I said that the zakah on jewelry does not fall outside the scope of the general hadiths, but the action of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) does not exclude it from the general scope, just as Aishah and others did.

The questioner : The honorable Shaykh, I said that the zakah on jewelry does not fall outside the scope of the general hadiths, but the action of the Companions does not exclude it from the general scope, just as Aishah and others did. Also, because this issue is one that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) should have clarified, yet he did not clarify it, even though the community is in need of it, why is that?

The Shaykh : Yes, we say in answer to the first part: The Companions differed on this. Some are reported to have said that there is no zakah on jewelry, some are reported to have said that there is zakah on it for one year, and some are reported to have said that there is zakah on it. If it is reported from five or ten of the Companions that there is no zakah on it, the silence regarding the transmission of the opinions of the others is because the original ruling is that they pay zakah, as long as the hadiths from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) state that there is zakah on it. So the original ruling is that they pay zakah. For this reason, we do not need to know that the Companions acted upon every verbal text from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). If the verbal texts from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) come, they are a proof, whether we know that the Companions acted upon them or not. If we were to act upon verbal texts only where we know that the Companions acted upon them, many of the verbal sunnahs would be lost. And the reason the opinion of the Companions who said it is not obligatory became famous is because this opinion goes against the implication of the general texts, so that is what was transmitted.
As for what the questioner indicated regarding Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her), Aishah was looking after the wealth of orphans in her care and did not pay zakah from it. This does not indicate that she did not consider zakah on jewelry to be obligatory, because the wealth of orphans may not require zakah, either according to the opinion of those who say that the owner of the wealth must be of age to be held accountable, because some scholars say that there is no zakah on the wealth of minors because the pen is lifted from the minor. So if there were orphans under her care from whose wealth she did not pay zakah, that does not mean she did not consider zakah on jewelry to be obligatory, because it may be based on her view that zakah is not obligatory on the wealth of orphans due to their youth. This is one possibility.
Another possibility is that this jewelry she had for the orphans did not reach the nisab.
A third possibility is that this jewelry may have had debts upon it, meaning upon the orphans, that were greater than its value, so zakah would not be obligatory on it, based on the opinion of those who say that one who has a debt that reduces the nisab does not have to pay zakah. As long as these possibilities are present in a specific case, one of the established principles is that the existence of a possibility negates what? It negates the argument. If a possibility exists, the argument falls away. As for the questioner’s statement that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not clarify it, I am amazed at him. How did the Messenger not clarify it, when he is the one who said: For this reason, even up to our time, we know that a woman who has jewelry is called one who has gold, and it is said that this woman has gold. This is a well-known matter. So the Messenger said: Is there anything clearer than this statement? Then the hadith of 'Amir ibn Shu'ayb from his father from his grandfather is explicit on the subject, so the Messenger clarified it. Yes.