Impurity in Wells and Rules of Drawing Water

1. Impurity and the Purification of Wells

The law of wells requires separate detail from general discussions of stagnant water. A well may contain a limited quantity but also receive fresh water continuously. Removing the source of contamination and withdrawing a prescribed amount of water are therefore treated as distinct matters.

Three variables govern the rulings: the contaminant, the animal’s condition including decay, and the amount to be drawn from the well.

2. When Impurity Falls into a Well

وَإِذَا وَقَعَتْ فِي الْبِئْرِ نَجَاسَةٌ نُزِحَتْ، وَكَانَ نَزْحُ مَا فِيهَا مِنَ الْمَاءِ طَهَارَةً لَهَا
Translation: If impurity falls into a well, water is to be drawn from it; withdrawing its water is the means of purifying it.

Nazḥ means drawing water out of a well. In the relevant cases, extracting the contaminant alone does not replace the prescribed withdrawal of water.

The subsequent rulings distinguish animals by size and by their condition when found.

3. Removing the Impurity and Drawing Water

The carcass or contaminant must first be removed; otherwise the cause of impurity remains in place. Depending on the case, the rule may require 20–30 buckets, 40–50 buckets, or withdrawal of all the water.

The size and state of the animal determine which category applies.

4. Small Animals: the Primary Ruling

فَإِنْ مَاتَتْ فِيهَا فَأْرَةٌ أَوْ عُصْفُورَةٌ أَوْ صَعْوَةٌ أَوْ سُودَانِيَّةٌ أَوْ سَامُّ أَبْرَصَ، نُزِحَ مِنْهَا مِنْ بَيْنِ عِشْرِينَ دَلْوًا إِلَى ثَلَاثِينَ بِحَسَبِ كِبَرِ الدَّلْوِ وَصِغَرِهَا
Translation: If a mouse, sparrow, sa‘wah, sudaniyyah or sam abrās dies in the well, draw between 20 and 30 buckets, taking the bucket’s size into account.

The terms list examples of smaller animals and birds. This bracket applies where the body has neither swollen nor decomposed; the later rule for swelling or disintegration supersedes it.

5. Identifying the Small-Animal Category

The examples serve the classification by size. A mouse and small bird are clear members of this group.

Sam abrās names a small reptile. Its listing should not be used to override the separate rules for animals whose death does not itself render water impure.

6. Why Both 20 and 30 Are Mentioned

For a qualifying small animal, 20 buckets is the established minimum in the cited reasoning, while taking out as many as 30 is discussed as a recommended precaution because both figures appear in the transmitted report.

A narration attributed through Anas mentions “20 or 30 buckets” for a mouse in a well. No independent judgment of the report’s chain is made here.

7. Medium Animals: Pigeon, Chicken and Cat

وَإِنْ مَاتَتْ فِيهَا حَمَامَةٌ أَوْ دَجَاجَةٌ أَوْ سِنَّوْرٌ: نُزِحَ مِنْهَا مَا بَيْنَ أَرْبَعِينَ دَلْوًا إِلَى خَمْسِينَ
Translation: If a pigeon, chicken or cat dies in it, draw between 40 and 50 buckets of water.

These are medium-sized animals compared with a mouse or sparrow, so a larger volume is assigned. The bracket presumes the body has not swollen or decomposed.

8. Forty to Fifty Buckets: Minimum and Precaution

The 40–50 bracket reflects a medium-sized animal. The juristic reasoning distinguishes the required lower amount from an additional recommended withdrawal.

The two numbers should not be misrepresented as two separate obligatory amounts; the distinction between minimum and precaution matters.

9. Large Animals: All the Water

وَإِنْ مَاتَ فِيهَا كَلْبٌ أَوْ شَاةٌ أَوْ آدَمِيٌّ، نُزِحَ جَمِيعُ مَا فِيهَا مِنَ الْمَاءِ
Translation: If a dog, sheep or human being dies in it, all the water in the well is to be drawn.

These are examples of the large-animal category. A fixed 20- or 40-bucket amount no longer governs; the full existing water volume is to be removed.

The discussion concerns purification of the well, not whether an animal may be eaten.

10. The Animal’s Size and Withdrawal Amount

The initial classification is:
• Small animal: 20–30 buckets.
• Medium animal: 40–50 buckets.
• Large animal: all well water.

This scale presumes the body has not swollen or decomposed; those states trigger a separate rule.

11. Swelling or Decomposition: All Water

وَإِنِ انْتَفَخَ الْحَيَوَانُ فِيهَا أَوْ تَفَسَّخَ: نُزِحَ جَمِيعُ مَا فِيهَا، صَغُرَ الْحَيَوَانُ أَوْ كَبُرَ
Translation: If an animal swells or disintegrates in the well, all its water must be drawn, whether the animal is small or large.

Intifakh means swelling; tafassukh means bodily decomposition. Both indicate that the ordinary size-based bracket does not govern. Even a small mouse requires withdrawal of all water when swollen or decomposed.

