Conservative Judaism faces a core paradox: how can it maintain traditional Jewish law while adapting to modern American Jewish life? Through systematic analysis of Rabbi Elliot Dorff's legal theories and their relationship to traditional Talmudic jurisprudence, fundamental credibility challenges emerge in Conservative Jewish legal reasoning. Dorff's proposal to return to independent Talmudic methodology while simultaneously rejecting Mosaic authorship creates logical inconsistencies that undermine the movement's claimed authority. The treatment of past generations as mere guides rather than binding authorities represents an unprecedented elasticity in Jewish legal history. Moreover, the selective application of halakhic principles—maintaining certain post-Talmudic customs while ignoring specific Talmudic laws—lacks jurisprudential coherence. Analysis of Conservative movement principles reveals that credible legal evolution first requires establishing a committed laity bound by Jewish law in principle. Without communal commitment to law as a whole, the movement cannot maintain credibility as an authoritative interpreter of a viable legal tradition.