Is the closing mentioned in the hadith defined by the phrase (no divorce in closing)?

The questioner : Yes, I say it is from the wording of the hadith meaning that it is not understood from it where his mind is closed and he does not control himself, and this means that it is established ... or realized in extreme anger. Ordinary anger, where he controls himself and can control his nerves and is not closed, is not the issue. The issue of closing means it is not defined.

The Shaykh : The same closing, my brother, is defined. The same closing is defined, without a doubt. But is the same closing defined?

The questioner : The one obligated defines it, meaning.

The Shaykh : We returned to the same topic, may Allah bless you. Meaning, if a person is stirred up with a slight provocation, it does not mean that he divorces. No, but the same closing.
Al-Halabi : His owner defines it.

The Shaykh : That is it.
Al-Halabi : Our Shaykh, there is also a point, in the way of completing the statement in this

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
Al-Halabi : And it is only, perhaps it is a repetition, that it is not conceivable, or that a person, by Allah, is sitting and saying to his wife, "Make me a cup of coffee," and then says, "You are divorced," without there being anger. But anger in its first degree is not anger in the moment when he is closed. And the matter, as our professor said, is that the person is the one who defines it. If, our Shaykh, the minimum limit is closing, but its definition is for the man.

The Shaykh : This is, meaning, when he (peace and blessings be upon him) said Here we leave the word closing. The judge does not judge while he is angry. It is not hidden from you that the meaning of this hadith is that the judge's ruling is not executed while he is angry. It is not only that it is not permissible for the judge to judge while he is angry, but also that his ruling is not executed while he is angry. Now, who is the one who wants to define the anger here? It is the judge himself, because the one for whom the ruling is made cannot say, "By Allah, the judge was angry" or "he was not angry." But there are many cases, as is well known, where the one obligated is judged. There are matters in the Shari'ah that are restricted, and a person cannot move right and left. It appears at that time whether he has transgressed the limits of Allah or not. But there are absolute matters, as we always speak of, They ask me, "My brother, do you want to define it?" It is not me, you want to define it. Can you pray standing or not? You are the one who can say, "You have the ability to perform Hajj" or not, and so on. These are absolute matters judged by the one obligated. If you see a man who appears to your eye to be young, handsome, sound, healthy, strong, and so on, and then you see him praying the obligatory prayer sitting in the congregation, you have no right to rebuke him, my brother. Why are you praying sitting? Your question will be invalidated immediately. "By Allah, my leg is in pain."
Al-Halabi : He defines it.

The Shaykh : Yes, and this reminds me of the joke we read long ago in Syria in al-Qurtubi's tafsir. It said, "Ibn Sirin was seen in Ramadan while he was breaking his fast. How are you breaking your fast? He said, 'My finger hurts.'" His finger was hurting.

The Shaykh : The audience : They laugh.

The Shaykh : So he is sick. You judge him by what is upon him. He judged himself.

The questioner : Shaykh Ali, we need to be defeated.The Shaykh : I will replace you.

The Shaykh : No, no.

The questioner : Leave him, our Shaykh. He is present, present.

The Shaykh : He is present, second.

The questioner : Yes, he is present.