until the prescribed period expires or the leather sock is removed. Once it is removed, however, ritual purity in that area comes to an end. The state of purity attained through ablution cannot be acquired or lost piecemeal. Its legal effect extends beyond the parts washed: although it consists of washing four parts of the body, the entire body becomes ritually pure. Thus, washing one or two parts does not remove ritual impurity until all four have been washed; likewise, if ablution is invalidated in one part, it is invalidated in all of them.

Those who hold this view say that the person must repeat his ablution. This reasoning does not apply to a splint, for a splint may be wiped over when purifying oneself from major ritual impurity, in which a substitute does not suffice. It is therefore clear that wiping over it is like wiping the skin or hair.

Some of our fellow scholars say that, if the splint falls off because the injury has healed, the state of ritual purity is invalidated, or the area beneath it must be washed; if it falls off for some reason other than healing, there are two views. They have thus made healing the limit of the period of purity and treated the splint’s falling off upon healing as equivalent to the expiry of the period allowed for wiping.

If it falls off before the injury has healed, one view is that this is like removing a leather sock before the prescribed period expires.

Another view is that ritual purity is not invalidated in this case, because the affected area cannot be washed before it heals, unlike the foot, which can be washed when the leather sock is removed. This is why, according to one of the two views, they distinguish between a splint and a leather sock: when washing the affected area is not possible, ritual purity remains intact, whereas after healing, the area beneath the splint can be washed.