The second: the prayer is valid.

Thus, the prayer is valid, while the act is disliked. What is meant by “disliked” is that the one who does it is not punished, whereas the one who refrains from it out of compliance is rewarded.

The prayer is valid because this man has neither carried the impurity nor come into contact with it. He has therefore fulfilled the condition, and when he fulfils the condition, his prayer is valid.

The act is deemed disliked because he has relied upon something upon which prayer is not valid. This is how they have reasoned, but in reality this reasoning is unsound. For we say: between him and that upon which prayer is not valid lies a thick barrier, through which he cannot touch or come into contact with the impurity. If we were to adopt this view, we would have to say that no one’s prayer is free of being disliked—especially in homes where there are many children and much urine, and the like. Everyone lays out prayer rugs and prays upon them. This view is clearly open to objection.

The correct view is that the prayer is valid and not disliked, because there is no sound evidence that it is disliked.

His statement, “or lays something pure over it,” means that he lays something pure over the impure ground, such as a garment or a prayer rug, and prays upon it. The prayer is then valid, though it is regarded as disliked.

If he lays something pure over it, his prayer is valid because he does not directly come into contact with the impurity: he is neither carrying it nor touching it. It is considered disliked because he has relied upon something upon which prayer is not valid.

But the correct view is that it is not disliked, because he prayed upon something pure that forms a barrier between him and the impurity.