I said: This isnād consists of narrators who are trustworthy and are the narrators of al-Bukhārī, so it is authentic; except for the intermediary between al-Awzāʿī and Nāfiʿ, as he is not named, although al-Awzāʿī's narration from Nāfiʿ is established in "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī." In any case, it serves as a valid witness, and with it, the ḥadīth is elevated to the level of authenticity, if Allāh wills. Here are some necessary notes: Firstly: I had mentioned the ḥadīth in "al-Ḍaʿīfah" with the number (3697) from the first path, but when I reviewed the other path and the witness, I did not find it permissible to leave it there, so I transferred it here, asking the Almighty for more success and guidance. Secondly: Based on that, I also transferred it from "Ḍaʿīf al-Jāmiʿ" (3258) to "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Jāmiʿ," so I request those who possess them to do this. Thirdly: The ḥadīth appeared in "al-Fatḥ al-Kabīr," which is the source of my book "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Jāmiʿ" and "Ḍaʿīf al-Jāmiʿ," without being marked with the letter (z) as an indication that it is from "the addition to al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr," as the author of "al-Fatḥ" did. Consequently, it appeared in "Ḍaʿīf al-Jāmiʿ wa-Ziyādatuh" without being associated with its specific number that I had adopted in place of the letter (z); and now it has become clear to me that it is not in "al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr" but in "the addition to it," so it necessitated this clarification. Fourthly: al-Mundhirī indicated the strengthening of the ḥadīth by the combination of the two paths from Ibn ʿAmr by introducing it with the phrase: "from," but at the same time, he pointed out al-Ḥākim's error in authenticating its isnād, by saying (3/62):