In his recent article, "The End of Judaism," Giorgio Agamben argues that Judaism faces its end due to the dissolution of the exilic condition through the establishment of the State of Israel. This paper challenges Agamben's thesis by examining two distinct legal paradigms within Jewish tradition: the Talmud as a product of exile, and modern Jewish law as a creation of Zionist thought. Through this analysis, we demonstrate that rather than marking Judaism's end, the current situation reveals a complex dialectic between exilic and sovereign legal forms. The paper first examines how the Talmud, far from being merely a legal code, emerged as a unique textual and intellectual response to the condition of exile, developing interpretative strategies and legal reasoning that reflected and preserved the exilic experience. This exilic character of Talmudic thought persists as a fundamental mode of Jewish legal thinking, independent of geographical or political circumstances. Conversely, modern Jewish law, particularly as developed within Zionist thought, represents a distinct legal paradigm aimed at transforming traditional Jewish law into a sovereign state's legal system. This transformation, however, does not negate the exilic dimension of Jewish legal thought but rather exists in tension with it. Through careful examination of key texts and legal concepts, we argue that contemporary Judaism maintains both paradigms simultaneously: the exilic mode of Talmudic thinking and the sovereign mode of modern Jewish law. Against Agamben's assertion of Judaism's end, this paper proposes that the current situation represents not an ending but a complex dialogue between exilic and sovereign legal forms. This tension, rather than signaling Judaism's demise, demonstrates its continuing vitality and capacity for legal and philosophical innovation.