace-offering, he is liable for having sacrificed it with leaven in his possession.

And for all other offerings that one slaughters on Passover, when it is prohibited to slaughter with
leaven in one’s possession, whether he slaughtered them for their own purpose or he slaughtered
them for a different purpose, he is liable.

This is with the exception of a sin-offering that he slaughtered for a different purpose with
leaven in his possession.

Unlike other offerings, a sin-offering is disqualified if it is slaughtered for a different purpose, and
therefore one does not violate the prohibition of “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with
leavened bread.”

4
5
GEMARA: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: One is never liable for having violated the
commandment: “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread” unless the
leavened bread belongs to the one who slaughters the Paschal lamb, or to the one who
sprinkles its blood,

6
or to one of the members of the group; and he is liable only if the leaven is with him in the
Temple courtyard itself. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He is liable even if the leaven is not with him
in the Temple courtyard. With regard to what principle do they disagree? If you say that they
disagree with regard to whether the expression “with” indicates next to, namely, that Rabbi
Shimon ben Lakish holds that “with” always indicates next to, and therefore “You shall not
offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread” means that the leaven must not be next to the
one slaughtering the sacrifice, in the Temple courtyard itself, and Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that
when the verse says “with,” we do not require that the leaven be next to the slaughterer in order
to transgress, then this is difficult, because they have already disagreed about this once before.

7
As we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who slaughters a thanks-offering inside the
Temple courtyard while its bread, namely the forty loaves that are brought together with the
offering, is outside the wall, the bread has not become sanctified, as the verse states:

‫ ְוִהְק ִריב‬--‫ ַיְק ִריֶבנּוּ‬,‫תּוָֹדה‬-‫יב ִאם ַﬠל‬ 12 If he offers it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with
‫ת‬p‫ֶזַבח ַהתּוָֹדה ַחלּוֹת ַמצּוֹת ְבּלוּ‬-‫ַﬠל‬ the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled
;‫ וּ ְרִקיֵקי ַמצּוֹת ְמֻשִׁחים ַבָּשֶּׁמן‬,‫ַבֶּשֶּׁמן‬ with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes
.‫ת ַבָּשֶּׁמן‬p‫ת ְבּלוּ‬t‫ ַח‬,‫ְוֹסֶלת ֻמ ְרֶבֶּכת‬ mingled with oil, of fine flour soaked.
Lev 7:12

“And he shall offer with the thanks-offering unleavened cakes.”

8
A question was raised with regard to this mishna: What is the meaning of the phrase outside the
wall? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It means outside the wall of Beit Pagei, the outermost wall around
Jerusalem, but if the bread was merely outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, it has been

9
sanctified, as we do not require that the bread, described as “with” the offering, be next to it in
order to be sanctified.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish disagreed and said: Even if the bread was merely outside the wall of
the Temple courtyard, it has not been sanctified. Apparently, he holds that we require that the
bread described as “with” the offering be next to it in order to be sanctified.

Since Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish have already disputed this issue, they
presumably did not repeat this same dispute in other contexts.

RASHI

Jastrow

10
Rather, say that they disagree about an uncertain warning. There is a general rule that the
courts only administer corporal punishment if the transgressor was warned before he committed
the transgression. The question arises as to whether punishments are administered after an
uncertain warning, i.e., when it is unclear at the time of the warning whether or not the person
being warned will actually transgress. It is possible to explain that this is the basis of the dispute
with regard to leaven: If the leaven is outside the Temple courtyard, the one issuing the warning
cannot be certain that the person he is warning actually has leaven in his possession at the time of
the slaughter. The Gemara suggests that such a warning is considered an uncertain warning, and
Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that an uncertain warning is a valid warning while Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish
disagrees. However, this is difficult, as they also disagreed about this once before.

Tosafos
‫תוס' ד"ה השוחט פסח על החמץ עובר בלא תעשה‬
Tosfos proves that the Pesach is nevertheless Kasher.

.‫ דהא לא שנה עליו הכתוב לעכב‬,‫ דהפסח כשר‬,‫אומר ריב"א‬

The Riva rules that the Pesach is Kasher, seeing as the Pasuk does not repeat the prohibition, which
would render it crucial.

‫ ויוצא בו‬,‫ והפסח עצמו כשר‬,‫ובתוספתא דמכילתין )פ"ד( תניא בהדיא 'השוחט את הפסח על החמץ בי"ד עובר בלא תעשה‬
.‫ידי חובתו בפסח‬

The Tosefta in this Masechta (Perek4) specifically states that 'Someone who Shechts the Pesach on
Chametz on the fourteenth, trangresses a Lo Sa'aseh, but the Pesach itself is Kasher, and the owner
has fulfilled his obligation.

‫תוס' ד"ה או לאחד מבני חבורה‬

Tosfos proves that it cannot be owner who is Chayav

‫ דלא מיחייב בעל החמץ אלא השוחט והזורק‬,‫אומר ר"י‬

11
The Ri explains that the owner of the Chametz is not Chayav, only the one who Shechts and the
Kohen who sprinkles the blood

.‫ד"לא תשחט" אמר רחמנא‬

Seeing as the Torah writes 'Lo Sichchat'.

.‫ הא לאו שאין בו מעשה הוא‬,‫ איך יתחייב לרבי יוחנן‬,‫ועוד‬

Moreover, how can he be Chayav according to Rebbi Yochanan, seeing as it is a La'v she'Ein bo
Ma'aseh?

Outside the Wall

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:1

Our Gemara quotes a Mishna that appears in Massekhet Menahot(7:3), which discusses the
thanksgiving sacrifice – the korban toda. That korban is made up of an animal sacrifice brought
together with 40 hallot matzot – non-hametz loaves. The Mishna teaches that if the sacrifice is
slaughtered inside the azara – the Temple courtyard, as is proper – but the hallot were outside the
wall at that time, then the hallot do not become holy; since at the time of the shechita they were in
a place where they could not be eaten, they therefore cannot become part of the korban.

