Accordingly, if the hole is in one place and a different place is wiped, that wiping suffices in place of washing the entire foot. This is especially so if the hole is at the back or underside of the leather sock, since wiping that area is neither obligatory nor even recommended. Even if the hole is at the front, wiping takes the form of streaks between the fingers.

If it is said, “We mean that wiping suffices for what is concealed, whereas what is exposed must be washed,” the reply is: This merely asserts the very point in dispute and therefore cannot serve as proof. We do not concede that the part exposed through a torn leather sock must be washed. That is precisely the question at issue, so anyone who invokes it as proof is using the claim to prove itself.

If they say that wiping can only be performed over something concealed or covered, or use similar expressions, these are all different ways of asserting the same disputed point without any proof whatsoever. The Lawgiver has instructed us to wipe over leather socks without qualification and has imposed no such restriction. Analogy likewise dictates that no restriction should be imposed.

Some jurists have stipulated two conditions for wiping over leather socks. This is one of them: that the sock must cover the area that is obligatory to wash. The weakness of this condition has now become clear.