Within Judaism's legal tradition, divine communication now flows exclusively through halakhic discourse rather than prophetic revelation - a transformation solidified by the Temple's destruction. This fundamental shift raises critical questions about how religious law can authentically evolve while maintaining its authority. Drawing on traditional rabbinic sources, particularly statements from Berakhot 8a and Bava Batra 12a, alongside contemporary legal frameworks from Robert Cover and Ronald Dworkin's chain novel concept, a complex picture emerges of halakhic responsibility in Conservative Judaism. While subjective interpretation plays an undeniable role in legal decision-making, authentic religious authority requires adherence to recognizable halakhic language, idiom, and argumentational structures. Even radical innovation must be expressed through traditional legal discourse rather than prophetic or purely ethical language to maintain legitimacy. Conservative halakhic authorities consistently weave aggadic and narrative elements into their decisions, with disputes centered on competing narratives rather than methodology itself. This analysis reveals that halakhic responsibility, while demanding recognizable connection to historical tradition, does not preclude legitimate pluralism or evolution - rather, it requires new developments to function as continuation rather than replacement of the established legal system.