A question was raised with regard to this mishna: What is the meaning of the phrase outside the
wall? Rabbi Yohanan said: It means outside the wall of Beit Pagei, the outermost wall
around Jerusalem, but if the bread was merely outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, it has
been sanctified, as we do not require that the bread, described as “with” the offering, be next to
it in order to be sanctified.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish disagreed and said: Even if the bread was merely outside the wall of
the Temple courtyard, it has not been sanctified. Apparently, he holds that we require that the
bread described as “with” the offering be next to it in order to be sanctified. Since Rabbi Yohanan
and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish have already disputed this issue, they presumably did not repeat
this same dispute in other contexts.

Where is Beit Pagei?

1
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim63/

12
There are many opinions, but it appears that Beit Pagei represented the “third wall” that
surrounded the “new city” of Jerusalem. Some say that Beit Pagei is from the Latin root meaning
“to eat.” According to this opinion, it was so named because within that wall was still considered
Jerusalem with regard to the mitzva of eating korbanot that had to be consumed within the city
walls. There also was a small village just outside of Jerusalem that was called Beit Pagei – perhaps
because of the figs (pagim) that grew there. According to some opinions that is the Beit
Pagei referred to by Rabbi Yohanan.

When the Korban Pesach is slaughtered and chometz is still present, a violation has transpired.
The specific guidelines of this halachah can be categorized within three opinions.2

Rashi explains that in any group which arranges to bring their Korban Pesach jointly, if one of
them does the ‫ שחיטה‬while he is in possession of chometz, every member of the group is in
violation of this ‫ לאו‬and is liable for ‫ מלקות‬.

Tosafos (‫ )לאחד או ה”ד‬above, holds that only the one person who slaughtered or sprinkled the
blood of the korban is in violation of the ‫ לאו‬. The other members of the group, who did not
actively do anything wrong, are not liable. In fact, Tosafos notes that R’ Yochanan is of the opinion
that lashes cannot be administered for a non-action violation of a ‫לאו שאין בו מעשה )לאו‬

Therefore, when our gemara says that there is liability when chometz is owned by the ‫ שוחט‬or
the ‫ זורק‬it means that only he is ‫ חייב‬but not the other ones associated with the group who are
idle.

Rambam (Sefer HaMitzvos, 115 ‫( לאו‬holds that the Torah expects that no one of the group may
own chometz at the moment of ‫ שחיטה‬or ‫זריקה‬, and if he has chometz in his possession, he is in
violation of the ‫לאו‬. In one regard, Rambam holds like Rashi, that people in the group other than
the one who actively does the ‫ שחיטה‬can be liable. However, Rambam holds that not everyone
is ‫ חייב‬as Rashi holds, but it is only the one who owns the chometz that is held liable.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger, at” l, explains that according to Rashi and Rambam we can understand that
‫ מלקות‬are administered even for those who did not do the actual ‫ שחיטה‬or ‫ זריקה‬based upon
the fact that they appointed this person to act on their behalf.

2
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20063.pdf

13
Although we have a rule ‫עבירה לדבר שליח אין‬, we would be dealing with a case where the
‫ שוחט‬was ‫ שוגג‬and was unaware that his friend had chometz in his possession.

Rav Hirsch, at” l, explains that while matzo represents dependence and submission, chometz
symbolizes social and physical independence, or the ability to be sustained through self-will and
human power. Social and physical autonomy is expressed in the ability to make independent
decisions about the use of one’s wealth and possessions, so chometz also represents a statement of
defiance toward Hashem and failure to submit our money to His Will. Our redemption is
symbolized by the offering of the Korban Pesach. As its time approaches, we need to be reminded
that we did not achieve freedom through our own efforts.

Our deliverance depended on absolute surrender to Hashem’s Will, and we contributed nothing
towards it—and we see this from the lav that prohibits even a k’zayis of chometz from remaining
in our domain when the korban is slaughtered. All money, power, influence and autonomy, must
be surrendered to Hashem’s Will so that we can earn the gift of true freedom!

Before Rav Yehoshua Tzemblist, at” l, was appointed as a dayan in Minsk, he was a partner in a
wine production and distribution business. Once, the firm prepared a large quantity of wine in
anticipation of Pesach, and a Jew came and placed a large order for wine from that batch. After
the negotiations were completed, the customer turned to Rav Yehoshua and asked, “This is the
winery of Mr. Kasdan, isn’t it?” Rav Yehoshua admitted that it was not. The man cancelled his
order, walked out, and headed over to Kasdan’s shop.

When Rav Tzemblist’s partner heard the story, he was furious. “If you’ll keep on wasting our
opportunities, we’ll never get this batch sold!” Rav Yehoshua reassured him, “You never lose from
being honest. I’m sure that if it is Hashem’s Will, every last drop will be sold.” And so, it was—
not only did they sell everything, but the demand was so great that they could not even fill all the
orders that poured in!

The loaves of bread and matzah that accompany the Korban Todah become sanctified with the
slaughtering of the sacrifice, states the mishna, only if they are inside the wall at that time and not
outside it.

Rabbi Yochanan explains that outside the wall means outside the wall of Beit Pagi, which is the
furthermost point of Yerushalayim.

Beit Pagi is mentioned elsewhere as the extremity of Yerushalayim. In Mesechta Pesachim (91a) there
is a discussion as to whether the Korban Pesach can be slaughtered if its only owner and potential

14
consumer is in prison but has been promised a release for the holiday. Rabbi Yochanan rules that only
if he has been imprisoned by Jews can we rely on the fulfillment of their promise, and the sacrifice can
be slaughtered on his behalf. This is not so if he has been imprisoned by non-Jews, because we cannot
rely on their promise. A qualification is presented by Rabbi Chisda who states that if the prison is inside
the wall of Beit Pagi, the prisoner is considered to be in Yerushalayim, where the meat of a Korban
Pesach must be consumed, and the meat of his sacrifice can be brought to him in prison. Since this
possibility exists, we can indeed slaughter the Korban Pesach on his behalf.

