מעמדה ההלכתי של ירושלים על פי מגילת מקצת מעשי התורה, חזון החיות (חנוך החבשי פה-צ) וספרות התנאים

All the religious groups in Second Temple Jewish society faced a common problem arising from the need to resolve a basic contradiction between differing biblical models of sanctity. Leviticus, which reflects the situation in the desert, distinguishes between two levels of sanctity: (a) the Tabernacle precinct (and that of the surrounding tribe of Levi); and (b) an outer area inhabited by the other tribes. Deuteronomy, however, recognizes a single focus of sanctity – the place "that the Lord your God will choose amidst all your tribes as His habitation, to establish His name there" – which is not linked to the model of the desert encampment. Second Temple literature reflects various attempts to resolve this contradiction. Scholars disagree as the precise distinctions between the different attempts. To my mind, the Temple Scroll and 4QMMT (Miqṣat Maʿaśê ha-Torah), as well as 1 Enoch, express the view that the biblical phrase "the place that the Lord will choose" refers to the area of Jerusalem, implying that the future Temple would occupy the entire area of the city. Jerusalem is therefore a "holy encampment" and a "Temple city", whereas other cities in the Land of Israel had the status of the "encampment of Israel" (maḥaneh yisra'el). On the other hand, the Hasmoneans (and the Pharisees) argued that, even though Jerusalem had been chosen as the site of the Temple, this did not imply that the entire city was part of the Temple, but only that the tripartite model of the desert encampment should be established within the city limits.