Rabbi Eliezer Melamed: A person can convert without fully accepting all the Mitzvot

In a sharp halachic clash, the Ungvár Rebbe, Rabbi Moshe Klein of Modi’in Illit, has publicly condemned statements by Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, head of the Har Bracha Institute, who claimed at the 22nd Jerusalem Conference that requiring full acceptance of mitzvos for conversion is merely “a ruling of Hungarian rabbis.” The Rebbe, a renowned expert in conversion laws and author of Mishnat HaGer, called the assertion astonishing and dangerous, warning, “Anyone who questions this brings complete gentiles into the vineyard of Israel!”

Speaking from his home in Modi’in Illit’s Green Park neighborhood, the Rebbe expressed dismay over Rabbi Melamed’s remarks. “It is simple and clear, with no disagreement in the responsa of all generations and communities, that full acceptance of mitzvos with intent to fulfill them is an essential condition for a valid conversion,” he declared in a conversation with Israel Shapira. He accused Rabbi Melamed of undermining the purity of Jewish lineage by dismissing the rulings of Hungary’s gedolei haposkim, such as the disciples of the Chasam Sofer.

Rabbi Melamed, known for his Peninei Halacha series, argued at the B’Sheva-sponsored conference that a more lenient approach to conversion—based on Jewish identity rather than mitzvah observance—could address the status of nearly 500,000 Israelis, mostly Soviet immigrants and their descendants, who are not halachically Jewish.

He cited 130 historical rabbinic opinions allegedly supporting this view. The Ungvár Rebbe refuted this claim outright, insisting that months of research for Mishnat HaGer—endorsed by luminaries like Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, Rabbi Shmuel Halevi Wosner, and Rabbi Ovadia Yosef—proved no such dispute exists. “We dedicated a chapter to dismantling his claims with absolute proof from the very responsa he misinterpreted,” the Rebbe said.

The Rebbe singled out Rabbi Melamed’s example of a 19th-century soldier converted despite apparent lack of mitzvah commitment. “The authority explicitly noted the convert’s sincerity,” he countered, adding that Rabbi Melamed’s assumption of insincerity after 200 years reflects audacity.

He further explained the historical context: “Before the Haskalah, no Jew lived without Torah and mitzvos. A soldier joining a Jewish community had no choice but to observe.” The Rebbe also dismissed claims of leniency among North African sages, asserting uniformity across all responsa.

Typically reserved, the Rebbe felt compelled to speak out. “Since conversion is my life’s work, I must protest and clarify the emes of Torah,” he said. He announced plans to publish a detailed response from Mishnat HaGer and urged rabbonim to study the sources rather than rely on media distortions.

The Har Bracha Institute defended Rabbi Melamed, stating, “Our conclusion, from studying all opinions in Masoret HaGiyur, is that a genuine halachic conversion strengthening Jewish identity prevents assimilation.” They invited the Rebbe to review their comprehensive research.

The controversy, reignited at the Jerusalem Conference, underscores a deepening divide over conversion standards as Israel grapples with its unclassified population. For the Ungvár Rebbe, the stakes are clear: “The sanctity of Klal Yisroel’s lineage must not be taken lightly.”