The Walls of Jerusalem 1850

Rabbi Joseph Schwarz, writes:3

We nowhere find, except in Josephus, any mention of this subject, and although I searched
our books everywhere with much accuracy and care, I could find but very meagre and
unsatisfactory notices of the same. But Josephus gives us a circumstantial description of them.
He says, in his Bell. Jud., b. v., chap. 4., and in several other passages, that Jerusalem was
encircled with three walls; but when the city was protected by deep and impassable valleys it
had but one. He says, moreover, in another passage, that Jerusalem consisted of four mounts,
that is to say, it was built on four mounts; to wit, Mount Zion on the south; Mount Moriah on
the east; Bezetha on the northeast (properly instead of Beth-Zetha, or Beth-Chadetha, "new
town," ‫חדתא‬changing ‫ח‬ch into ‫צ‬z, or as others think Beth-Zoah ‫בית תואה‬, which see), and
Acra ‫ חקרא‬the fort, on the northwest. He says farther, in another place, Jerusalem was divided
into the Upper, Lower,* and New Town (Bezetha); that farther, the Tyropoeon extended from
without in a northern direction through the city and separated Zion from Moriah and Acra.

* The ‫שוק העליון ושוק התחתון‬upper and lower markets often mentioned in the Talmudic writings, for instance, in Tosephtah
Chulin, iii. (In Talmud Chulin, 62a, for ‫ שוק העליון‬we find ‫ גליל העליון‬Upper Galilee, or, Upper District?); also in Tosephtah
Sanhedrin, finis, which proves that already in the time of Jeremiah, the divisions of Upper and Lower Town were in use. See
also Echa Rabbethi, to 1:16.

3
http://www.jewish-history.com/palestine/walls.html

15
Concerning the walls he tells circumstantially (Bell. Jud., b. v., chap. iv. § 2): "Now of these
three walls the old one was hard to be taken, both by reason of the valleys, and of that hill on
which it was built, and which was above them, &c. Now that wall began on the north, at the
tower called Hippicus, and extended as far as the place called Xistus, and then joining to the
council-house, ended at the west gallery (cloister) of the temple. But if we go the other way
westward, it began at the same place, and extended through a place called Bethso, to the gate
of the Essenes, and after that it went southward, having its bending above the fountain Siloam,
where it also bends again towards the east, at Solomon's Pool, and reaches as far as a certain
place which they called Ophlas, where it was joined to the eastern gallery (cloister) of the
temple.

The second wall took its beginning from that gate which they called Gennath, which belonged
to the first wall; it only encompassed the northern quarter of the city and reached as far as the
tower Antonia. The beginning of the third wall was at the tower Hippicus, whence it reached
as far as the north quarter of the city and the tower Psephinus, and then was so far extended
till it came over against the monuments of Helena, which Helena was queen of Adiabene, the
daughter of Izates; in her days it extended farther to a great length, and passed by the
sepulchral caverns of the kings, and bent again at the tower of the corner, at the monument
which is called the Monument of the Fuller, and joined to the old wall, at the valley called
the Valley of Cedron."

He farther says, that as the population of Jerusalem increased, and when also the weakest and
most exposed part of the city, Bezetha, to the north of the temple, was built up, King Agrippa,
at the time of Claudius Caesar, caused it to be surrounded with a very strong wall, 25 cubits
high, and 10 cubits broad, and strengthened with ninety towers. Several years were consumed
in erecting it. Here also stood the high tower Psephinus, from which one had a view as far as
Arabia, Judæa, and the Great (Mediterranean) Sea. Josephus also relates in another place that
the first wall has sixty and the second but fourteen towers.

Before proceeding with an explanation of these data of Josephus, I find it highly necessary to
trace out, if possible, the position of the ancient Hippicus, since it is given by Josephus as the
starting point of his description; and it has therefore first to be ascertained before we can
properly define the position of the walls as given above.

No investigator has hitherto been able to give even a mere approximation to a definition of
the part of the city where this tower formerly stood, and it is universally put, although quite
arbitrarily, by all the learned who desire to describe the ancient walls of Jerusalem, on
the western side thereof, that is to say, on the spot occupied by the modern Kallai, the so-
called Tower of David, whence it has become at present in a measure the fashion to call the
Kallai by the name of Hippicus, and the walls of Jerusalem are thus traced from this starting
point. No one has hitherto been able to controvert this hypothesis, because there were no
counter proofs that Hippicus had not stood on this spot.

I am therefore greatly rejoiced that I have succeeded, by means of a careful investigation of

our faithful and credible writings, to obtain reliable data as to the true position of the Hippicus
of Josephus.

16
The Targumist Jonathan Ben Uziel, a scholar of the famous Hillel the Elder (Sukkah, 28a),
lived in Jerusalem at the time of King Herod, who erected this tower in honour of his general,
Hippicus, who had fallen in battle; consequently we must accept his explanation on this
subject as correct, credible, and perfectly reliable. Now, on referring to the ‫ מגדל חננאל‬Tower
of Chananel of Jer. 31:38, and Zech. 14:10, we find that Jonathan renders it with ‫מגדל פיקוס‬
Migdal Pikus, evidently Tower of Hippicus, whence it is perfectly clear that this tower must
have been erected on the site of the ancient Chananel tower; for who could know more about
it than this learned man, who lived on the spot when Herod built this structure?

If we now investigate carefully the position of the Tower of Chananel, as given in Nehemiah,
we find it placed to the northeast of the Prison Gate, or Jeremiah's Grotto ‫חצר המטרה‬, also
called the Archer's Court, so that the northern boundary of Jerusalem would naturally extend
from the Tower of Chananel, on the northeast, to the Corner Gate at the northwest (Jer. 31:38).
Wherefore it is subject to no doubt, but that we must seek for Hippicus in a northern direction.
It farther appears, from Jos., Bell. Jud., book vi. chap. vi., that the three strong towels, of
which Hippicus was one, were situated on the northern side of the city, and not far distant
from the fort Antonia, which was confessedly to the north of the temple. In a northerly
direction, above the Grotto of Jeremiah, is found a high rocky hill, since it is at the foot of
this hill that the grotto is, properly speaking, cut out of the rock; and here is an unusually
favourable site for a tower, and one may even trace some vestiges which betoken that at some
time a strong building or a fort must have stood here; wherefore I am almost positive that I
may freely assume that Hippicus was erected on this spot.

It is a most difficult problem to determine anything accurate and certain from the above
description of Josephus; since with all our exertions we could scarcely discover any remains
of all these ancient walls; wherefore we must be satisfied with something "probable," or "not
unlikely."

