This is because legal rulings are established only by evidence, and taking scholarly disagreement into account is not a legal proof by which rulings may be established, such that one may say: “This is disliked,” or “This is not disliked.”

Or [if it is changed] by oil, by water-derived salt, or by being heated with an impure substance, it is disliked ............

His statement, “or oil,” is coordinated either with “a non-mixing substance” or with “pieces of camphor.” For example, if someone puts oil into water and it changes because of it, this does not deprive it of its purifying quality; rather, it remains purifying, because oil does not mix with water. You find it floating on its surface, so its change due to it is a change through proximity, not through mixing.

His statement, “or by water-derived salt,” refers to salt that is formed from water. If you were to place a piece of it in water, the water would become salty, yet it would remain purifying, though disliked in order to avoid disagreement (1).

If it is asked: Why does it not lose its purifying quality?

The answer is: because this salt originates from water.

The discussion of deeming something disliked on the basis of disagreement has already preceded.

It is understood from his statement, “water-derived,” that if it is changed by mineral salt extracted from the earth, it deprives it of its purifying quality according to the established position of the school; thus, it is pure but not purifying.

His statement, “or if heated with an impure substance, it is disliked,” means that if water is heated with an impure substance, whether it changes or does not change, it is disliked.

For example, if a man gathered donkey dung and heated water with it, then it is