Reconciling the hadith of 'Aishah regarding girls' toys with the hadiths prohibiting image-making.

The Shaykh : But what do we do with this hadith? These idols for girls' play are, without a doubt, from the Arabic linguistic perspective, statues and idols. The scholars differed on this; some said that the incident narrated by the Lady 'Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) occurred before the prohibition of making and keeping images. Others said, no, rather these images, meaning girls' toys, are an exception to the texts that prohibit them. This is the opinion of the majority, and it is the correct one. The reason for this is two things, in my critique and in my knowledge. The first thing is that there is a scientific rule: when two contradictory hadiths come, like this one and that one, regarding girls' toys regarding girls' toys, what is to be done? The scholars, after efforts spanning centuries and thousands of verified scholars, established or clarified this rule: when two hadiths contradict each other, it is obligatory to reconcile them, not to strike one with the other. In other words, it is not to reject one with the other. Rejection includes saying that this hadith is invalid and its practice is abandoned; they refer to it as abrogated, a term familiar to jurists. This invalidation of a hadith should not be resorted to until all paths of reconciliation between the two hadiths, whatever they may be, are blocked. The paths of reconciling hadiths are so numerous that it is extremely rare for a person to be unable to reconcile two contradictory hadiths so as to say that this one is abrogated and that one is the abrogator. It is extremely rare, because the scholars have enumerated over a hundred ways of reconciling contradictory hadiths, over a hundred ways. Among these ways, which are frequently resorted to and relied upon in the path of reconciling the two hadiths, are the general and the specific. A general text comes that prohibits something, and a specific text comes that permits something from those things that the general text prohibited. It is not said that this specific text was before the general text and thus abrogated it; rather, it is immediately said that this is an exception to that. There are many, and very many, examples of this that are known to students of knowledge.
For example, the famous verse: , . The word "dead animals" here is absolute and general, encompassing every dead animal, whether land-dwelling or sea-dwelling. Likewise, "blood" encompasses every blood. Then the hadith came to clarify that this Qur'anic text is not in its generality and comprehensiveness, but rather it is general except for fish, locusts, liver, and spleen. So he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . This hadith was not opposed to the previous verse, especially since it is known that the Qur'an is stronger in its establishment than the hadith. It is easy to say that this hadith opposes the Qur'an; we have the Qur'an, which prohibits everything called a dead animal and everything called blood. Did the scholars do this? The answer is no. They said the Qur'anic text is general, and the hadith specifies the verse. It is said: except for fish and locusts except for liver and spleen. The exception was taken from the hadith. And so on, with many, and very many, such things.