The fundamental tension between legal tradition and adaptation to change manifests strikingly in both Jewish halakhic law and American constitutional interpretation. Building upon Rabbi Neil Gillman's call for reassessment of the Conservative movement's approach to Jewish law, a comparative legal analysis reveals remarkable parallels in how these systems balance foundational texts with contemporary needs. Both vest ultimate interpretive authority in human arbiters—rabbis in Jewish law, federal judges in American law—and maintain dual written and oral legal traditions. The Talmudic Oven of Akhnai narrative exemplifies precedent for rabbinic interpretive authority independent of divine intervention, mirroring secular judicial review. While both systems wrestle with originalist versus evolutionary approaches to interpretation, they diverge significantly in enforcement: American law commands state power, while Jewish law depends on voluntary compliance. The persistent challenge of balancing stare decisis with responsive innovation suggests that these superficially distinct legal traditions share deep structural similarities in their struggle to remain both faithful to precedent and relevant to contemporary life.