An edict signed by dozens of Israeli rabbis barring the sale or rental of homes to non-Jews in Israel has led to a rare consensus among American rabbis, who have issued a nearly unanimous condemnation of the ban.

Statements by the American Modern Orthodox and Conservative rabbinic associations, and by the spokesman for an American haredi Orthodox umbrella group, all denounce the Israeli rabbis’ directive. So does an online petition signed by more than 900 rabbis, most of them affiliated with non-Orthodox denominations.

Rabbi Shmuel Goldin, first vice president of the Rabbinical Council of America, says that the Israeli rabbis’ statement “couldn’t be left on the record without a response.”

Controversial proclamations by Israeli rabbis are not unheard of, but this sort of broad American rabbinic response is rare. Now it appears that the collective response has reached a tipping point — so many American rabbis have spoken against the edict that others may feel compelled to concur.

“The halachic issues here are complex,” said Rabbi Shmuel Goldin, first vice president of the Rabbinical Council of America, the largely Modern Orthodox rabbinic group. “But a blanket statement that singles out a certain population and says ‘don’t rent to them; don’t sell to them’ in such a blanket fashion is something that struck a very raw nerve.”

The Israeli letter was drafted in support of an effort by the chief rabbi of Safed to bar home rentals to Arabs. Tensions have run high in recent months between haredi Orthodox and Arab students in that northern Israeli city.

Exactly how many rabbis signed the edict is unclear. Some right-wing Israeli news outlets reported that the letter had 300 signatories, while other news organizations pegged the number at fewer than 100.

Regardless, the edict drew attention in the Israeli and international media because dozens of those who signed it were municipal rabbis employed by the government.

Israel’s leading Lithuanian haredi leader, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, refused to sign the letter, as did, according to one report, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual leader of Israel’s Shas Party. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the letter.

In America, rabbinic opposition to the letter came quickly. An online petition for rabbis posted by the New Israel Fund on Dec. 10 had received 914 signatures by Dec. 15.

“Statements like these do great damage to our efforts to encourage people to love and support Israel,” the NIF statement read. “They communicate to our congregants that Israel does not share their values, and they promote feelings of alienation and distancing.”

Signatories of the NIF petition included Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, executive vice president of the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly, and Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

Most signatories appeared to be members of the Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist movements, with a few notable exceptions including prominent New York, liberal-leaning Orthodox Rabbis Avi Weiss of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale and Yeshivat Chovevei Torah rabbinical school and Marc Angel of Cong. Shearith Israel.

Some Orthodox rabbis said the sponsorship of the petition by the NIF, which is identified with left-wing causes, may have discouraged the participation of rabbis who otherwise might have agreed with the petition’s sentiment.

The RCA’s statement, released Dec. 14, criticized the Israeli rabbis’ letter in somewhat gentler terms.

“We are surely sympathetic to the impulse to protect a Jewish community in the face of intermarriage, communal conflict, or unsafe neighborhoods,” the statement read. “It is our view that in spite of the concerns of the authors of the statement, it is wrong and unacceptable to advocate blanket exclusionary policies directed against minorities of other faiths or ethnic groups.”

Goldin, religious leader of Cong. Ahavath Torah in Englewood, said the RCA felt compelled to speak because, unlike an off-the-cuff comment by Yosef, who is known for making provocative remarks, the Israeli rabbis’ edict was a formal statement of Jewish law.

“That is what drew our attention — that once such a formal statement is issued, we felt that it couldn’t be left on the record without a response,” he said.

“It’s always easy to criticize those with whom you fundamentally disagree,” he told The Jewish Standard. “It takes greater courage … to publicly differ when someone from your own camp steps over the line. The rabbis who signed the document are zionist Orthodox rabbis with whom the members of the Rabbinical Council of America share great affinity on so many issues. Precisely because of that affinity, I am proud that the Rabbinical Council of America was willing to speak up on this matter.”