I would therefore hazard the following opinion: The first wall of Josephus is undoubtedly the
one which was built by Nehemiah, in whose time the fort or tower of Antonia was still outside
of the city; so that the northern wall of the temple, that is to say, that of the temple mount,
which was, according to the authority of the Talmud, as I shall discuss more circumstantially
hereafter, 500 cubits, or 1000 feet, in breadth, formed at the same time part of the northeastern
wall of the city, which extended yet farther to the north; so that the eastern city wall only
commenced, properly speaking, from the northwest corner of the temple mount, and extended
then to the Tower of Chananel, which was exactly opposite this point of the mount, in a
northern direction, and was thus the proper northeast termination of the city wall. The part
where afterwards the fort Antonia stood, and which was to the north of the temple mount, was
therefore outside of the city; and it was only at a much later period, at the time of the
Maccabees, that this fort was connected with the city and united with the temple. Hippicus,
not far from Jeremiah's Grotto, is therefore exactly north from the northwestern corner of the
temple mount, or the wall of the temple, since we comprise under the words temple, temple
wall, temple buildings, the whole of the temple mount, with all its buildings, walls, &c. This
now will explain the assertion of Josephus, that the first wall extended from Hippicus to
Xistus, which, accordingly, must have been situated between the temple mount and the

17
northeastern termination of the wall, that is to say, from north to south, and terminated at the
western gallery or cloister, which means at the northwestern corner of the temple mount; but
that from this point onward, the wall of the temple mount formed also that of the city. On the
other side, that is, in a western direction, the wall extended from Hippicus towards the upper
Gichon, then ran southwardly around Mount Zion, then northerly, and again southerly, and
formed the double wall (‫ ;)חומתים‬ran next around the fountain of Siloah, thence past the lower
pool, till it reached the Ophel, and terminated finally at the eastern gallery of the temple. This
was the circuit of Jerusalem at the time of Nehemiah, and in this wall must we look for all the
gates mentioned in the same authority.

The second wall was erected at a later period, and I presume that it is the same which Jonathan
the Maccabee caused to be built within the city, in order to separate Acra, where his enemies,
the Grecians, were posted, from the other parts of Jerusalem, as Josephus tells us. At that
time, however, the fort of Antonia was already united with the city and the temple. I suppose,
also, that this wall ran from east to west, and that the Gate of Gennath was between the Valley
and the Corner Gate, although it must have been a later structure than the time of Nehemiah,
as it is not mentioned by him; and that from this point the wall ran in a northeasterly direction,
till it reached Antonia, or, more correctly speaking, to where the first wall came in contact
with the fort of Antonia, or it may have passed the first wall, so that it (the second) reached
as far as this point. This wall therefore separated Acra at the north from the other parts of
Jerusalem.

The third was a structure of a still later period; it also commenced at Hippicus, ran to the north
in a somewhat western direction, and bent then easterly till it touched the valley of Kidron;
extended next to the south to the northeast corner of the temple mount, or more correctly
speaking, to the eastern part of the fort Antonia; since this tower was already connected with
the temple, as we understand by "the old wall near the valley of Cedron," of Josephus, the
fort of Antonia.

I will next mention the few vestiges which I have been able to find of the several names
mentioned by Josephus.

Bethso is probably, as I have stated already, synonymous with ‫בית חדתא‬Beth-Chadetha "the
new town." Some derive it from Beth Zoah, "dirt or dung." According to the assertion of
the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10. and Vayikra Rabbah 36., the vicinity of the upper spring of
Gichon (Isaiah 7:3) is considered as a place of filth, impurity, and uncleanness, and might,
accordingly, mark the site of Beth-Zoah; but Josephus places it at the northeast, not at the
west, as this hypothesis would do.

Gennath. In Maasseroth 2. § 5, we find mentioned a Ginnath Veradim ‫" גנת ורדים‬a rose
garden" in Jerusalem, which was situated to the west from the temple mount, according to
the Tosephoth Yom Toba on the passage; and it is probable enough that this Ginnath, garden,
is identical with the Gennath of Josephus.

18
Monuments of Helena. Josephus, Antiq., book; 20. chap. 2., says that the sepulchral
monument of this queen was 3 stadia (about one-third of a mile) from Jerusalem. More than
this is not known of this structure.

Sepulchral caverns of the Kings. In Erubin, 61b, is mentioned "the great cavern of Zedekiah."
In Midrash Tanchumah to Numbers 3., it is placed at 12 mill or 8 English miles, and in
Midrash Rabbah to the same passage at 18 mill or 12 English miles from Jerusalem. The
traveller from Leghorn of the year 5282, already quoted above says: "Not far from the Bab al
Amud, is the cave of Zedekiah, which extends under ground to the mountains near Jericho.
Several persons told me, that they themselves had walked a mile in the same. It is so spacious
that a man on horseback with a lance in his hand, can ride through it quite comfortably."

I now believe that this cave of Zedekiah, wherein it is probable that at a later period graves
and caverns had been cut out of the rock, may denote the sepulchral caverns of the kings of
Josephus. The present sepulchral monument, or rather the cave in which it is, is that of the
rich Kalba Seboa, who is mentioned in Gittin, 56a, and which is five-eighths of a mile north
from the Bab al Amud,* is held to be the cave of Zedekiah, and consequently identical with
the sepulchres of the kings. About half a mile to the northwest of the cave of the Kalba Seboa,
there is a sepulchral cave, consisting of two chambers, one above the other, and cut out of the
solid rock; in both the chambers, there are about seventy niches hewn out in the rocky walls
thereof, and the whole presents a very beautiful and remarkable work of antiquity.** It is
commonly called the Cave of the seventy Sanhedrin ‫שבעים סנהדרין‬, and is supposed by some
to be the sepulchral caverns of the kings of Josephus; but this hypothesis is without any
satisfactory proof, and even the name it bears of "the cave of the seventy Sanhedrin" is also
quite arbitrary. This name probably was given to it, because it has about seventy niches,
although they are quite empty, which may have led people to suppose that seventy elders were
buried here. But who, and of what time were they? as there were always seventy such elders
in Israel. I could find no trace for this appellation in our ancient writings, and only found it in
quite recent works.
* In the year 5607 (1847), the Arabs, on digging near this grave, found a deep vault full of gigantic human bones, which
excited the astonishment of everyone at the great stature of the persons, the remains of whom they were. The Pacha forbade
farther digging, and the cave was again closed up.
** Since I have inspected this beautiful vault with its niches cut in the walls, I understand clearly the Mishna of Baba
Bathra 6., §8, which describes the ancient manner of forming sepulchral vaults with their niches one above and alongside
the other.