12. Why Decomposition Overrides Size

Animal size supplies the initial estimate, but decomposition may spread parts of the carcass into the water. Therefore even the smallest animal can trigger the full-withdrawal rule.

An intact body is categorized by size; a swollen or decomposed body requires all water to be drawn.

13. What if the Animal Leaves the Well Alive?

Falling into a well is not identical with dying in it. The fixed withdrawal categories for animal death cannot automatically be applied when an animal comes out alive.

One must consider whether actual impurity passed from its body or mouth into the water. A clean animal emerging alive without contamination does not trigger the same carcass rule.

14. Bucket Size: the Middle Standard

وَعَدَدُ الدِّلَاءِ يُعْتَبَرُ بِالدَّلْوِ الْوَسَطِ الْمُسْتَعْمَلِ لِلْآبَارِ فِي الْبُلْدَانِ، فَإِنْ نُزِحَ مِنْهَا بِدَلْوٍ عَظِيمٍ قَدْرَ مَا يَسَعُ مِنَ الدِّلَاءِ الْوَسَطِ: احْتُسِبَ بِهِ
Translation: The bucket count is measured by the medium-sized bucket normally used for wells in each locality. A large bucket counts according to how many medium buckets of water it holds.

The controlling unit is the customary medium bucket and its volume, not simply the number of times a rope is raised.

A large bucket is converted to its equivalent in standard medium buckets.

15. Calculating with a Larger Bucket

For illustration, suppose a local medium bucket holds 10 litres and a large bucket holds 30 litres. One full large bucket then equals 3 medium buckets by volume.

If 30 medium buckets are required, 10 such large buckets would be equivalent. The litre figures are hypothetical, not prescribed sizes in the source.

16. Why Local Bucket Custom Matters

Bucket sizes vary by locality. Treating every bucket, whatever its capacity, as equal would lead to dramatically different amounts of water withdrawn.

The standard therefore refers to the customary medium-sized well bucket in that locality and the equivalent quantity of water.

17. A Well with Continuous Inflow

وَإِنْ كَانَ الْبِئْرُ مَعِينًا لَا يُنْزَحُ، وَجَبَ نَزْحُ مَا فِيهَا: أَخْرَجُوا مِقْدَارَ مَا فِيهَا مِنَ الْمَاءِ
Translation: If the well is fed by a spring and cannot be emptied, an amount equal to the water then present must be withdrawn.

Ma‘in describes a well replenished by continuous inflow. Since literally emptying the well may be impossible, the ruling is implemented by removing the estimated quantity present at the relevant point.

18. How Is the Well Volume Estimated?

The amount may be estimated from the water’s depth, breadth and volume. The juristic discussion reports different techniques for making a reliable estimate, including measuring the well and evaluating its quantity.

The aim is to withdraw an equivalent of the existing water, not to demand the physical impossibility of exhausting a replenishing spring.

19. Muhammad’s View: 200 to 300 Buckets

وَعَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ رَحِمَهُ اللهُ أَنَّهُ قَالَ: يُنْزَحُ مِنْهَا مِائَتَا دَلْوٍ إِلَى ثَلَاثِ مِائَةٍ
Translation: It is reported from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan that 200 to 300 buckets should be withdrawn.

This concerns a continuously replenished well. Muhammad’s report gives a numerical solution, whereas the preceding method uses an amount equal to the well’s current volume.

Both address the difficulty of a well that cannot literally be emptied.

20. Estimated Volume versus 200–300 Buckets

First approach: estimate the well’s actual water quantity and draw the equivalent volume, regardless of the exact number of buckets.

Second approach: the transmitted report from Muhammad provides 200–300 medium buckets.

The dispute is about the practical quantitative standard for purifying a well that cannot be emptied.

21. A Dead Animal Is Found, Time Unknown

وَإِذَا وُجِدَ فِي الْبِئْرِ فَأْرَةٌ مَيِّتَةٌ أَوْ غَيْرُهَا، وَلَا يَدْرُونَ مَتَى وَقَعَتْ، وَلَمْ تَنْتَفِخْ وَلَمْ تَتَفَسَّخْ: أَعَادُوا صَلَاةَ يَوْمٍ وَلَيْلَةٍ إِذَا كَانُوا تَوَضَّؤُوا مِنْهَا، وَغَسَلُوا كُلَّ شَيْءٍ أَصَابَهُ مَاؤُهَا
Translation: If a dead mouse or another animal is found in a well and nobody knows when it fell in, and it has neither swollen nor decomposed, those who made wudu from it repeat one day and night of prayers and wash things touched by its water.

The question extends beyond the well’s current impurity to past prayers performed using its water. The one-day-and-night estimate is the view of Abu Hanifa in the disputed case; the two companions’ view follows explicitly.

22. The One-Day-and-Night Repetition Rule

The supposition is that the carcass is intact and its time of entry unknown. In Abu Hanifa’s reasoning, its apparent condition is used to estimate a nearer period, giving a one-day-and-night lookback for prayers made with wudu from that water.

The ruling concerns those who actually used the well for wudu, not anyone who used other clean water.

