The ancient Jewish legal category of *mamzerut* (illegitimate birth) creates an irreconcilable ethical conflict: Torah law demands the permanent social exclusion of children born from forbidden relationships, while core Jewish values reject punishing innocents for their parents' actions. After three years of deliberation, the Conservative movement's Rabbinical Assembly Committee of Law and Standards reaffirmed in 2000 that *mamzerut* should be considered inoperative, marking a watershed moment in addressing this tension. Through analysis of biblical and rabbinic texts, this research traces how *mamzerut* evolved from its origins to primarily affect children of women who remarried without obtaining a religious divorce (*get*), while demonstrating that its contemporary application fails its intended purpose as a deterrent against sexual misconduct. Drawing on precedents where rabbis suspended capital punishment, the *sotah* ordeal, and the heifer neck-breaking ritual due to changed circumstances, the analysis establishes a halakhic methodology for rendering biblical laws procedurally inoperative through judicial discretion. The findings validate morality as a legitimate basis for halakhic change within Conservative Judaism's interpretive framework, justifying the movement's refusal to consider evidence of *mamzerut* as a procedural mechanism that harmonizes Torah's moral teachings with its legal requirements while maintaining systemic integrity.