As Josephus makes no mention of an eastern wall, it appears, as was said already, that the
eastern wall of the temple (i. e. of the temple mount) formed likewise the eastern city wall, as
it is still the case at the present day; he says likewise in another place, that the arches, vaults,
and outbuildings of the eastern temple wall extended beyond the valley of Kidron, as it passed
beneath them. The fact that the eastern wall of the city and temple were the same, may be
derived also from Talmud Zebachim, 116b, and Tosephtah Kelim, i.

It is true, that Josephus does not state in the passage quoted, that the city wall passed over the
valley of Kidron, and reached to the southern part of the Mount of Olives; but it is stated in
another place (Jewish War, book v., chap. vi.), that "Simon held in possession the upper town,
the great wall as far as Kidron, and from the old wall all the part which extends east of Siloah,

19
up to the palace of Monobazes, and the spring of Siloah;* Akra, the lower town, as far as the
Palace of Helena, the mother of Monobazes" (Izates).*

* In another passage, Josephus tells that the spring of Siloah, outside of the town, was in the possession of the Romans.
Simon, therefore, could not have occupied the spring of Siloah itself, but only the wall and the part of the city which was not
far from the spring, which being out of the circuit of the walls, was in the possession of the enemy.

** They point out, even at present, a large ruin north of the temple mount, in the district called Bab al Chotta, which the
Jews call, from a tradition they have, "the Palace of Helena."

That what Josephus terms "which extends east of Siloah," is already, without doubt, on the
Mount of Olives. We find, likewise, in 1 Maccabees 12:37, "The wall which was to the east,
beyond the valley of Kidron, had fallen down, and they built therefore this part of the wall,
and called it Caphnatha." I presume that this word is derived from the Chaldean
word Caphnaioth (‫ )כפניות דקלים‬which is synonymous with Zini, a species of palms, as stated
in chapter 1., article Zin. This name, however, signifies a spot on Mount Olivet, as I shall
state more particularly hereafter, which was not far from Beth-Pagi ‫ ;בית פגי‬the name was
derived from the circumstance that there, on the declivity of the mount, were found some
olive trees and palms ‫"פגי תאנים וכפניות דקלים‬The Pageh of figs, and Caphnaioth of dates;"
hence Caphnatha and Pagi.

It is also stated distinctly in Shebuoth, 16a, likewise in the Tosephtah cited there, that a part
of Mount Olivet, naturally referring to the southern part thereof, in the vicinity of the spring
of Siloah, was actually within the city wall. A part likewise of the just named Beth-Pagi was
within the city, as I shall prove farther down. At the present day even you can find traces of
a wall, which ran in a southern direction, near the village Selivan, which is on the declivity
of Mount Olivet, close to the Siloah spring.

I have not succeeded, as I must confess, to discover many remains of the ancient walls,
although I have read much in the works of several moderns, that they had actually discovered
many remains, whilst they at the same time describe the direction of the walls according to
their own assumed ideas, explain and expound the words of Josephus in many ways, setting
out from the erroneous assumption that the modern Kallai is identical with the ancient
Hippicus, and fix the course of the walls from this principle, and then fancy they can discover
remains of antiquity, and endeavour to impose their belief on others.

I have no doubt, that no learned man, who is a friend of truth, will or can contest my proof
that Hippicus must have been on the north, and not at the west, since the Migdal Chananel
occupied a northern position. Although this view must upset some darling scheme of certain
scholars, the fact cannot be gainsaid, unless men are determined to dispute altogether the
correctness and truth of the learned Jonathan, who lived at the time when Hippicus was built.

The present city walls occupy only in a few places the site of the ancient ones. Only the
southeastern, and nearly the entire western appear to me to stand on the old sites; whereas the
present northern, northwestern, and southern walls stand where none other was before. The
modern Jerusalem is therefore considerably smaller than the ancient one. Josephus also says
that the ancient city was 33 stadia in circumference, that is 4½ English miles; whereas at

20
present it is but 3 miles, to wit, 5152 ells (each of a little less than 3 feet, or 1 yard English);
the ancient city extended farther to the north, and a little less to the south than the present.

I believe that I may therefore boldly maintain that it is clearly proved, from what has been
said, that the alleged grave of Christ is quite wrong; as it must have been indisputably without
the city, at a distance at least of 100 paces, or 50 cubits, according to Baba Bathra, ii.; § 9,
whereas, the so-called holy sepulchre is pointed out as being in the city, not far from the
ancient temple, exactly opposite to the northwest corner of the temple mount; although many
pious men, who believe in all the Christian legends, take all possible pains to place it beyond
the limits of the ancient city; and maintain, therefore, that this alleged position was beyond
the first wall; that Hippicus is the present Kallai, and that the first wall ran from the Kallai to
the temple from west to east. This idea is so ridiculous, that it deserves no refutation; for
Jerusalem must have had, in that case, a truly wonderful shape and size; for it could not have
been more than 150 cubits (300 feet) in breadth from south to north, excluding Zion, if the
northern line extended from the Kallai to the temple. It appears even from 1 Kings 18:17, that
the city wall extended in the time of Hezekiah to the vicinity of the Upper Pool, since those
stationed on the wall could hear the speakers who stood there. Any one therefore endowed
with common sense must accordingly acknowledge, that the alleged locality of the so-called
holy sepulchre rests on an impossible idea, and that the whole matter is nothing but a fabulous
tradition of the pious but deceiving Empress Helena, and of her equally deceptive priests, who
discovered this grave, and had a structure erected over it.

