Reb Eliezer: Eim HaBanim Semecha doesn’t contain anything new. It’s a collection of all the old Zionist arguments that have long been disproven. The truth is, his position stood no chance to begin with, because even though R. Teichtel was a talmid chacham, he was opposing the collective Torah knowledge of the greatest Torah giants, including but not limited to Rav Chaim Brisker, Rav Samson Raphael Hirsh, The Chofetz Chaim, the Rogachover Gaon, The Lubavitcher Rebbe (Rashab), the Belzer Rebbe (R. Yisachar Dov), the Chazon Ish, the Brisker Rav, Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzensky, all who were opposed to Zionism and the creation of a State. So he was really quite outgunned from the start. The most extensive work on this topic is of course the Satmar Rav’s Vayoel Moshe, which disproves just about every Zionist “proof” ever conceived.
Eim HaBanim Semecha is not taken seriously outside of Zionist circles, because it is mostly emotional sermons and discourses (droshos), rather than a serious Halachic analysis. It’s an emotional outcry in response to the holocaust (he dates the introduction Parshas Tetzaveh 1943) and its clear that he was talking out of desperation for finding a safe haven for Jews, which many felt Eretz Yisroel would be. He confuses his personal feelings with Halachic methodology, Rebbishe vertlach with Halachic rulings, and so is not at all compelling.
Example: On page 147 he addresses a powerful statement in Ahavas Yonason by R. Yonason Eyebuschitz ZT”L that it is absolutely prohibited for Jews to take over Eretz Yisroel before Moshiach, even if all the nations want them to, which is kind of a problem for a religious Zionist like R. Teichtel. This is his response: “You should understand that the words of Rav Yonason only apply when there is no sign from heaven that we should all abandon the lands of Chutz Laaretz, meaning, when Jews can live peacefully outside of Eretz Yisroel … but not nowadays, when the words of the prophet came true, [that Jews will be hunted down by goyim]. So when the nations give us permission to return to our land, can there be any doubt that it is the will of Hashem that we return to Eretz Yisroel? I am certain, that if Rav Yonason Eyebushitz was living with us today and saw the terrible golus that we endure, he himself would say to us: ‘Brother Jews! The time has come for you to go to Eretz Yisroel, for this is the will of Hashem, for it is not coincidence what has happened to us in Golus, but rather it is the finger of G-d pointing to us to rise from golus…”
Now, of course, even in the days of Rav Yonason (about 250 years ago) Jews were persecuted, and all throughout Golus they were, too. Yet R. Teichtel decided that he knows how to quantify the measure of suffering that Jews are expected to tolerate in Golus, and what on the other hand is a “sign from Hashem” for them to return. He decided that he can read Hashem’s signs and that this, for sure, is what our suffering means. Where did he get this scale? Nowhere. He decided it on his own. He and only he decided that this “sign from Hashem” tells us that the Golus is over. Well, he can read whatever he wants into “signs from Hashem,” but this “sign from Hashem” has no Rashi or Tosfos to tell us how to interpret it. Nor did Hashem tell him how to read history, nor does he have any sources that his is the proper reading. Since when do we pasken sheailos based on personal feelings? It’s a nice sermon, but Halachicly it means nothing. Yet to him, not only is it Halachicly binding on everyone, but it “there is no longer any room for doubt”.
This attitude that “everyone has to interpret the world the way I do” often passes the line into the realm of the absurd. On page 98 he deals with the Minchas Elozor, who was a vehement opponent of Zionism. He was vehemently critical in general, actually, when it came to protecting the Torah. And nobody was beyond his scrutiny.
The following is R. Teichtel’s explanation of why The Minchas Elozor was against “Yishuv HaAretz”:
First, he tries to establish that whether the redemption will come miraculously or slowly and naturally depends on whether Moshiach’s coming will be because we “deserve it” (“zachah”) – in which case it will be miraculous, or because Hashem sent it to us despite our not deserving it, in which case it will be natural. Then he says, quote:
“And with this we have an open response to the entire objection of our master and rebbi, the holy scholar, the Minchas Elozor ZT”L of Munkatch, regarding being involved with building the land. For I myself was one of his group, and I knew that his entire objection was base don the fact that the redemption is going to come miraculously, not naturally … But his honor remains intact, for he on his high level believed that the entire world is on the high level where they deserve Moshiach, like he was. But the truth is that this last generation, unfortunately, not deserving of Moshiach, and therefore the redemption will come couched in natural methods.” – Aim Habanim Semechah p.98
In other words, the Minchas Elozor mistakenly and naively thought the whole world was Tzadikim like he was, but in reality he didn’t understand that the world doesn’t really deserve Moshiach. Now never mind how R. Teichtel decided he can judge the world and decide whether they deserve Moshiach or not; never mind that he has not one Halachic shred of evidence to back up this position of his; but to say that the Minchas Elozor naively looked at the whole world as much more righteous than they actually are, as deserving of redemption when in fact they don’t deserve it, is beyond ludicrous and for anyone who knows anything about the Minchas Elozor, totally dishonest. If there was one person in the past hundred years who we would say is not guilty of overrating the world, it could very well be the Minchas Elozor. If he’s not first on the list, he’s second.
R. Teichtel’s sefer comes without any Haskomos (approbations) form anybody. But he did want Haskomos, so what he did was he took Haskomos out of another sefer, and printed them in his sefer, saying that the Haskomos would certainly apply to his sefer too, since the two seforim generally say the same things. But none of the rabbis of his time wrote him a haskama.
Note: Eim HaBanim Semechah speaks basically about building the land. The topic of creating a sovereign state – which was the major objection to Zionism – is almost completely ignored. Perhaps this is what the Lubavitcher Rebbe meant (told to the author’s son, quoted in the introduction, p. 21 ) when he told the son of author to “publicize that your father was a G-d fearing Jew who was far away from Zionism”. I would think this is because in his sefer he never argues in favor of a Jewish State, but rather in favor of building up the land.