יחזקאל, פרק מ״ב, פסוק ה׳

The architectural vision of the future Temple presents a highly complex design, particularly regarding its three-story chambers. In this structure, the third and highest floor is noticeably narrower and shorter than the two floors beneath it. The intricate nature of this layout has led commentators to admit the difficulty in fully grasping the prophet's vision, noting that the complete understanding of this architecture will only be revealed in the future by Elijah the prophet [רש״י, רד״ק]. This difficulty is especially striking because the design is the exact opposite of the First Temple built by Solomon, where the upper chambers were actually wider than those below them [רד״ק].

The physical structure of these chambers involves a unique concept of space being consumed or reduced by architectural supports or galleries [רש״י, רד״ק, מצודת ציון, מנחת שי]. There are two primary ways to understand how these supports caused the upper chambers to become so narrow and cramped [מצודת ציון, שטיינזלץ].

One perspective suggests that the supports were built directly inside the chambers, taking up internal space and making the upper rooms feel much more compressed [רש״י, רד״ק, שטיינזלץ]. To explain this narrowing effect, some suggest the chamber walls were constructed in the shape of a dome, naturally tapering as they rose [רד״ק]. A contrasting view within this approach argues that the supports only took up space in the bottom and middle floors [מצודת ציון]. According to this idea, the supports did not even reach the top floor; rather, the upper chambers were inherently narrow and cramped simply because they were situated higher up on the slope of the mountain [מצודת דוד].

A completely different structural explanation focuses on the thickness of the walls rather than the internal room space. In this model, the galleries did not rely on independent pillars. Instead, their floor beams rested directly on the walls of the chambers themselves. To create a resting ledge for these beams, the wall of the floor above had to be built thinner. As a result, the walls of the middle floor were thinner than those of the bottom floor, and the walls of the top floor were the thinnest of all. The supports essentially bit into the thickness of the outer walls to anchor themselves. Therefore, the upper chambers were considered shorter in their physical construction—meaning the actual walls were thinner—while the internal living space of the rooms remained entirely unchanged [מלבי״ם].