יחזקאל, פרק מ׳, פסוק י״ח

The architecture of the Temple courtyard was planned with exact precision, particularly regarding how its floors and chambers aligned with the grand entrance gates. Because the gates were so tall, they interrupted the continuous flow of the building. Therefore, the floor and the chambers resting upon it did not extend over the gates themselves. Instead, they were constructed exclusively along the sides of the gates [רש״י, מצודת דוד, רד״ק, אברבנאל].

The dimensions of this floor corresponded directly to the gates. According to one perspective, the length of the inner floor perfectly matched the length of the gates [רד״ק, מלבי״ם]. However, another interpretation suggests that the alignment was actually about height. Because the builders measured using a cord stretched along the ground, an expression of length is used to indicate that the bottom of the floor and its chambers was perfectly parallel to the top edge of the gates [מצודת דוד].

The floor is specifically identified as the lower one, prompting different understandings of the courtyard's design. The primary approach among commentators connects this to the natural topography of the Temple Mount. Since the complex was built on an ascending slope, it contained multiple levels. This specific floor was located in the outer, lower courtyard, distinct from the higher levels one would walk across when approaching the main sanctuary [מלבי״ם, ביאור שטיינזלץ].

Alternatively, this designation might point to a two-story structure in that exact location. In this view, there was a ground floor and an additional upper floor supported by pillars, resembling a balcony, much like the structure used to separate men and women during the Second Temple era [אברבנאל]. A third approach argues against the existence of multiple floors altogether, maintaining that there was only a single level. According to this view, calling it the lower floor does not imply a lower level, but rather emphasizes that the underside of the floor aligned with the top of the gate [רש״י]. However, this explanation faces criticism from other scholars who insist that the architectural description must reflect literal height differences, whether in the courtyards themselves or the mountain's natural slope [אברבנאל, מלבי״ם].