23. Objects Touched by the Well Water

The same view extends to washing objects actually contacted by the relevant well water, because the estimated period is legally treated as affected.

The clause about washing everything touched by the water refers to objects that were actually reached by that water, not every object without distinction.

24. Swollen or Decomposed Carcass: Three Days and Nights

وَإِنِ انْتَفَخَتْ أَوْ تَفَسَّخَتْ: أَعَادُوا صَلَاةَ ثَلَاثَةِ أَيَّامٍ وَلَيَالِيهَا فِي قَوْلِ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ رَحِمَهُ اللهُ، وَقَالَ أَبُو يُوسُفَ وَمُحَمَّدٌ رَحِمَهُمَا اللهُ: لَيْسَ عَلَيْهِمْ إِعَادَةُ شَيْءٍ حَتَّى يَتَحَقَّقُوا مَتَى وَقَعَتْ
Translation: If the carcass has swollen or decomposed, Abu Hanifa requires repeating three days and nights of prayers. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad hold that no prayer must be repeated until the time when it fell in is established.

The two views differ on evidentiary standards: Abu Hanifa treats decomposition as an indicator supporting a longer retrospective estimate; the companions do not invalidate prior prayers without establishing the time of contamination.

25. Abu Hanifa: Inferring Duration from the Carcass

Abu Hanifa’s rule looks back one day and night for an intact carcass and three days and nights for a swollen or decomposed one. The animal’s condition is used as a presumptive indicator of elapsed time.

This is a legal estimate from outward signs, not a biological claim that every animal decomposes on an identical schedule.

26. The Two Companions: Certainty and Doubt

Abu Yusuf and Muhammad do not impose retrospective repetition merely because a carcass is discovered without knowledge of when it fell.

Their reasoning relies on the continued presumption of past purity: a later doubt does not undo an established state of purity. Consequences attach to the period proven to be affected.

27. Two Methods of Legal Reasoning

Abu Hanifa gives legal weight to the apparent state of the carcass as a basis for a one- or three-day retrospective estimate.

Abu Yusuf and Muhammad presume the continuation of established past purity and do not require repeating prayers on mere uncertainty.

Their disagreement concerns the proof needed to overturn past purity, not whether a carcass can contaminate the well.

28. If the Time of Contamination Is Known

When the time of contamination is established, there is no need to construct a retrospective estimate for an unknown date. The consequences follow the verified period and relevant use of the well water.

This is expressed in the companions’ condition: until it is established when the animal fell in.

29. Case Study: an Intact Dead Mouse

An intact dead mouse is found in a well, and its time of entry is unknown.

For the well’s current purification the small-animal withdrawal bracket applies, assuming no other overriding condition. For past prayers Abu Hanifa requires a day and night of repetition; Abu Yusuf and Muhammad do not require it without proof of the earlier period.

Present purification and retrospective prayer validity are separate questions.

30. Case Study: a Swollen Mouse

If the mouse is swollen, purification of the well requires all water to be drawn; the 20–30-bucket bracket no longer applies.

For past prayers, Abu Hanifa estimates three days and nights, while the two companions require proof of timing before imposing repetition. The same condition bears on two distinct legal questions.

31. Case Study: an Inexhaustible Well

A spring-fed well remains full while water is withdrawn, yet the applicable category calls for all water to be removed.

One method draws the estimated equivalent of the existing volume; a report from Muhammad specifies 200–300 buckets. They are alternative quantitative standards, not numbers to be casually merged into a single mandatory figure.

32. Ruling Matrix: Death, Size and Water Volume

Small mouse or bird, intact: 20–30 medium buckets.

Pigeon, chicken or cat, intact: 40–50 medium buckets.

Dog, sheep or human: all water.

Any animal swollen or decomposed: all water.

Inexhaustible spring-fed well: equivalent to existing volume; another transmitted report from Muhammad specifies 200–300 buckets.

33. Summary of Retrospective Prayer Repetition

When the time of entry is unknown:
• Intact carcass: Abu Hanifa estimates one day and night; the two companions require proof before repeating.
• Swollen or decomposed carcass: Abu Hanifa estimates three days and nights; the two companions require proof.

This concerns prayers whose wudu used the affected water. When the timing is known, the established period governs.

34. Technical Vocabulary of the Chapter

Bi’r: well. Nazḥ: drawing water out. Dalw: bucket. Dalw wasaṭ: the customary medium bucket.

Intifakh: swelling of a carcass. Tafassukh: decomposition. Ma‘in: a continuously replenished well. Tahaqquq: establishing a fact with certainty.

Each term helps identify a legally distinct condition.

35. Core Juristic Principles of Well Purification

1. Remove the cause of impurity and withdraw the required volume as distinct steps.

2. For an intact carcass, size matters; if swollen or decomposed, the condition overrides size.

3. The local medium bucket is the counting standard.

4. An inexhaustible well raises alternative methods: volume estimation and Muhammad’s numerical report.

5. Unknown entry time creates a disagreement between Abu Hanifa and the companions about repeating past prayers.