21
The Broad Wall (Hebrew: ‫ החומה הרחבה‬HaChoma HaRechava) is an ancient defensive wall in
the Old City of Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter. The wall was unearthed in the 1970s
by Israeli archaeologist Nahman Avigad and dated to the reign of King Hezekiah (late eighth
century BCE).
The Broad Wall is a massive defensive structure, seven meters thick. The unbroken length of wall
uncovered by Avigad's dig runs 65 metres (71.1 yd) long and is preserved in places to a height of
3.3 metres (3.6 yd).
It was long believed that the city in this period was confined to the fortified, narrow hill running
to the south of the Temple Mount known as the City of David. Avigad's dig demonstrated that by
the late eighth century the city had expanded to include the hill to the west of the Temple Mount.
The motivation for building the walls was the expected invasion of Judea by Sennacherib. The
wall might be referred to in Nehemiah 3:8 and Isaiah 22:9–10.

Etgar Lefkovits writes:4

NOVEMBER 28, 2007

The remnants of a wall from the time of the prophet Nehemiah have been uncovered in an
archeological excavation in Jerusalem's ancient City of David, strengthening recent claims that
King David's palace has been found at the site, an Israeli archeologist said Wednesday. The section
of the 2,500-year-old Nehemiah wall, located just outside the Dung Gate and the Old City walls
facing the Mount of Olives, was dated by pottery found during a recent dig at the site, said Hebrew
University archeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar.

The archeologist, who rose to international prominence for her recent excavation that may have
uncovered the biblical palace of King David, was able to date the wall to Nehemiah as a result of
a dig carried out underneath a nearby tower, which has been previously dated to the Hasmonean
period, (142-37 BCE) but which now emerges was built centuries earlier.

4
https://www.jpost.com/israel/nehemiahs-wall
uncovered#:~:text=The%20remnants%20of%20a%20wall,an%20Israeli%20archeologist%20said%20Wednesday.

22
As a result of the excavation, both the 30 meter section of the wall and a six-by-three-meter part
of the previously uncovered tower have now been dated to the fifth century BCE based on the rich
pottery found during the dig under the tower, she said. Scores of bullae, arrowheads and seals from
that period were also discovered during the excavation. "This find opens a new chapter in the
history of Jerusalem," Mazar said. "Until now, we have never had such an archeological wealth
of finds from Nehemiah's period." Nehemiah, who lived during the period when Judah was a
province of the Persian Empire, arrived in Jerusalem as governor in 445 BCE with the permission
of the Persian king, determined to rebuild and restore the desolate city after the destruction of the
First Temple by the Babylonians a century earlier, in 586 BCE.

The Persians had conquered the Babylonian empire that had destroyed Jerusalem and taken most
of the inhabitants of Judah into captivity in what is now modern Iraq. The Bible relates that despite
the resistance of hostile neighbors who had occupied the area around Jerusalem in the Jews'
absence, the whole wall was completed in a speedy 52-day period.

The tower at the site lies on the back of the walls of the palace that Mazar uncovered at the site
two years ago, indicating that the palace must have been built first and strengthening the claim that
the site was indeed King David's palace, she said.5

5
The three-year-old dig is being sponsored by the Shalem Center, a conservative Jerusalem research institute, where Mazar
serves as a senior fellow, and the right-wing City of David Foundation which promotes Jewish settlement throughout east
Jerusalem.

23
THE LOCATION OF NEHEMIAH’S WALL AND GATES

Arthur Chrysler writes:6

The Jerusalem that King David conquered from the Jebusites covered only about 12 acres and
was defined on three sides by high ridges and deep valleys. The Jebusites had built a massive wall
on the vulnerable north side of the city. King David’s son, Solomon, enlarged the city northward
to include the area of the Temple Mount. Jerusalem then covered about 32 acres which was still
defined on its eastern side by the Kidron Valley. King Hezekiah later expanded the city westward
to accommodate its growing population. The entire city then consisted of about 135 acres. When
the Assyrians threatened to attack in 701 B.C., Hezekiah built a wall and repaired sections of the
original, Jebusite, wall on the eastern side of the city that had been constructed between the top of
the ridge and the bottom of the valley (the mid-slope wall). Hezekiah’s wall was very strong, being
five meters (16.4 ft.) wide entirely around the city. Archaeologists have uncovered large portions
of it that have survived to this day.7 It was this wall with its gates that Nehemiah repaired after his
return from Babylon. King Cyrus captured Babylon in 539 B.C. and by 536 B.C., exactly 70 years
after they were taken captive, the Jews were allowed to return to rebuild Jerusalem and the
Temple. In 458 B.C. Ezra brought another group of captives to Jerusalem and in 445 B.C. the final
expedition of Jews came to Jerusalem under the leadership of Nehemiah. Artaxerxes agreed to
send Nehemiah to Jerusalem, appointed him as Civil Governor for 12 years, and authorized him
to complete the rebuilding of the wall (and gates) of the city, a task that took him but 52 days to
accomplish (Neh. 6:15).

,‫שּׁ ה‬
ָ ‫ ְבֶּﬠְשׂ ִרים ַוֲחִמ‬,‫ ַהחוָֹמה‬,‫טו ַוִתְּשַׁלם‬ 15 So the wall was finished in the twenty and fifth day
{‫ }פ‬.‫ יוֹם‬,‫ַלֲחִמִשּׁים וְּשַׁנ ִים‬--‫ֶלֱאלוּל‬ of the month Elul, in fifty and two days.
Neh,6:15

In Nehemiah 3:25 it says, "Palal the son of Uzai, over against the turning of the wall, and the
tower which lieth out from the king's high house, that was by the court of the prison..."

The court of the prison was located within the palace (Jeremiah 32:2) so the "tower that lieth out"
may have been adjacent to the palace. The Stepped-Stone Structure supported part of the palace
area above the Gihon Spring8 and there are remains of a tower on its northeastern
side. Archaeologist Eilat Mazar has found dog burials and Persian period pottery beneath the
tower9 which dates its construction to around the time of the return from captivity. There is some
disagreement among scholars as to the location of the section of wall and gates that Nehemiah

6
http://www.biblicalarchaeologytruth.com/nehemiahs-wall.html
7
Benjamin Mazar, The Mountain of the Lord, 1975, pp. 176, 177; Yigal Shiloh, Excavations At The City Of David I, Qedem 19,
1984, p. 29
8
Amihai Mazar, The Search for David and Solomon: An Archaeological Perspective, The Quest for the Historical Israel, 2007,
pp. 125-127
9
Eilat Mazar, The Wall That Nehemiah Built, Biblical Archaeology Review, Mar/Apr 2009, pp. 24-28, 30-33, 66

24
rebuilt on the eastern side of the City of David. Did Nehemiah erect a wall on bedrock along the
top of the ridge or did he repair Hezekiah's mid-slope wall with its gates? Consider these reasons
for accepting the latter view for the location of Nehemiah’s wall in the City of David.

