Under the chapter on removing and explaining ritual impurity

The Shaykh : That the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited turning intoxicants into vinegar so that people would not keep them, for perhaps their souls might prompt them to drink it.
Now, among the benefits of this hadith is that the particle of response serves in place of the sentence, as in his saying: This is a consistent rule, even in contracts. If a man is offered a sale and asked, "Do you accept the sale?" and he says, "Yes," the sale is concluded. If a woman's guardian says, "I have married my daughter to you," and the husband is asked, "Do you accept?" and he says, "Yes," that suffices and the marriage is concluded. If he is asked, "Have you divorced your wife?" and he says, "Yes," she is divorced, and so on. The point is that the particle of response suffices in place of the sentence, whether by negation, such as "no," or by affirmation, such as "yes" or "indeed."
And among the benefits of this hadith, based on the author's (may Allah have mercy on him) previous approach, is that intoxicants are ritually impure, but there is a consideration here, because the stronger position is that intoxicants are not ritually impure in a sensory sense. I have not found, up to now, any evidence indicating that, except that the majority of scholars said that they are ritually impure in a sensory sense. But since there is no evidence, it does not follow from the prohibition that they are ritually impure, because every ritually impure thing is forbidden, but not every forbidden thing is ritually impure. Then, we mentioned in the course of the explanation that there is in the Sunnah what indicates purity, not based on the original presumption of innocence, but there are affirmative proofs indicating the non-impurity of intoxicants. We mentioned among them that the Companions?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : poured out the intoxicants in the markets, and it is known that pouring out ritual impurity in the markets of Muslims is forbidden. Indeed, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Also, when it was forbidden, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not order the vessels to be washed from it. If it had become ritually impure by the prohibition, it would have been obligatory to wash the vessels from it, just as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) made it obligatory to wash the vessels from the meat of donkeys when it was forbidden. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered the vessels in Khaybar to be broken when he saw them boiling with donkey meat. They said, "Or should we wash them?" He said: The third proof is the story of the owner of the wine jars who presented them to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) after intoxicants were forbidden. He said: So he opened the mouths of the jars and poured out the intoxicants, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) did not order him to wash the jars from the intoxicants. This is a very clear proof with no room for doubt, because the issue of the vessels... intoxicants in the vessels might be opposed by someone who says that it was lawful and not... when it was placed in the vessel. Even if this answer is not convincing, the issue of the wine jars is free from doubt. And this position, namely that intoxicants are pure in a sensory sense but ritually impure in meaning, is the stronger one.