What are the two weak hadiths in al-Bukhari and the reason for their weakness?

The questioner : Now we pause to make a statement... We know that... every one of these authors relied on a specific method in collecting hadith. Al-Bukhari relied on a specific method, and Muslim relied on a specific method, and so on. So now I have heard that you have weakened two hadiths of al-Bukhari, so we want to know which hadith was weakened? And why was it weakened?

The Shaykh : It was weakened because it was established that one of the narrators made a mistake. One of the hadiths is the hadith of Ibn Abbas, and it is in both Sahihs, not just in al-Bukhari. It says: Before I expand a little on the answer, I want to draw attention to the fact that someone like me might boast that I have weakened what Imam al-Bukhari authenticated. But I have no right to say that, because I am preceded in this matter by the great scholars. But unfortunately—and this is the crux of this speech—due to the ignorance of the general students of knowledge, indeed the scholars themselves, of such knowledge, and their failure to study the books of the people of knowledge, when they hear about al-Albani, who is this al-Albani, the foreigner from Albania, who resided in Syria for a while, if Allah wills, and then here, what can he do with his hand to weaken Sahih al-Bukhari, which is a book that the Ummah accepted with approval? I say yes, this book was accepted by the Ummah with approval, but do you think the Ummah accepted Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim with the same acceptance as they accepted the Noble Mushaf?
Of course not. In the sense, is every letter in Sahih al-Bukhari like every letter in the Noble Qur'an? No one dares to say this. But the unity of this acceptance in the hearts of people who have not studied Sahih al-Bukhari with a scientific, conscious, and unbiased study, free from unbridled emotions that divert people from believing in scientific facts, is what makes them consider it a great thing if they hear or read in one of al-Albani's books that a hadith of al-Bukhari is not authentic, despite it being in the Sahih. But it was not me who said it; the Imams said it. This specific hadith was weakened by Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, and Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in Sahih al-Bukhari.

The questioner : In Fath al-Bari?

The Shaykh : In Fath al-Bari, yes.

The questioner : Ibn Hajar weakened it in Fath al-Bari.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed, and so did many of the scholars. The point—and we return now to say—Ibn Abbas says about Maimunah: But it is authentic from more than one path from Maimunah herself that she said: So what does the researcher do in this case? He must resort to preference (tarjih). We returned to preference and found that the narrations from Maimunah herself are first, not strange (gharib), meaning that one narrator did not narrate it alone. The strange hadith in the science of hadith is the one that is narrated alone by one narrator, even if he is trustworthy. Therefore, they divide the strange hadith into authentic and weak, because they mean by "strange" the narrator's uniqueness in narrating it. If the one who narrated it alone is a trustworthy, memorizing, and precise person, then his hadith is strange and authentic. And if he is weak, it is strange and weak. The hadith of Ibn Abbas is strange; no one narrated it from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) except Ibn Abbas. Then from Ibn Abbas, it was narrated by Ikrimah, and I think he has supporters (mutaba'ah), but what Ibn Abbas narrated alone. As for the hadith of Maimunah, it came from paths from her. So the scholars I mentioned, and others whom I do not mention now, preferred the narration of "halal" (permissible) by observing two things. One is related to strangeness and its absence—and I mentioned that just now—and the other is that the narration that came from paths from Maimunah is from Maimunah herself, the one involved in the matter, so she knows herself better than the one who narrates from her, who is Ibn Abbas. So there is no strangeness in saying that the hadith of Ibn Abbas, despite being in Sahih al-Bukhari, is strange in the sense of weak. Not because the narrators who narrated this hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari are weak or liars, no, but because the narrator did not escape from error, as evidenced by the other paths that came from the owner of the story herself, who is Maimunah, who said:
The Shaykh: As for the second hadith, I think you mean his saying (peace and blessings be upon him), which is in al-Bukhari from the hadith of—I do not remember who the Companion is—and it is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him):
The Shaykh: The hadith without the phrase: is authentic. As for this addition, al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and others call it—in hadith terminology—an inserted addition (ziyadah mudrajah), meaning it is not from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), but from some of the narrators. Therefore, the hadith ends with: As for the addition of: this is an addition from some of the narrators. And it is not correct in meaning—as they also explain—and one of their proofs for that is: it means that when the Muslim performs wudu, instead of washing from here to here, he washes the front of the head to the bottom of the chin, instead of washing up to the elbows with one or two fingers, reaching the upper arm by rolling it up like this, contrary to the Sunnah. And it came in the established hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in Musnad Imam Ahmad and others: So it is not permissible to add to what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) brought, because as you know, the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh: I feel a bit that this research is a bit scientific, so I am waiting for other questions that move that front a little. No problem, hehe.