In order to properly mourn a particular loss, one must understand the loss sustained. As we enter the zone of mourning the loss of the Bais Hamikdosh, let us attempt to grasp the gravity of its’ absence.

We are told that man’s three hundred and sixty-five sinews along with two hundred and forty-eight limbs correspond to the number of positive and negative commandments that the Torah mandates. By fulfilling the mitzvos one sanctifies the corresponding body part and earns eternal life.

The Chofetz Chaim in Sefer Hamitzvos Hakotzer calculated, that upon the loss of the Bais Hamikdosh, we are left with seventy-two of the two hundred and forty-eight positive mitzvos and only one hundred and seventy-four of the three hundred and sixty-five negative mitzvos remain functional. In essence, the majority of the mitzvos were lost to us upon the churbon of the Mikdosh! This was not the original plan at creation! Certainly the expectation was that all of the mitzvos would be relevant! Lacking all of these mitzvah opportunities puts a big wedge in our ability to achieve perfection. If each mitzvah represents an individual body part and infuses within it the capability to survive, then the lack of the mitzvah performances should render us dysfunctional invalids chas veshalom.

This thought alone is cause for anguish and to sorely feel the vacuum created by the absence of the Bais Hamikdosh.

The Novi, Yimiyohu laments, “Malka visoreah bagoyim ein Torah”- “Now that the royalty of Klal Yisroel has been cast into golus, Torah is missing”. The Vilna Gaon wonders why the golus should cause the Torah to go AWOL. He explains that the level of the quality and depth of Torah severely deteriorated upon the churbon. The presence of the Bais Hamikdosh granted and empowered the populance to gain deeper and greater heights in their limud haTorah.

The Vilna Gaon subsequently explains a peculiar passage that we recite at the conclusion of the Shemoneh Esray. In the concluding “Yehi ratzon” we request, “Sheyiboneh Bais Hamikdosh etc., visen chelkeinu bisoirosecha etc.”- “the return of the Bais Hamikdosh and to be granted our chelek in Torah”. Why are these two independent requests bundled together? The Vina Gaon explains that the presence of the Bais Hamikdosh afforded people with greater opportunities to achieve much higher levels in the study of Torah and therefore we ask for its’ return so that our Torah should flourish to previous levels.

Is this not great cause to sincerely wish for the return of the Bais Hamikdosh?

The Vilna Gaon in his commentary on Shir Hashirim points out that a person, even after completing the various steps of teshuva, still remains tainted with a stain on his neshoma. However, when his teshuva is accompanied with a korbon, he is totally purified and untainted.

Here we have further cause to agonize over the loss of the Bais Hamikdosh!

Rav Yonoson Eibeshitz, in Sefer Ya’aros Devash, relates that when a person would simply tread on the floor of the Bais Hamikdosh he would be inundated with chochma and connect to ruach hakodesh. That is the reason why one must remove his shoes while standing in the Mikdosh. This was to remove any division from being able to access the kedusha from standing on the floor of the Mikdosh.

The Mesilas Yeshorim devotes an entire sefer to prescribe a sophisticated and lengthy process how to access ruach hakodesh. When there was a Bais Hamikdosh this was accessible by merely treading on its’ floor!

This is added rationale to begin to sense personally the loss of the Bais Hamikdosh and begin sincere aveilus on its’ loss.

Are tefillin with a torn bayis still kosher?

A tear in one of the outer walls of the bayis of the shel rosh renders the tefillin pasul. The same halacha applies if the walls of the three inner compartments are torn. If the walls of only two compartments are torn, and the two sections are not next to each other, the tefillin are kosher. If the sections are next to each other, Shulchon Aruch rules that the tefillin would be kosher if they are new but would be disqualified if they are old. Rema quotes an opposite opinion; a new pair would be pasul and an old pair would be kosher. A new pair that rips is an indication of the inferior quality of the leather.

[סעיף א, ס"ק ב-ו ו־ט-יא, וביה"ל ד"ה זה וד"ה ראשון]

Does a hole in the bayis disqualify the tefillin?

The above-mentioned disagreement regarding a torn inner compartment pertains to a bayis that rips on its own. There is a concern that a tear on the inner compartment may spread to the outer wall. The disagreement centers on the question of whether old or new tefillin are more problematic in this case. If the tefillin were ripped with a knife, however, both views agree that the tear could spread regardless of whether the tefillin are new or old. The poskim disagree about whether a hole in the bayis is similar to a ripped bayis. A small, barely visible hole does not invalidate the tefillin.

[ס"ק ד; ביאורים ומוספים דרשו, 3-1]

How can one determine whether tefillin are new or old?

As mentioned, the Rishonim differentiate between a tear in new tefillin and a tear in old tefillin. If one is not sure whether his tefillin are new or old, the Gemara says that the age can be determined by pulling on the straps. If the bayis opens up when the straps are pulled, it is a sign that the tefillin are new. If it does not, the tefillin are considered old. This test is only effective if the ma’avarta (the section that the straps run through) is made from the same piece of leather as the bayis. In any case, in deference to the disagreement between the Rishonim, Rema rules that both new and old tefillin which tear are pasul.

[סעיף א וס"ק ח; ביאורים ומוספים דרשו]