The Senate Judiciary Committee completed its three days of hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Anthony M. Kennedy yesterday with his nomination on track and committee members still feuding about their rejection of Judge Robert H. Bork for the job.

With Kennedy's largely noncontroversial nomination virtually a foregone conclusion, committee liberals sought assurances from witnesses that Kennedy is a more moderate, mainstream conservative than Bork, President Reagan's first nominee for the seat vacated last June by Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Conservative members reentered the battle, citing similarities between Bork and Kennedy and blasting the American Bar Association's judicial evaluations committee for its controversial split rating on Bork's qualifications.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said the panel plans to vote on Kennedy after the holiday recess.

The ABA committee said yesterday that it interviewed 480 judges and lawyers before deciding unanimously to give Kennedy its top rating.

Asked by ranking minority member Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) whether the 15-member ABA panel found any reason not to approve Kennedy, its chairman, Harold R. Tyler Jr., said it could find none.

"Your report is so effusive in his praise," Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) told Tyler. "I don't want to canonize Judge Kennedy."

Committee conservatives, Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said, are still "embittered by what happened" when four members of the ABA panel rated Bork "not qualified."

Hatch and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) complained about the ABA committee's secret deliberations, warning that senators would want to hear from individual ABA panel members "if we see another repeat of what happened" to Bork.

Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.) said he does not understand how Bork, given a top ABA rating before being confirmed for his appeals court position, went "from the toast of the town to the poop of the year."

The conservative attack sparked an equally testy response from several Democrats, with Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) defending the Senate's 58-to-42 vote to reject Bork, "despite some sour grapes of some of our friends on the right over a battle long ago fought and decided."

Liberals sought assurances that the battle was worthwhile, asking liberal Harvard Law School professor Laurence H. Tribe to outline the differences between Bork and Judge Kennedy. Tribe, who opposed Bork, testified for Kennedy, saying the nominees' views differ in several areas, with Kennedy adopting more liberal views on free speech, privacy and protections of civil rights.

"The biggest difference is Kennedy is not an ideologue with a clear agenda," Tribe said, but is committed to a "more flexible, cautious approach." Kennedy had a "principled commitment to an evolving constitutional understanding, not a clear agenda," he said.

The Senate committee heard strong criticism of Kennedy by the liberal Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) Inc.; the National Organization for Women (NOW) Inc.; the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

"You played patty-cake with him," ADA Vice Chairman Joseph Rauh Jr. said.

"I don't think you know what he thinks," Rauh said, adding that the committee let Kennedy "get away with generalizations" without getting a sense of how he will vote on key issues such as abortion, civil rights or church-state separation.

"He talks a good game, but he doesn't play that game," Rauh said, adding that Kennedy "almost always takes the side against {civil} rights. It's nice to say you are for rights, but its nicer to vote" for them, he said.

NOW President Molly Yard said the committee should not approve Kennedy because "we have no idea what he would do" on Roe v. Wade, the high court's 1973 ruling establishing the right to an abortion.