two views, and just as the area cleansed with stones after relieving oneself is rendered pure according to one of the two views, along with other situations involving need.

The response is:

The presumption concerning what is treated as lawful is that its permissibility accords with the general rule. Whoever claims that this is permitted out of need despite evidence to the contrary has asserted something contrary to that presumption. His claim therefore requires strong proof, yet he has no evidence warranting treating this as a departure from the general rule. Undoubtedly, if evidence establishing prohibition existed, this case could be treated as an exception. But as for the weak appeal to general wording and the weak analogy already mentioned, this case provides stronger evidence for their unqualified purity than those arguments provide for their unqualified impurity, as becomes clear upon reflection. Moreover, their being deemed pure and excused in this situation is itself one of the points in dispute. It then remains to extend the same ruling to the other cases, since no one maintains a distinction.

Another argument of this kind is:

The eleventh argument, which is the fourteenth:

This is the consensus of the Companions, the Successors, and those after them, in every age and region, on threshing wheat and other grains with cattle and similar animals, despite the certainty that they urinate and defecate on the wheat. No one objected to this, no one washed the wheat on this account, and no one avoided anything on the threshing floors because urine had reached it.