The RCA’s statement came hours after the posting of a translated version of a letter opposing the edict written by prominent centrist Orthodox Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, an American living in Israel, to a widely read Orthodox blog. Some observers saw the RCA’s response as a gambit to protect the group from recriminations for not speaking out on the issue.

“They came up with it because they had no choice, because everyone else was already speaking out and they felt, ‘We better say something so people don’t think we’re in favor of this,’” said Angel, a former president of the RCA and a frequent critic of the group.

“They’re facing the reality, political realities, that this is not an issue that you want to have your name stamped on,” Mendy Ganchrow, former president of the Orthodox Union and a retired executive vice president of the Religious Zionists of America, said of the RCA.

In an e-mail, Rabbi Avi Shafran, a spokesman for the American haredi Orthodox umbrella group Agudath Israel of America, said his organization concurred with Elyashiv and Yosef.

“The rabbis who signed the letter [banning the rentals] were simply misguided,” Shafran wrote.

Though the mainstream American rabbinical associations appear to oppose the Israeli rabbis’ letter, at least one prominent Orthodox rabbi was sympathetic.

“I think it’s part of a concern — and I believe a rightful one — that there’s a war going on, and we’re trying our best to maintain normalcy,” said Rabbi Moshe Tendler, a rosh yeshiva, or dean, of the rabbinical school at Yeshiva University and a major rabbinic arbiter.

The Forward

The Jewish Standard contributed to this report. For an opinion piece by Rabbi Nathaniel Helfgot, chair of the Depts. of Bible and Jewish Thought at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School and religious leader of Cong. Netivot Shalom in Teaneck, go to The Rental Controversy and Halakhic Decision-Making.

The news last week that a Hebrew-immersion charter school for Englewood and Teaneck has met with state approval has given rise to speculation about the new school’s impact on both public and Jewish day schools.

Also, because the new school will offer Hebrew-language and Jewish cultural curricula, another concern is whether these can be taught while steering clear of religion, as mandated by the constitutional separation of church and state.

Called the Shalom Academy and based in Englewood, it will join Hatikvah International Academy in East Brunswick as the second Hebrew-immersion charter school in New Jersey. The school, for up to 240 students in grades kindergarten to eighth, is set to open in September.

Shalom Academy is the brainchild of Englewood resident Raphael Bachrach, who conceived it as an alternative to day schools for tuition-burdened parents. The academy had been rejected three times by the state board of education because of concerns related to budgetary allotment and the potential issue of segregation.

Rabbi Tomer Ronen doesn’t see the charter as detracting from day schools. FILE PHOTO

Due to Gov. Christie’s massive push for charter schools in low-performing districts, the school was one of 23 new charters approved last Tuesday. Advocates for the school had worked hard to refine the school’s proposal, between its previously rejected applications, to meet New Jersey Department of Education standards.

Rabbi Yitzchak Rosenbaum, a Teaneck resident who is executive director of the National Jewish Outreach Program, thinks the news is both good and bad.

“As far as Limudei Kodesh [Jewish studies], this presents a conflict,” he said, adding that the Hebrew-immersion charter in Florida offers engaging after-school programs focused on religion. That way, he explained, students can learn about religion in a fun environment, while avoiding the mixing of church and state in school.

“Students will not receive the same type of Jewish education that they would in Jewish day schools,” he continued. On the other hand, he said, “The benefits are that children will be proficient in Hebrew language and culture, which should not be discounted as important facets of Jewish education. Shalom presents an alternative to public school, where students run the risk of losing Jewish knowledge altogether, and consequently losing their faith.”

Rosenbaum envisions most applicants to be parents seeking a more Jewish option to public school for their children, perhaps Israelis looking to keep up Hebrew-language studies and a Jewish cultural connection.

Daniel Barenholtz, a Teaneck resident and father of four, said, “I want to know who the teachers are. Will math be constructive or instructive? Will they teach whole language or phonics? Will there be heavy homework or light? Also, any parent who is focused on their children’s religious education will have to make their own arrangements for that outside of the normal school day. I’m sure it will be challenging.”

