as for his statement: "Abū Ṣāliḥ, the scribe of al-Layth" instead of: "Saʿīd ibn Abī Maryam"; if it is not also a mistake, it is a transition from one teacher to another; for both are among the teachers of Yaḥyá ibn ʿUthmān ibn Ṣāliḥ al-Miṣrī, and he is truthful, as stated by al-Dhahabī and al-ʿAsqalānī. However, the first of them—Saʿīd ibn Abī Maryam—is a reliable and firm authority among the narrators of the two Shaykhs, unlike Abū Ṣāliḥ; he is among the teachers of al-Bukhārī, and there is well-known discussion about him. In summary, the isnād of al-Ṭabarānī is good with the mentioned follow-ups: (ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥārith), (Ibn Lahīʿah), and (al-Ḥasan ibn Thawbān) from Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb. With this verification, the shortcoming of al-Mundhirī is evident in his statement in "al-Targhīb" (2/25): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Kabīr', and al-Bayhaqī, and in it is Ibn Lahīʿah"! Similarly, the statement of al-Haythamī in "al-Majmaʿ" (3/110): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Kabīr', and in it is Ibn Lahīʿah, and there is discussion about it"! They both missed the follow-up of al-Ḥasan ibn Thawbān and ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥārith, which strengthens it, which led me in the past—and before the printing of "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr"—to include the ḥadīth in "al-Ḍaʿīfah" under number (3021) following them, and I could do nothing else; as long as the source they attributed it to was beyond my reach; as I explained in the introduction to my book "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Targhīb". However, now that I have reviewed it and learned that Ibn Lahīʿah has been followed up—contrary to what they implied—I have decided to include it in "Ṣaḥīḥ al-Targhīb", especially since the second part of it has been narrated by some trustworthy individuals—other than those mentioned— from Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb, and it is extracted in "Takhrīj Aḥādīth Mushkilat al-Faqr" (number 118).