a thing could occur in the sacred laws, then it is conceivable that time has a special significance that determines whether a ruling is to continue or not, for certain ac‌ tions may be of benefit during a specific period of time but cease to be so after the period has lapsed, and vice versa.
In short, if it is possible for a specific hour, day, week, or month to have an effect on ,whether an act is beneficial or harmful, then the same could be true of a year. Hence, the act could be good during a certain number of years but not good after those years had ended. In addition, just as rulings that are restricted by some factor other than time may be so qualified by means of a separate indication, so is it pos‌ sible to place a time restriction on a general ruling by means of a separate indicator. The reason is that exigencies may require that a ruling be set forth in general or ab‌ solute terms, although the actual intent is specific or restricted. The specificity or restriction would be explained in a separate indicator. Abrogation is in fact a time restriction on the absolute ruling, and this does not make it incompatible with wis‌ dom, nor with alteration (bada ), in a way that is inadmissible of God, the Exalted. All this is based on the understanding that enactment of a law and its legislation are caused by the benefits or harm of the act itself. As for those who maintain that rul‌ ings are determined by benefits that are inherent in them, the matter is even more clear, because an actual ruling, according to this opinion, is of the same nature as the rulings that are sent to test us.

Abrogation in the Torah

The discussion above nullifies the view of Jews and Christians regarding the impos‌ sibility of abrogation in the sacred law.lt is a view they persist in holding in order to prove the continuity of the ordinances that were instituted by the Mosaic law. What is truly strange is that they insist on the impossibility of abrogation in the divinely ordained law in spite of the fact that abrogation did occur in many instances in the two Testaments.

١. It is related, [for example], in chapter ٤ of the Book of Numbers (verses ٢ and ٣): "Take a census of the sons of Kohath, from among the sons of Levi, by ... their fathers houses, [and find those who are] from thirty years old up to fifty years old, all who can enter service, to do the work in the tent of meeting."
This decree was abrogated and the beginning age for the service was [changed to]
twenty-five years, as related in chapter ٨ of the Book [of Numbers] (verses ٢٣ and
٢٤): "And the Lord said to Moses, This is what pertains to the Levites: from twenty‌ five years old and upward they shall go in to perform the work in the service of the tent of meeting."
The decree was later abrogated a second time. The beginning age for service was
[changed to] twenty years, as reported in chapter ٢٣ of I Chronicles (verses ٢٤, ٣٢):
These were the sons of Levi by their fathers houses, by the heads of [their] fathers houses, as they were registered according to the number of the names of the individuals from twenty years old and upward, who were to do the work for the service of the house of the Lord....Thus, they shall keep charge of the tent of meeting and the sanctuary."