As we said, we know for sure that water is a carrier of impurity from reason, but the Lawgiver did not make it have an effect on a person’s purity with it, nor did he call it impure. The Lawgiver may want to introduce the truth of the matter, which is that water in itself is pure in every way, and it has never been ruled impure, meaning that impurity is not a characteristic. For him, but the parts of the impurity are adjacent to its parts, so when it is difficult to separate the parts of urine, for example, from the parts of water, and the parts of the impurity are greater than the parts of the water, and one of its characteristics is changed, it is forbidden to perform ablution with it according to the law according to the limit considered in the law. And if the parts of the water predominate over the parts of the impurity, and none of its characteristics are changed, neither the law nor the law considers it to be the same. He made it a ruling on purification with it, for we know