Explanation of the Book of Marriage-10

The Shaykh :"From Zayd ibn Ka'b ibn 'Ujrah, from his father, who said:

The Prophet (ﷺ) got married

تزوج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم العالية من بني غفار

Sahih al-Bukhari 5114

".
Al-'Aliyah is the proper name of a woman named al-'Aliyah, and Banu Ghafar is a well-known Arab tribe. She removed her clothes because she had no one with her but her husband, and the side is the area between the waist and the ribs; the waist is here and the ribs are above it.
And his saying: "whiteness" means vitiligo or leprosy. Vitiligo and leprosy are both skin diseases, but leprosy is whiter than vitiligo, and both are things from which human nature recoils. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to her: Al-Hakim narrated it, and in its chain is Jamil ibn Zayd, who is unknown, and there is much disagreement regarding his shaykh.
And if we apply this hadith to what we know of the terminology of hadith, it becomes clear that it is?
The student: Weak.

The Shaykh : Weak. What is the reason?
The student: The unknown narrator.

The Shaykh : The unknown narrator, that is one. Second: the instability, the great disagreement regarding his shaykh. But let us look: is this hadith, since its chain is weak, also weak in its text, or do the proofs support its authenticity? We look, and it says: Removing clothes in front of the husband is not a problem, because it is permissible for each of the husband and wife to look at the other's entire body. So this does not contradict the principles. This does not contradict the principles; indeed, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would bathe with 'Aishah from the same vessel, and their hands would differ in it. This indicates the permissibility of a woman and a man being naked in front of each other.
And his saying: This also does not contradict the principles, because his order for her to put on her clothes implies the necessity of that, which is that she is?
The student: A loan.

The Shaykh : No, it is not a loan, and the loan is taken from the beginning. But it is on the basis that he does not want her, and he does not want to approach her.
And his saying: This is an allusion to divorce, as we have passed over that if a man says to his wife: "Return to your family," and he intends divorce by it, it becomes a divorce. So, this does not contradict the principles.
This also does not contradict the principles, because if a man is alone with his woman after the contract, the full mahr becomes obligatory for her.