Conservative Judaism's quest to ground halakhic flexibility in Talmudic precedent rests on shaky historical foundations. Elliott Dorff's proposal for Conservative Jewish legal theory fundamentally misreads how Talmudic sages approached legal innovation. Systematic analysis of Talmudic sources reveals that neither Amoraim nor Tannaim saw themselves as willing reformers of established law. Through careful examination of specific Talmudic passages and legal principles - including *hilkheta kevatraei* and the role of contemporary circumstances in post-Talmudic development - a different pattern emerges. When post-Talmudic *poskim* argued that original halakhah should not apply to changed circumstances, they did so through methods anchored in Talmudic precedent rather than conscious departure from established law. Modern critical consciousness has created an unbridgeable divide between traditional and contemporary worldviews, making any return to presumed Talmudic flexibility impossible. Moreover, halakhic adaptation cannot effectively draw Western-assimilated Jews back to observance when the very concept of authoritative Jewish law remains foreign to their understanding. The disconnect between Dorff's theory and both historical reality and contemporary Jewish life ultimately renders his approach untenable.