Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "Or with sea salt, or heated with a disliked impurity"

The Shaykh : ... to avoid the difference of opinion. And you have known what is in this reasoning regarding the cause of purity that remains. Why does it not strip away its purifying quality? He says: Because this sea salt is originally water. And because we say "sea salt," it is known from the author's statement "sea" that if it were changed by a mineral salt, a mineral salt extracted from the earth, because it contains mineral salts like the minerals of gold, silver, iron, and the like, then it would strip away its purifying quality according to the school of thought, but it would remain pure, not purifying. However, the discussion on the pure and the purifying will come, if Allah wills. He says: "Or heated with a disliked impurity". If water is heated with an impurity and changes, then his statement "heated with a disliked impurity" is conjoined to "if it changed by something other than a mixer". "Or heated with a disliked impurity". And if it did not change, then it is disliked if it is heated with a disliked impurity. An example of heating with a disliked impurity is if a person collects donkey dung and heats water with it; then this water is disliked. As for if it is uncovered, then the reason for the dislike in that is apparent, because smoke enters it and affects it. And as for if it is covered, then it is disliked even if the cover is tight, because he says it generally does not escape the rising of fine particles to it. Something like a pipe might enter the water. So on this basis, it is disliked. But the correct view is that it is not disliked if it is heated with a disliked impurity, provided it is tightly covered so that smoke does not enter it. If smoke enters it and changes it, then it depends on the opinion that transformation makes the impure pure. If we say that, then what harm is there, even if smoke enters it? "Or heated with a disliked impurity is disliked". So its cause is different from the cause of the first one. What is the cause? Because it does not escape the rising of fine particles to it, and a tight cover is rare, so it has no ruling. Another reasoning is that this water was heated with an impure thing.