The First Reason: The word repaired

The first and probably the most compelling reason to believe that Nehemiah did not build a new
wall on top of the eastern slope is because of the narration in Nehemiah chapter three. Nowhere
does it mention the building of a new wall. It says, 35 times (7 x 5), that he repaired the wall. Dame
Kathleen Kenyon argued that Nehemiah built a new wall on the eastern ridge and abandoned
Hezekiah’s mid-slope wall. One of her reasons for this argument was that Nehemiah 4:10
says: there is much rubbish; so that we are not able to build the wall. Nehemiah 4:10 is not the
end of the story, however. Nehemiah 4:15 tells us that the work of rebuilding Hezekiah’s broken
wall continued and was not abandoned: …we returned all of us to the wall, everyone unto his
work. Nehemiah’s predecessor, Hezekiah, built his wall on the ruins of the old Jebusite wall, not
on the top of the ridge. The only wall, therefore, for Nehemiah to repair was Hezekiah’s mid-slope
wall.

Stratum 9 (the time of Nehemiah) repairs to Hezekiah's mid-slope wall

in area D2

When Dr. Yigal Shiloh began the City of David excavations in 1978 he followed the assumption
of Dame Kenyon that Nehemiah’s wall was on top of the eastern ridge of the City of David. He
was surprised then to find that in his excavations of Hezekiah’s mid-slope wall, “the pottery of
Stratum 9 (Persian, Nehemiah’s time) was scattered throughout most of the excavational

25
areas.” Dr. Shiloh’s confusion became apparent when he continued: “It is presently impossible to
define more precisely the nature of this stratum, located on the eastern slope of the City of David,
outside the new line of fortifications - which in the accepted opinion, was built in this period on
the bedrock at the top of the eastern slope.”10 Dr. Shiloh could not understand why artifacts of
Nehemiah’s Persian period were found along the inside of Hezekiah’s mid-slope wall. The answer
is that Nehemiah did not build on top of the ridge but repaired Hezekiah’s mid-slope wall.

The Second Reason: Water

Neatly tucked away in the eastern slope of the City of David is the entrance to the ancient
Jebusite passageway leading to the Gihon Spring. It was through this passageway that Joab was
able to enter the city behind the Jebusite mid-slope wall and conquer Jebus, thus becoming the
general of King David’s Army. There are many locations of Biblical events that are difficult to
pinpoint but this is not one of them. On July 26, 1984, after excavating along Hezekiah’s wall all
morning, Dr. Shiloh decided to unlock the gate and take our whole group of volunteers through
the passageway, down toward the waters of the Gihon Spring. Now the critical question arises.
Where is this entrance of the passageway to the water supply found? It is located above the Gihon
Spring just above the ancient Jebusite water gate. It is behind the Jebusite mid-slope wall and in
front of any wall that would have been built on top of the eastern ridge. During the time of
Nehemiah, the Jebusite passageway was still in use. Jerusalem’s aqueduct was not constructed
until much later, at the time of Herod the Great. It would make absolutely no sense to build a wall
above the entrance to the water source. It would then be out of range for the people of the city but
completely accessible to the enemy.

The Third Reason: The upper ridge wall

In 1912-14 Raymond Weill excavated along the southeast side of the City of David. Near the
Tombs of the Kings he observed a large wall (actually two parallel walls adjacent to each
other) aligned with the top of the eastern ridge of the city.

Obviously he thought that this might be a section of Nehemiah’s famous wall for he describes it
as being "built by sections entrusted to different teams and built in a hurry." A careful examination,
however, shows that this may not be true. Today we know these same walls as W151 and W152
in Area D1 of Dr. Shiloh’s excavations.11 They are built on bedrock and on a layer of white, chalky,
limestone chips from a nearby quarry. Dr. Shiloh dated the chips to the Persian period (6th- 4th
centuries BCE, the time of Zerubbabel and Nehemiah). It is possible that the chips are the result
of quarrying by Zerubbabel when he needed ashlars for the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple. The
walls couldn’t be the work of Nehemiah because we have already proved that Nehemiah did not
build a new wall on the ridge but rebuilt Hezekiah’s mid-slope wall. It couldn’t be the later work
of the Hasmoneans because they were famous for their large rectangular ashlars with smooth
margins and a prominent boss.

Examples of these stones are found at the eastern Temple retaining wall near the East Gate. They
are also found along the southern wall of the city, between the Valley and Dung Gates and in the
10
Yigal Shiloh, Excavations at the City of David I, Qedem 19, 1984, p. 29
11
Yigal Shiloh, Excavations at the City of David I, Qedem 19, 1984, p. 7, 8

26
construction of the wall that abuts Hezekiah’s Tower near the Broad Wall in the western city of
Jerusalem. The reason that the Hasmonean ashlars are so superior to those in
Hezekiah’s/Nehemiah’s walls and Walls 151 and 152 is because in 152 B.C., King Demetrius of
Syria made a treaty with Jonathan the Maccabean in which he agreed to pay for all expenses for
repairs to the Temple Mount and the walls of Jerusalem.

The historian, Josephus, records the words of Demetrius: “I also give you leave to repair and
rebuild your temple, and that all be done at my expense. I also allow you to build the walls of your
city, and to erect high towers…at my expense.” Walls 151 and 152 at the southeastern end of the
City of David contain none of the ashlars that characterize the work of the Hasmoneans. The walls
and tower, along the top of the ridge, must have been constructed earlier.

