Ibrāhīm ibn al-Ḥārith al-Taymī, from Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ḥāṭib, that ʿUmar – and so on.
Hence, the report is actually transmitted by Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān from ʿUmar, not by Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd from him as appears in the printed edition; that is most probably a scribal slip or a typesetter’s omission.
Al-Bayhaqī relates it in this very form (1/250) through Mālik, and al-Dāraquṭnī likewise (1/22) through Ḥammād ibn Zayd, who said: “Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd narrated it to us.”
Even so, the report is weak and cannot be upheld as coming from ʿUmar, because this Ibn Ḥāṭib never met ʿUmar – he was born during the caliphate of ʿUthmān, may Allah be pleased with him.
For that reason al-Nawawī declared categorically in al-Majmūʿ (1/174) that its chain is mursal and broken. He then added, “Nevertheless, this mursal has other narrations that lend it support.”
I say: He is referring to the reports of Jābir and Ibn ʿUmar discussed earlier, and you have already seen the weakness of their chains and the textual irregularity they contain, for they contradict the hadith of the two-qullah measure. Keep that in mind.