If there is a disagreement regarding the hearing of another narrator, and another narration comes with explicit mention, is this explicit mention sufficient?

The questioner : All right, if there is a disagreement regarding the hearing of another narrator, and another narration comes with explicit mention, is this explicit mention sufficient?

The Shaykh : If the narrator is trustworthy, precise, and a memorizer, then it is so; it is sufficient.
Where exactly are you going now?

Another questioner : Via the Jordanian University, there is a shaykh...

The Shaykh : You have two routes, either from here or via the Independence Road.

Another questioner : From here is easier, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : All right, no, no, stay here, stay here, because you have a better route there, on the bridge, if you know it.
The Tabbur Road, do you hear of it?

Another questioner : I hear of it, yes.

The Shaykh: All right.

The questioner : All right, our Shaykh, if he is trustworthy and a memorizer, and this narration came explicitly mentioned in another narration; meaning that he used the abbreviation (‘an ‘an) or that he gave the impression that he had been explicit, and in another narration it came explicitly mentioned; then what truly poses a difficulty for us is that when he was explicit in the narration, it may have been a scribal error on his part, or that he may have made a mistake.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : This is what poses the difficulty.

The Shaykh : Now, we want to tell you: put this pedantry with that star, because if you open the door to pedantry, no authentic narration will be safe for you; because this pedantry you mention applies to every trustworthy, precise, and memorizing narrator.

The questioner: Correct.

The Shaykh : So, rest from the pedantry.

The questioner: All right.