Rabbi Shmuel Goldin of Cong. Ahavath Torah in Englewood, who spearheaded efforts for the Northern New Jersey Kehillot Investing in Day Schools fund in 2009, feels that parents may consider sending students to the charter for special educational needs or for financial reasons. But, he cautioned, “this option needs to be carefully examined. There is no real substitute for a full day-school education.”

A different view was expressed by one follower of 200k Chump (http://www.200kchump.blogspot.com), a blog devoted to the tuition crisis: “I went to public school my entire life. I’ve always been religious. It comes from the heart and home. This could be a fantastic opportunity for families who want to live within their means.”

Rabbi Menachem Genack of Englewood’s Cong. Shomrei Emunah is “concerned that the Shalom charter school will draw students away from the yeshiva day schools and Solomon Schechter schools, thus destabilizing them, while offering an inferior Jewish education. This kind of charter school is valuable in areas where there are no day schools, but not here in Bergen County.”

On the other hand Rabbi Tomer Ronen, principal of Ben Porat Yosef, doesn’t “see there being an issue of the charter ‘taking away’ from the Jewish day schools. Aside from a very strong focus on Hebrew language and culture, our major focus is to create Torah scholars.”

Similarly, Ruth Gafni, head of school at the Solomon Schechter Day School of Bergen County in New Milford, said that although it’s good if any school promotes Hebrew, that language is only a foundation, the building block for academic success in the areas of Tanach, Talmud, Torah, derech eretz, the Jewish holidays, and how God is central to it all.

Richard Segall, Englewood’s superintendent of public schools, says his concern is the budget. “Englewood will be losing over $700,000 in funding in the first year but receiving less than $3,000 in operational savings,” he told The Jewish Standard, “It costs taxpayers far less to incorporate a Hebrew immersion program inside our existing schools than creating a new school with all of the associated overhead and operational costs. Integrating students into the total school can be done in a way that tackles the problem of group isolation, so the delivery of services does not become a case of ‘separate but equal.’”

Segall explained that, in the past, Englewood received about 15 affirmative responses to the proposal of a Hebrew charter school, spanning five grades. “This suggests that a Hebrew-immersion program would have a small pool of students within the district who would be candidates for this charter school. To get to the number of projected enrollees, students would be coming from elsewhere, and our records show that the vast majority who fit the profile are currently enrolled in Jewish day schools.”

In an e-mail to the Standard, Barbara Pinsak, interim superintendent of schools for Teaneck, wrote, “It’s done and we are going to move on. I had an opportunity to respond to the charter proposal and my concerns were based on curriculum and the adherence of the charter proposal to the guidelines of the New Jersey Department of Education for charter schools. Evidently, our concerns and questions were either not considered compelling enough or were otherwise deemed not important.”

Bachrach did not respond to requests for comment.

Shalom Academy, the Hebrew charter school planned for Englewood/Teaneck, is being hailed by some and criticized by others. For some — especially parents of children selected in the opening admissions lottery — it represents a chance to immerse children in Hebrew culture while saving on day-school tuition. But some local religious leaders fear that the academy may drain resources from existing Jewish schools.

While founder Raphael Bachrach did not return telephone calls, the Shalom Academy website listed this week, by number rather than name, students accepted for the first classes: 40 students for both kindergarten and first grade and 20 each for third and fourth grades. Each grade has a substantial waiting list. All applicants have been accepted for fifth grade, though the number of students was not listed.

The mother of a 5-year-old boy in Teaneck who will enter the academy told The Jewish Standard that her oldest child attends a day school “we are very happy with. She’s excelling, and we don’t have a desire for her to leave the school.”

She applied to the academy for her younger son and his twin brother — who was not selected in the lottery — because “now there are more options, and this is a wonderful educational experience that won’t cost so much.”

She is not sure, however, that she will send her son to the school. That will depend on whether his twin, who is wait-listed, is accepted as well.

