How to reconcile the absolute commands with the story of the 'Aryan and the washing of Zaynab?

The Shaykh : We said that if a command regarding something is reported and it is authentic, it necessitates acting upon it, and it is not required that it be mentioned every time or that everyone be informed of it, such as the command to use a cleansing agent when washing a corpse. If the hadith were authentic, it would be acted upon, even though the women who washed Zaynab (may Allah be pleased with her) were not ordered to use a cleansing agent after washing her. And we said regarding the story of the 'Aryan that wudu is not obligatory from camel milk because they were not ordered to do so. So what is the reconciliation? And what is the problem? That is, you arrive at this with the first rule, and sometimes you arrive at it with the second rule. There must be a reason. That is, when do we infer that the command did not come after this story, and therefore...?
If the command comes in wording, it is a proof, whether we know that people acted upon it or not. For example, we were ordered to perform wudu with water, so we generalized that for all its parts. And if not for the story of the 'Aryan, we would have said that wudu is obligatory from milk, because in the story of the 'Aryan it was not mentioned that one does not perform wudu with camel milk; rather, there was silence. But in the context of teaching, because when these people depart from the Messenger, they must be taught if it is obligatory. Shaykh, the problem is: why is the story of the women (may Allah be pleased with them) in the washing of Zaynab also not in the context of providing a reason, and they were not ordered to wash after washing the...? Because it is known to them if this is established. This is called "one who strikes his own path." Is there a size to this? You are one who strikes his own path. Is that the name?