Conversion in Shahadah

I went over what Rabbi Tabadi wrote and he is absolutely wrong.
His claims about how and in what context to see the answers quoted by Rabbi Melamed are not only not necessary, but it is certainly possible that it was within this framework that Rabbi Melamed taught them and that these answers speak to this situation. And his conclusion is absolutely right.
He will only neutralize his fundamental decision (and as I think not from today, despite what he says at the end) against Rabbi Melamed and show that there is nothing in his claims.

Wondering why the rabbi writes errors without receiving a commandment is complete nonsense?
Even in the response Ahiezer instructs the convert in such a situation
And the Natziv in part 5 of the answer to Teshuva M recognizes such a conversion in law and in practice (although unlike Ahiezer, he does not tell the convert to begin with in such a situation)
So why is this nonsense in the eyes of the rabbi?

This is nonsense because it is clear that there is no such conversion. And in my opinion, it is also not written in the majority of the sources cited in this context (as far as I know, perhaps only the Rad”tz Hoffman raises such a possibility). Beyond that, I explained above that sources from the poskim do not really impress me.

Even if there is a conversion without keeping the commandments, why convert? It is better for him to remain a non-Jew and his children will not be obligated to the commandments. Especially since there are opinions that he is a shipwreck, brings disasters or destroys worlds and postpones redemption.
Not to mention that in conversions for marital purposes it is better for him to remain a Gentile and then the Jewish side will transgress much lighter prohibitions than if he converts.

And in general, what is the meaning of such a conversion? If he does not believe, what is the point of converting? Converting a religion should be out of faith. How is this different from a rapist who converted to Christianity because of persecution? Even Christianity understood this and today does not baptize everyone.

Ask the one who converts like that.

I went through every single Jewish law again.
And I did not find at all, neither in the Shulchan Arba’ah nor in the Rama’ah, that the foreigner is obligated to keep all the commandments or even some of them.
Only that he accepts upon himself the principle that there is a punishment if he transgresses the commandments and that there is a good reward if he keeps the commandments.
And they extend it with the prohibition of idolatry and belief in one God, etc.

Where does the Rabbi come from that he is obligated to actually keep the commandments?
Or that he is obligated to actually keep them?
Only that he is obligated to accept upon himself the principle of reward and punishment and of course that it is recommended that he observe and deserve the reward and not commit offenses and commit to the punishment.
Forgiveness.
A question that may be simple, but still where does the Rabbi come from that he is obligated to keep them? Or at least to commit or want to keep them in practice?

This is exactly what is called a commitment to the mitzvot. What does it mean that he accepts the principle of reward and punishment? It depends on him? The Holy One rewards and punishes. He announces that he understands that the mitzvot oblige him and that they carry reward and punishment. Accepting mitzvot is not an obligation to actually keep them, after all, even a Jew by birth, and even one who is obligated, does not actually keep everything. It is an entry into the world of those who are obligated, of which the sanctions are an expression. There is no need to actually keep them, and this is not a condition for conversion.

Beyond that, there is no need to mention in the Shulchan Arba the acceptance of the mitzvot, because this is the essence of conversion and not a condition in the conversion procedure. The Shulchan Arba addresses those who want to convert and tells them how to do it. But it does not say that one must want to convert. If you don't want to. Don't convert. Similarly, in the Shulchan Arba the intention to buy is not mentioned, but only the ways of the buyers are presented. Why? Because the intention to buy is the essence of ownership. Whoever does not want to buy should not buy. Likewise, whoever does not want to fulfill a commandment does not convert.

The main source is the Gemara, which says that whoever accepts upon himself except for one thing is not a ger (see Bekorot 3:2).
See a review here: https://www.zomet.org.il/?CategoryID=263&ArticleID=254
But they do not clarify (and perhaps they were wrong about this) that the entire discussion is solely about the question of whether, as part of the conversion process, an act of accepting a commandment is necessary, and whether it is a deterrent. There is a controversy about this that is brought up there. But it does not in any way touch on the acceptance of the commandments themselves, which is the essence of conversion. A ger is someone who comes to accept a commandment. Although the actual announcement of this at the time of conversion is not a deterrent condition for some opinions. A common mistake.

What is the essence of conversion when there are opinions that it is even rabbinical?
The essence of conversion is joining the people of Israel.
(And a Christian who is willing to endure what the people of Israel are going through)

There is no opinion that is from a rabbi. Did you read what I wrote?

Accepts everything except for the 1st thing, meaning that a convert wants to be with someone Jewish, except for the prohibition against eating pork, for example.
This will not be obligatory.
This is impossible
He is obligated in everything and will receive a reward for the commandments and a punishment for the transgressions.
He agrees to enter this framework.
And when he is a Gentile, of course, he is not in this framework.
But he does not commit to actually observing it, but rather agrees to enter this obligatory framework that carries with it a reward and a punishment.

Havat Yair writes that you received the commandments, it is a rabbi

Without knowing him, it's clear to me that he didn't write that way.

