The boundaries between interpreting, reinterpreting, legislating, and abrogating Jewish law prove far more fluid than traditionally assumed. Within Conservative Judaism, rabbinic authorities have historically wielded these overlapping powers in complex and interconnected ways. Through detailed analysis of Talmudic literature and Mishnaic sources - particularly Hillel's Prosbul enactment and the pivotal Academy debate between R. Gamaliel and R. Joshua on Ammonite and Moabite converts - distinct patterns emerge. Acts of legal abrogation consistently involve simultaneous reinterpretation of original laws alongside the creation of new legislation, while interpretive authority frequently extends into broader legislative powers. Textual examination of these classical cases reveals how the conventional scholarly approach of treating these authorities as separate categories fails to capture the dynamic nature of halakhic development. These findings illuminate both the theoretical foundations of Conservative Jewish jurisprudence and the historical evolution of rabbinic authority in adapting Jewish law to changing social circumstances.