Review and discussion under the hadith (None of you should bathe in the water .

The Shaykh : Upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon his family and his Companions and those who follow them with excellence until the Day of Judgment, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned three wordings: So what is the difference between "in it" and "from it"? Yes?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : "In it" means to scoop?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, then he bathes in it. I said "in it," yes, then he bathes in it.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : He immerses himself, okay. And "from it"?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : And "from it"?
The student : He scoops from it.

The Shaykh : He scoops from it, okay. Why did it come in the second wording of Abu Dawud as "he bathes in it from janabah"?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : To restrict the generality in the narration of al-Bukhari. Okay. In the hadith that follows, it says about a man who accompanied the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). By what is the companionship of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) established? Yes?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : What?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : By his gathering with the Prophet.
The student : By his gathering with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and he died upon that.

The Shaykh : Yes. What is the difference between the companionship of the Messenger and that of others?
The student : The companionship of the Messenger is sufficient ...

The Shaykh : No, yes. Perfection? Come on, what is the difference?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : From the length of staying close.
The student : And as for the companionship of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), even for a moment.

The Shaykh : Yes, by gathering with him even for a moment. Okay, there is a problem in the hadith, which is that the man who accompanied the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was unknown. Does this affect the validity of the hadith?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : Why?
The student : Because all the Companions are trustworthy.

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student : So it does not harm ...

The Shaykh : Yes, because all the Companions are trustworthy and just, so it does not harm us that we do not know the specific identity of the narrator among them. I think we have not spoken about the text? Okay, did we speak about the prohibition?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : The prohibition, Yahya?
The student : The prohibition is the request to refrain ...

The Shaykh : The request to refrain?
The student : In a manner of superiority.

The Shaykh : In a manner of superiority, okay.
The student : In a specific form.

The Shaykh : What?
The student : In a specific form.

The Shaykh : Yes, in a specific form, the request to refrain in a manner of superiority in a specific form. May Allah reward you. Come on, Samir, what is the specific form?
The student : The present tense verb with the negative particle "la".

The Shaykh : The present tense with the negative "la", like his saying: "Do not do it." Okay, "avoid," is this a prohibition?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Why? ... these?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Okay, how do you say it is not a prohibition?
The student : Because it did not come in the form "Do not do it."

The Shaykh : Yes?
The student : It did not come in the form "Do not do it."

The Shaykh : Yes, meaning this is not a prohibition but a command?
The student : To avoid.

The Shaykh : To avoid. May Allah reward you. Okay, as for whether it necessitates prohibition or not, that is not our concern now.
We begin the new lesson, if Allah wills. He said: "

Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) forbade a women to bathe with the water left over by a man and that a man should not bathe with the water left over by a woman (but instead) they should both take scoopfuls of the water together.

نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن تغتسل المرأة بفضل الرجل أو الرجل بفضل المرأة، وليغترفا جميعًا

Bulugh al-Maram 7

It was narrated by Abu Dawud and al-Nasa'i and its chain is authentic "
This means if the man bathes in a vessel and then leaves the place, and the woman comes to bathe from it, this is the case for the prohibition, because it is now true of her that she bathed with the leftover water of the man. And likewise the reverse, that the man bathes with the leftover water of the woman; the woman bathes with the water and some remains after her, and the man comes and bathes with this remainder, this is also a case for the prohibition. Then after this prohibition, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) guided to something better than it and said: The lam in his saying: is the lam of command, and the pronoun "scoop" refers to the woman and the man. And it is known that it does not mean every woman and man, but rather it means the woman who is the wife and the man who is the husband.
His saying We should stop at it so that we clarify things about this lam and its sister, which is the lam of causation, because many people err in it in the Noble Qur'an. For example, if the lam of command comes after the conjunction "wa" (and) or "fa" (so) or "thumma" (then), it is placed as a sukun (silent) and is not opened. An example of this is the saying of Allah the Exalted: The lam is silent. The lam is silent. The lam is silent. And an example of it after "fa" is Here it came after "fa" as a sukun, and it must be so.
The lam of causation is kasrah (vowel i) in every case, as in His saying the Exalted: "That they disbelieve and that they enjoy themselves." So whoever reads it as "wa liyamtai'u" has erred, because it changes the meaning. And what? And whoever reads it as "wa liyudhakkir" has erred with a great error and a mispronunciation that changes the meaning. Pay attention to this, because many of those who recite the Qur'an, you hear them, and they are not ignorant, but such matters escape them, or they make it kasrah but with idraj (joining), we think they make it silent. But it must be that the kasrah is clear. Is the recitation correct or is it an error?
The student: An error.