Also, said the Teaneck parent, she is “not so clear” on what will be offered. “I only know what was on the website,” she said, “but it says they will follow New Jersey state standards.” She is hopeful, however, “that the academy will have a great arts program…. An ideal situation would be a fabulous general studies program and a great arts program, with music, drama, arts, and computers.”

She will also investigate after-school Judaic programs. She said that existing offerings don’t have what she is seeking, “but maybe because of this school, it will be created.”

Another parent, also from Teaneck, will send her 6-year-old daughter to Shalom Academy in the fall. Right now, the girl attends a Solomon Schechter school and “loves everything about it.” But while it’s “warm and nurturing, it’s extremely expensive, even more so than even two or three years ago.”

“Of primary importance is a very strong and secure academic foundation,” said the mother. “Next is Hebrew language. These are tools you need in order to learn over a lifetime. Everything else you can supplement.”

She pointed out that she grew up in public schools and believes in them. But, she said, “the schools [here] are not great and I don’t feel they will provide my daughter with the education she needs.” And since she will save on tuition, she can “now afford to supplement what my daughter is missing in terms of a Judaic education” as well as such extras as drama and ballet.

She and her husband realize that the new venture may require a lot of parental involvement, but they are not daunted, since “we both feel we are invested enough in getting a quality education.” They may also have more children, something they had put off because of the high cost of education.

“Is it better to have more Jewish children or fewer children with more Jewish literacy?” she asked. “I’m not convinced we always make the right choice.”

Rabbi Menachem Genack, CEO of the Orthodox Union Kosher Division and head of Cong. Shomrei Emunah in Englewood, said the school is “both promising and problematic, depending on the context. Across the country, these kinds of programs are often opportunities for kids who would otherwise have no Jewish education. But if the result of this particular school is to siphon kids away from Solomon Schechter or [other] day schools, it would be unfortunate. It could destabilize the schools or hurt them because they would have less resources.”

On the other hand, said Genack, “If the result is [that] kids who are not getting any Hebrew or day-school education or kids who have special needs go, that would be good.”

Similarly, Rabbi Shmuel Goldin, first vice president of the Rabbinical Council of America and leader of Cong. Ahavath Torah in Englewood, said that “[In reaching out] to Jewish families who would not be sending their children otherwise to local day schools, or as a resource to those families whose children cannot be accommodated in the day schools because of exceptional needs, the charter school could be seen as a welcome addition to the fabric of the community.”

However, he added, “it is absolutely no substitute for a day-school education, and I would consider it most unfortunate were … parents to choose to take their children out of the day-school setting in favor of this charter school. Our children are our most precious commodity,” he said. “We should not gamble with their education.”

Goldin said there’s no question, from the standpoint of a Judaic education, that the charter school would be “vastly inferior” to a full day-school education.

“I understand the financial pressures on day school parents, and we are making efforts ... to try and address these concerns, but they are long-term solutions and they are not going to solve this overnight,” he said. “I would hate to see an exodus from the day schools because of a financial crisis.”

Englewood resident Rabbi Shmuley Boteach thinks Shalom Academy is “a very positive development. I of course support the separation of church and state, but in education it is taken to a draconian extreme where parochial schools cannot even get funding for their secular subjects. Parents are squeezed between exorbitant property taxes and high tuition. The situation is untenable.”

Boteach, a columnist for this newspaper, said he hopes we can “slowly loosen the stranglehold” absolute separation has over education in the United States. It is a “bizarre situation,” he added, “when hardworking parents’ tax dollars cannot go toward their children’s study of history and math in a parochial school..., a monstrous injustice against religious parents everywhere.”

The “ultimate fix is vouchers, where parents have a choice,” he said. But the next best thing is a charter school, “where a semblance of tradition can be imparted, whether in the form of language or culture.” Boteach said it is also positive that a Hebrew charter school will bring together Christian, Jewish, and Muslim students, “all part of the covenant of Abraham.”

Heather Robinson contributed to this report.