Professor Macalister, Crowfoot, Dame Kenyon and Dr. Shiloh have discovered large amounts of
Hellenistic potsherds and artifacts in the City of David. The tremendous amount of Greek stamped
handles from broken Rhodian storage jars (amphora) found in the City of David attest to the density
of the Hellenistic population of that part of the city during the Hellenistic period.12 One day, while
digging near the round tower in Area D-2, a volunteer cried out, “Inscription!” We all gathered
around to witness the identification of the stamped Rhodian amphorae handle. More of these
handles have been found in the City of David than in any other part of Jerusalem. More than 1,000
were found in the City of David compared to about 138 in all the rest of Jerusalem. Many other
artifacts including an image of the Greek god Zeus were also found there.
Following northward along the top of the ridge from walls 151 and 152, described by Weill, we
come to the massive Stepped Stone Structure with a tower attached on each side. Dr. Eilat Mazar
recently dismantled the northern tower and found a layer (nearly 5
feet deep) of Persian period artifacts . Underneath the thick layer of Persian period pottery, Mazar
found many Babylonian period artifacts. More importantly, she found two dog burials on top of
the Persian period strata directly under the tower.13 Recent excavations in Ashkelon have produced
the same thick layer of Persian period pottery complete with dog burials on top. When the Stepped
Stone Structure and towers were first discovered they were covered by a thick glacis from the
Hellenistic period which made assent to the eastern slope very difficult. The existence of this
glacis, covering the Base of the Stepped-Stone Structure and towers, proves that they were
constructed during, or earlier than, the Hellenistic period.

The eastern slope of the City of David had a protective wall that had been constructed by
the Canaanites in the Middle Bronze Age II. This wall ran from south to north along the middle of
the slope. King Hezekiah repaired that same wall in the Iron Age:

‫ַהחוָֹמה ַהְפּרוָּצה‬-‫ָכּל‬-‫ה ַו ִיְּתַחַזּק ַו ִיֶּבן ֶאת‬ 5 And he took courage, and built up all the wall that was
‫ ְוַלחוָּצה ַהחוָֹמה‬,‫ַהִמְּגָדּלוֹת‬-‫ַוַיַּﬠל ַﬠל‬ broken down, and raised it up to the towers, and another
;‫ ִﬠיר ָדּ ִויד‬,‫ַהִמּלּוֹא‬-‫ ַו ְיַחֵזּק ֶאת‬,‫ַאֶח ֶרת‬ wall without, and strengthened Millo in the city of David,
.‫ וָּמִג ִנּים‬,‫שַׁלח ָלֹרב‬
ֶ ‫ַוַיַּﬠשׂ‬ and made weapons and shields in abundance.

12
Donald T. Ariel, Excavations at the City of David II, Qedem 30, 1990, pp.13-16
13
Donald T. Ariel, Excavations at the City of David II, Qedem 30, 1990, pp.13-16

27
 ‫ַהחוָֹמה ַהְפּרוָּצה‬-‫ָכּל‬-‫ה ַו ִיְּתַחַזּק ַו ִיֶּבן ֶאת‬ 5 And he took courage, and built up all the wall that was
‫ ְוַלחוָּצה ַהחוָֹמה‬,‫ַהִמְּגָדּלוֹת‬-‫ַוַיַּﬠל ַﬠל‬ broken down, and raised it up to the towers, and another
;‫ ִﬠיר ָדּ ִויד‬,‫ַהִמּלּוֹא‬-‫ ַו ְיַחֵזּק ֶאת‬,‫ַאֶחֶרת‬ wall without, and strengthened Millo in the city of David,
.‫ וָּמִג ִנּים‬,‫ַוַיַּﬠשׂ ֶשַׁלח ָלֹרב‬ and made weapons and shields in abundance.
II Chron 32:5

"Also he strengthened himself, and built up all the wall that was broken, and raised it up to the
towers, and another wall without." This outer wall has been found at the bottom of the slope by
Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron14 and is positively dated to the time of Hezekiah's reign. Nehemiah
repaired Hezekiah's mid-slope wall around 445 B.C. because it was still the best location for a wall
to protect the city.
Three walls

There are three walls in this picture of Areas D1 and D2 near the southern end of the City of David.
Just behind the wall in the middle, may be the remains of Nehemiah's repair of the earlier mid-
slope wall (W. 804) as it runs into bedrock here in the south (see photo below). The wall on the
upper ridge was dated to the Hellenistic period after Yigal Shiloh found white, limestone, chips
from a Persian period quarry beneath it. The wall in the foreground is of similar construction and
is also dated to the Hellenistic period by the pottery associated with it. The upper-ridge wall

14
Ronny Reich, Excavating the City of David, 2011, pp. 179-181

28
continued northward to the older Stepped-Stone Structure. The glacis that once covered the
Stepped-Stone Structure also dated to the Hellenistic period.

"Area D2. On right, terrace wall W. 163 of strata 7-6 (Late Hellenistic - Early
Roman). On left, retaining wall W. 804, stratum 9, met by the layers of white
gravel fill - waste from the stratum 9 quarry, of the Persian period (6th-4th
centuries B.C.). Looking north, 1982." - QEDEM 19 - Plate 13

The Mid-Slope Wall

29
The mid-slope wall was originally built on this natural bedrock
shelf by the Jebusites. It runs southward, in this picture, where it
finally meets an outcropping of bedrock near the top of the ridge
in Area D1. King Hezekiah repaired this section of the Jebusite
wall when the Assyrians were planning to attack Jerusalem (II
Chronicles 32:5). The Babylonians later breached the wall and
burned its gates. Seventy years later, Nehemiah returned and
repaired this same wall and gates, including the Fountain Gate, to
the south, and the Water Gate near the Gihon Spring, to the north.

30
Hezekiah's mid-slope wall (later repaired by Nehemiah) as it passes over
corner of the earlier Jebusite wall above the Gihon Spring.

31
Hezekiah's broad wall (later repaired by Nehemiah) in the northwest part of
Jerusalem (See Nehemiah 12:38).
The "Seam" in the Eastern Wall of the Temple Mount

32
Seam in the Eastern wall located south of the East Gate of the Temple Mount.
King Herod extended the Temple Mount platform to the south. The stones on
the left of the seam belong to the time of Herod and the stones on the right
belong to the time of the Hasmoneans or earlier.

33
Locked gate at entrance to Jebusite tunnel. Photo by A. Chrysler

34