I said: Therefore, al-Dhahabī affirmed the narration of Abū Yaʿlá from Ibn Baḥr, and he and Ibn Ḥibbān are among the most knowledgeable about the biographies of Ibn Ḥibbān's teachers. If they had known that Ibn Yaḥyá ibn Abī Samīnah also narrated from (Sulaym ibn Muslim al-Khashshāb), they would have mentioned it as well. This is further supported by: Thirdly, that the ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī did not mention this (al-Khashshāb) among the teachers of (Ibn Yaḥyá) in "Tahdhīb al-Kamāl," and it is his habit to extensively list the names of the teachers of the biographee in a manner unmatched by others. For this reason, I thought that (Ibn Yaḥyá) was a distortion of (Ibn Baḥr), aided by the strong similarity between the two names, especially with the neglect of their diacritical marks. Thus, the aforementioned distortion also occurred in the statement of al-Ṭabarānī, which I quoted in (Firstly), while it was correct in this isnād in "al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ." As for "al-Ṣaghīr," it is correct in both places. It is likewise in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (12/373/12046) only in the isnād, because it is his habit in it not to comment on the ḥadīths, contrary to the other two "Muʿjams." For the completion of research and investigation, I referred to the book of the ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar "al-Maṭālib al-ʿĀliyah" with isnād (1/2/1), and I saw that he had presented the isnād of the ḥadīth with the narration of Abū Yaʿlá as it is in "his Musnad," and it includes (Yaḥyá), and it is also in "al-Maqṣad al-ʿAlī fī Zawāʾid Abī Yaʿlá al-Mawṣilī" by his teacher al-Haythamī (2/271-272/1522), so I thought it was an old distortion. And Allāh knows best. Now, I begin to point out some of the errors that I have encountered, so I say: 1- This ḥadīth of al-Hujaymī appeared in "Majmaʿ al-Baḥrayn" by al-Haythamī (7/105/4125) marked with the letter ﷺ, meaning: that the ḥadīth is among the unique narrations of "al-Ṣaghīr"; and it is also a distortion,