Did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) kill the Jewish woman who placed poison in the sheep and intended to kill him?

The Shaykh : After this admission, did the Messenger (peace be upon him) kill this Jewish woman?
The narrations differ here. In this narration, it is explicitly stated that the Companions asked the Messenger (peace be upon him): In another narration, it is stated that he (peace be upon him) killed her.
So which of these narrations should we rely upon?
Here, it is necessary to apply a scientific principle of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence), which states: When two contradictory reports come to us, one affirming and the other denying, the affirming one is given precedence and the denying one is deferred. The affirming one is what must be accepted and acted upon, and the denying one is left aside as if it had not been reported at all. Why? Because the one who affirmed brought something of knowledge, which the one who denied did not encompass. Therefore, they said: "He who preserves an argument is an argument over the one who does not preserve it, and he who knows is an argument over the one who does not know".
It is fitting on this occasion to mention an interesting story that supports this principle of usul al-fiqh: "The affirming one is given precedence over the denying one". The story goes that Imam al-Zuhri was in the presence of one of the imams and narrators of hadith, and he was listening to the hadith of that imam. The narrator brought many narrations and hadiths that Imam al-Zuhri did not know. Imam al-Zuhri is one of the great imams of hadith, considered among the Tabi'un (the generation after the Companions), and he was one of those who narrated extensively from some of the Companions, especially Anas ibn Malik. This narrator is the one who narrated the story. Al-Zuhri was surprised by the great number of hadiths he heard from that narrator, and he could not help but show his surprise at the many hadiths he was narrating, which al-Zuhri did not know. So al-Zuhri said to that narrator, expressing his surprise at much of what he had narrated: "We have not heard these hadiths." Al-Zuhri said: "We have not heard these many hadiths." The narrator was a shrewd, intelligent, and clear-headed man, so he wanted to put al-Zuhri in his place in a gentle and precise manner. He said to him: "Have you, O Zuhri, encompassed the entire Sunnah?" He said: "No." He said: "Three-quarters of it?" He said: "No." He said: "Half of it?" He said: "Half." He said to him: "Then consider these hadiths you have not heard as part of that half which you have not encompassed with knowledge." Here, there are two imams: al-Zuhri and the one from whom al-Zuhri received those hadiths and was surprised by them. That imam explained to him that a person cannot encompass the Sunnah with knowledge. So what have you encompassed of the Sunnah? Half? He said: "Half." There is another half, of which I have encompassed some. Add this to that, and you will increase in knowledge. Therefore, when two reports come to us, one affirming and the other denying, we take the affirming report because it contains an increase in knowledge. From this, or by this principle, the scholars reconciled two other hadiths, one affirming and the other denying. It was reported from Abdullah ibn Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) This is an explicit text that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) entered the interior of the Ka'bah and prayed in it as well. Meanwhile, there is a hadith from Ibn Abbas So which of the two reports do we act upon or take? We take the affirming report, which states: This person could not speak like this by guessing, especially since he is a noble Companion. Therefore, he is speaking from insight, knowledge, sight, and observation. As for the other Companion, who is also trustworthy, he says he did not enter. He says he did not enter because he did not know that he entered. Both are truthful, but one is affirming and the other is denying, and the affirming one is given precedence over the denying one. Therefore, if we are asked whether the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed in the interior of the Ka'bah, the answer is yes. And no one should object to us because Ibn Abbas said he did not pray, because we say Ibn Umar said he did pray, and this is affirming while that is denying, and the affirming one is given precedence over the denying one.
Here we have the story of the Jewish woman who put poison in the leg of the sheep. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) tasted from it and was harmed by what he tasted, and one of the Companions who ate from it died This is how it is in this hadith. In other hadiths, it is stated that the Messenger (peace be upon him) actually killed her. So which of the two reports do we take? We take the affirming one, meaning: he killed her. Now, what is the basis for this report before us now, which explicitly states that he did not kill her? The answer is: We follow the path of reconciliation here and say: When the effect of the poison appeared in the Messenger (peace be upon him), or when he knew that the sheep was poisoned by its speech and talking—and this is a prophetic miracle of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)—he was asked: "Shall we kill her?" He said: "No." Meaning, shall we rush to kill her? He said: "No." Let us wait and be patient, in case no clear harm comes from this sheep. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) waited, and then news reached him, or when news reached him, of the death of that Companion due to eating from what the Messenger (peace be upon him) had eaten from the poisoned sheep. At that time, he brought her and killed her, because by putting poison in the sheep and the death of that Companion due to the poison, she was considered a killer. So he killed her, life for life. Therefore, the statement of the Messenger was an answer to the questioners, "Shall we kill her?" No, in the beginning. As for the killing affirmed by some other Companions, that was only after it was established that one of the Companions had died as a result of that poison, so he killed her.