How do you connect with the mourning for the destruction?

It is indeed difficult to connect. In my opinion, the main task these days is not to actually mourn but rather to try and understand why to mourn. I will tell you what I explain to myself: Today, I find it repulsive to hope that priests will walk around covered in the blood of slaughtered animals up to their stirrups. A horrific slaughterhouse. On the other hand, I am well aware that I did not live when there was a Temple and did not experience its significance. Therefore, I cannot judge how much it is missing. The words of the sages are true to me that it is something significant, and I grieve that I do not have the ability to understand it and identify with it.
It’s possible that when it comes back, if it comes back, I’ll find out I was wrong. But I want to hope that if that’s indeed the case – the court won’t come back at all. Then I’ll mourn the fact that I thought there was something to mourn about.
————————————————————————————————
Asks:
So ultimately you hope he doesn’t come back?
Itamar,
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
No. I said that emotionally and experientially, I have no desire for it to return because my current feeling is that it is something quite repulsive. On the other hand, I am aware that I have not experienced the things and therefore cannot truly judge them and their meaning from my current perspective (perhaps the sense of spirituality while having a home is very significant and noticeable and everyone understands why it is necessary). I said that perhaps when the home returns it will turn out that I was wrong in my assumption and that it really shouldn’t be there (as I feel today), but if that is really the case, I hope and believe that it really will not return.
————————————————————————————————
Asks:

1. In your answer, you referred to one aspect of the Temple (personally, I relate to the lack of anticipation for such a Temple as is often done in the Yom Kippur prayer), but it seems to me that the Temple is not just a sacrificial service. At the time, sacrificial service was the center because that was what was accepted in the world or because it had a purpose as opposed to what was accepted. In any case, in the future it could take on a different character. The problem with the difficulty of mourning the Temple stems from the identity that is created between the Temple and sacrifices.
The Temple was the religious center of the people and as such is a kind of status symbol about the state of the people.
Even if a Temple were to be built without sacrificial work, it would still have significance. For example, halachically, the laws of the Torah could be changed and required by a great Sanhedrin sitting in a Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple could symbolize our progress and lack of stagnation (exactly the opposite of a Temple as a slaughterhouse of sacrifices).
Isn’t there anything to wait and expect for this? (Finally, we can update things for today, but on the other hand, as you said, we learned that the generation’s embarrassments can change the law and make it easier for one job or harder for a million..)

2. The questioner asked about “joining in mourning for the destruction that occurred 2000 years ago, and in particular the Temple.”
It seems to me that there is a false premise here that we were raised on, and therefore this question arises again and again, and not rightly. We were raised to think that on Tisha B’Av we mourn the Temple, and it is difficult to be raised to wish for something that we do not really lack. It is true that it was destroyed on Tisha B’Av, and this day is part of a series of fasts for the destruction. However, a reading of the Book of Lamentations and Lamentations shows that the main difficulty and mourning was over the situation of the people (individually and generally) and not over the lack of the Temple itself.
It is much easier to connect and mourn a difficult situation of horrific hunger, women eating fruit in their stomachs, severe internal conflicts that led to bloodshed, loss of home, power and exile. (Just as there is no difficulty in connecting with mourning on Holocaust Day, one simply has to take the laments, laments and midrashim as black and white films..).
This connects to 1 that the Temple represented the situation in the nation. The internal conflicts and corruption of the leadership were clearly evident in the Temple and it represented everything that was bad among the leadership and the general population. So if you perceive the Temple in this way, there is something to mourn and something to wish for, not necessarily for the Temple itself, but for the people then and today (*).

——
(*) Many are looking for the connection to our times and to find how it relates to me, to us. Although I do not claim, as is customary in national sports, that everything here is rotten from top to bottom. But even if we are in a great state compared to those days, there is certainly something to fix in the leadership and society and there is something to hope for.

Yuval S.,
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Hello Yuval.
In a parallel question, I truly added the grief for the exile and the people.
Your point 1 is a disagreement between Maimonides (whose view is that the Temple is the place of sacrifice) and the Ramban (whose view is that it is the place of the inspiration of the Divine Presence). Either way, without sacrifices none of this happens (at least according to what was then), and therefore it is difficult to separate the two. Unless you claim that in the future we will have a kind of Buddhist temple, that is, for spiritual work without sacrifices. But that already exists today. “In my heart I will build a tabernacle.”
The Sanhedrin is also not contingent on the existence of a Temple, so all the amendments you voted on do not really depend on it but mainly on us (so instead of mourning, we should simply amend and that’s it). Although all of this is my current view, perhaps in the future it will become clear to me that I misunderstood, as I wrote.