Halakhah su Zaccaria 12:78

"For the miracles etc." until "in this time" already have been explained supra. "In the days of Mordecai and Esther in the capital Susa, when Haman the wicked stood against them" recalls "On the day that you stood from afar" (Obadiah 1:11) which referred to Esau his ancestor. "Sought to ruin, to murder, and to destroy all the Jews etc." is obvious in the Book of Esther. And it says "sought to ruin etc." i.e. "Haman sought to ruin Israel" even though it was in their hands to their merit. For his blessed Holiness gave that [Israel] could destroy the gentiles to the very last. "To their merit in their hands," as it is said in Tanḥuma, "And on that day will I seek to destroy all the gentiles that come upon Jerusalem" (Zachariah 12:9) -- this speaks of Israel before his blessed Holiness the master of the world.

The first significant modern investigation of the dimensions of the Bet ha-Mikdash site was that undertaken by the Slutzker Rav, Rabbi Jacob David Wilovsky. In the Teshuvot Bet Ridbaz (Jerusalem, 5665) no. 38, Rabbi Wilovsky questions whether the Wailing Wall is the remnant of the wall surrounding the Temple Mount, as is commonly assumed, or whether it is rather the wall of the Temple courtyard proper. His query is based upon statements found in Teshuvot Radbaz, vol. I, nos. 648 and 691. He concludes that, even given the measurements of Tractate Midot, we have no single point of demarcation whose location is known with certainty.²⁷A further implication of this uncertainty is grounded upon the halakhah that zavim and nidot are not permitted to enter any section of the Temple Mount. Accordingly, if the Wailing Wall marks the boundary of the Temple courtyard proper (meaning that it is set in a distance from the boundary of the har ha-bayit), those possessed of these forms of defilement are forbidden to approach the kotel ma‘aravi. A further discussion of these questions is contained in Kuntres Har Ẓvi, chap. 10; R. Yehudah Leib Graubart, Ḥavalim be-Ne‘imim (Lodz, 5694), IV, no. 80; and R. Moshe Sternbuch, Mo‘adim u-Zemanim, II, no. 228.
Astonishingly, Abarbanel, in his commentary on Zechariah 12:6, renders that verse as “And Jerusalem shall be situated again in her place, in Jerusalem.” According to this interpretation, the passage indicates that the present city of Jerusalem is not geographically identical with the Jerusalem of the Bible. Hence, for Abarbanel, even the location of the very city of Jerusalem is in doubt. This view is sharply contested by Me’or Einayim, Imrei Binah, chap. 12.