The Shaykh : An error?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : There is no god but Allah! Who would declare his teacher wrong?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, the error is attributed to any person, no matter who he is. So with the kasrah of the lam, it must be clear that the lam is kasrah. Here, Do we say "wa liyaghtrifa" or "wa liyaghtrifa"?
The student : Wa liyaghtrifa.

The Shaykh : Wa liyaghtrifa, because the lam is the lam of command.
Okay, in this hadith there is guidance from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and a high etiquette, which is that if a man and his wife are required to perform ghusl, it is not recommended that the man goes to bathe alone and then the woman comes after him, or the woman and then the man comes after her. Rather, it is better that they both scoop together. And this is what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) guided to, and it is what he used to do. He and Aisha (peace and blessings be upon him and may Allah be pleased with her) used to bathe from one vessel, their hands mixing in it. So much so that she said, "Leave it for me," if he got ahead of her, and the hands would differ. This implies that she bathes next to her husband. So in this there is a verbal sunnah and a practical sunnah. And in it, too, is affection and economy in water, which is known. Because if the man has removed the awkwardness between him and his family, this necessitates an increase in trust and an increase in affection.
In this hadith, among the benefits, first: the guidance of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to what is a benefit for the community, even in matters that one may be shy to mention, because some people may be shy to mention this.
And among its benefits: that it is better for a person not to separate his family from his ghusl and himself from his ghusl.
And among the benefits of the hadith: that it is permissible for a man to look at his family, and there is no awrah between him and his family. Meaning: it is permissible for him to bathe while naked and for her to bathe while naked, and there is no harm in that. As for the hadith narrated from Aisha that she said: " I did not see from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) -meaning the private parts- nor did he see it from me " This is not authentic. So it is taken from that the permissibility of a man being naked in front of his wife and a woman in front of her husband.
And among the benefits of this hadith: that it is recommended for the husband to do everything that brings affection between him and his wife and removes all awkwardness. This image that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioned and guided to is undoubtedly one that contains affection and the removal of awkwardness.
Some scholars hold that if a man performs ghusl using the water left over by a woman, his state of ritual impurity is not lifted. However, they stipulated conditions, such as the water being exclusively his, the amount being small, and its exclusivity being due to a state of ritual impurity rather than physical impurity. They mentioned other things, but the crux of the matter is that they claim if a man purifies himself with it, his state of ritual impurity is not lifted. If he finds nothing else, he purifies himself with it and performs tayammum. This view has no basis in validity. Why? First, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) clarified that this prohibition is not a prohibition of harm, but a prohibition of discipline, as he said: Second, even if it were a prohibition of harm, that does not indicate that if one did so, his state of ritual impurity would not be lifted. One might argue that if he did so, his state of ritual impurity would not be lifted because he did what he was not commanded to do, acting in a manner not commanded by Allah and His Messenger, and thus it would be rejected. We say: even if we accept this for the sake of argument, why do they distinguish between the man and the woman? Why is it not said: if the man bathes with water that is exclusively his, then the woman does not bathe? Is this not the requirement of justice? In one hadith, the prohibition is the same, yet they say in one case that the purification is not valid, and in the other that the purification is valid. This is clear arbitrariness. If it were not for the fact that we bear witness that these scholars who held this view only intended the truth, we would bear witness that this is not a sound statement, it is incorrect, and the approach is not sound. How can you use one hadith to prove two issues that the hadith indicated, and then you distinguish between them? This is strange. In any case, we say that this prohibition is a matter of what? Guidance and instruction, not a matter of prohibition, because he directed them to a better manner than this one, which is for both of them to draw water together.