Did the rabbi read Rabbi Ram's pamphlet on the subject of conversion?

not

Why? Do you see no value in reading the pamphlet because you don't think the claims are worth examining at all? Or do you already agree with his position (in favor of small conversions, etc.) and therefore see no value in reading the pamphlet? Or do you simply not have the time?
Which option is the correct one?

Most Russians (including the Gentiles among them) are traditional in the sense that they believe in God and that he gave the Torah to Moses. They may believe that it is better to be a Jew in hell than a Gentile in heaven.

I don't know.

How did you determine that most Russians are traditional? Most are secular. From atheists, deists to those who don't believe that the devil had any authority. There are also Christians among them, even among whom the majority don't believe.
When Russians believe, they become devout Haredim.

Those who believe but don't observe anything are mainly Mizrahi.

What is the rule regarding accepting the conversion of a rabbi who converts according to his opinion that differs from mine?
Must I accept? But in my opinion, it is not conversion.
Don't I have to? It sounds like it would be very difficult to get along like that.

You are absolutely right, which is why I wrote my article that caused a stir about Rabbi Druckman's conversion:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%A9%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%99-%D7%92%D7%99%D7%95%D 7%A8-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%98%D7%95%D7%91%D7%95%D7%AA
I argued there that they are acting violently, since they are imposing conversion norms on the general public that most of the rabbis do not agree with, violently taking control of the gates of entry to the Jewish people, and inevitably bringing us all to the problem you described.
But one must distinguish between two types of situations: A. In the case where the rabbi believes that the rabbi received a commandment and therefore converted him, then if I disagree with their assessment, I must accept their ruling. They are the ones who sat in judgment and therefore their ruling is decisive. B. In a case where a Jew does not require the acceptance of a commandment and converts, in my opinion this Gentile is a complete Gentile and the actions of that Jew should not be considered.
Furthermore, in case B, I would not deny the claim of the well-known dayan from Ashdod who ruled that a Jew who converts in this way is wicked (not because of his own reasoning. He has the right to think as he thinks, but because of the violence), and therefore his conversions are also invalid from this point of view. Although in Rabbi Druckman's system they claimed that they do require the acceptance of a commandment, but in practice the converts usually do not observe the majority, and if so, it belongs to the first category and not the second.

I have met them and I work with them. The Pew Research Center survey also found similar findings.
The rabbi categorically rules out and I say each case is unique. (Even in the most lenient courts. It does not depend on the court but on the immigrant himself). I met a convert who went to get married in a civil wedding with a gentile in the Czech Republic, but when I heard her talk about her conversion, I doubt whether the conversion was valid. A gentile who returned to his homeland is still a gentile.
I worked with a man who wore tefillin every day but was married to a gentile woman. He knew he had a past. One day his son came to work. I did not know that the son was a gentile, so I wanted to show him something in the Torah. His father said that his son was forbidden to study Torah.

My conclusions are:
A. Each case is unique. Even if the gentile returned to his homeland, it does not mean that he does not believe and did not understand that his immigration is the acceptance of a commandment.
B. Our problem is with the traditionalists. If the traditionalists among the people of Israel observed every Sabbath like Yom Kippur, the Russians would also observe every Sabbath like Yom Kippur.

Before I met them, I too had all the stereotypes that rabbis have about them and believed that conversions don't apply. Today, my opinion is much less vigorous.

I did not categorically disqualify. Neither in the article nor anywhere else. On the contrary, I wrote that after conversion, one should not disqualify in a blanket manner because each case is unique.

Yes, but even when examining each case on its own merits, the examination cannot be based on the current conduct of the immigrant, because even if the immigrant has returned to his homeland, his conversion is still valid. It can be determined that the conversion is not valid only if the immigrant does not believe in God and commands, then it can be determined that he did not believe during the migration either, and therefore it was a show. If the immigrant is traditional (i.e. believes in God who revealed himself at Sinai and gave us the Torah as preserved in tradition), the doubt remains whether during the migration he accepted all the commandments or not, and I would not rule out that he did accept them even if his homeland is bad today.

Right. So what's the claim?

Since your last comments, Rabbi Melamed has published additional articles that substantiate his position, and not just citing a bunch of recent ones who believe the same.
To be honest, you didn't understand Rabbi Melamed's position correctly. He certainly believes that accepting a commandment is essential to conversion, he just believes that "accepting the commandments" does not mean an obligation to actually keep the commandments, but rather an understanding that these commandments obligate him.
It seems that you yourself wrote this in your comments above: “”He announces that he understands that the commandments obligate him and that they carry rewards and punishments. Accepting a commandment is not an obligation to actually keep them, because even a Jew by birth, and even one who is obligated, does not actually keep everything. It is an entry into the world of those who are obligated, of which the sanctions are an expression. There is no need to actually keep them, and this is not a condition for conversion.”

So, what is your attitude towards his position?

I wrote a column about it, where I clarified my position. I also raised two possibilities for what Rabbi Muhammad meant, and this was one of them that I agree with.

See column 469