Dear Norman, I am returning the proofs of my communication and I wish to thank you for including the proof of your reply. I feel it incumbent upon me however, for the sake of truth, logic and halachic veracity, to inform you that the reply you give in no way answers my objections to your article. At the outset it would be advisable to bear in mind that the intent of your article was to prove that the Conservative amendment is invalid because of its ‘asmachta’ nature. In order to accomplish that noble purpose it must be shown that no halachic authority would or could consider this amendment other than an ‘asmachta’. If there can be found one authority who would not consider this an ‘asmachta’ you have failed in your purpose. Therefore, the fact that “you believe” that Mekhirah 11:17 should be interpreted in a certain manner is no proof that it must so be interpreted. Unless and until you can prove that no other explanation is possible you have failed in your appointed task, for I can with the full sanction of halacha state, as I did, that the Rambam maintains that an agreement to pay an indemnity sum is binding if it is made under a wedding canopy. You may disagree but you have not disproven my contention. You have not shown that the Conservative amendment, except according to your understanding of Mekhirah 11:17, is an ‘asmachta’. For the same reason your reply to my third point is also not an acceptable answer. Whether or not you personally concede that a ‘kinyan’ and a retroactive clause are sufficient to neutralize the ‘asmachta’-nature of a contract is immaterial and inconsequential. If there is any halachic basis for such concessions then you cannot with impunity invalidate the Conservative Ketubah. In truth, however, I addressed myself mainly to your very lucid statement that even with these concessions it would remain an ‘asmachta’, and you must admit that the reverse is the only logical conclusion.