Abstract This communication examines contemporary interpretations of the phrase "next year in Jerusalem" within Conservative Judaism, specifically critiquing Jonathan Omer-man's theological reinterpretation published in the Winter 1989-90 issue. The methodology employed consists of textual analysis comparing traditional Jewish sources with modern interpretations, drawing upon historical precedents including Solomon Schechter's essays on Zionism and Rabbi Jacob Emden's liturgical commentaries. The analysis distinguishes between two established conceptions of Jerusalem in Jewish thought: the physical Jerusalem as Israel's capital and the spiritual Jerusalem (Yerushalayim shelMa'aleh). The study argues that Omer-man's interpretation exceeds acceptable midrashic boundaries by suggesting alternative locations for Jerusalem beyond these traditional understandings. Historical evidence demonstrates consistent Jewish orientation toward the physical Jerusalem through prayer, liturgy, and commemorative practices spanning centuries. The findings indicate that even nineteenth-century figures like Gustav Poznanski, who metaphorically described Charleston as "our Jerusalem," maintained recognition of the original Jerusalem's geographic reality. The research concludes that contemporary theological reinterpretations must remain grounded in established Jewish textual traditions and geographic realities rather than pursuing abstract philosophical alternatives that disconnect from historical Jewish practice and sentiment.