How does the distinction between intention and cause affect the binding nature of an oath over time?

Primary text

When the specific cause indicates a particular intent, it supersedes the general wording in the absence of explicit intention. Consequently, if an oath is restricted by its cause, an action matching the general wording that occurs outside that specific cause does not invalidate the oath. For example, if a man swore his wife was divorced if she left, and she prepared to leave but then stopped, he is not liable. However, if he later invited someone to lunch and swore his wife was divorced if he ate lunch, and then he ate lunch at home, he is liable for the second instance because the condition was met in a distinct, subsequent context.