What is the ruling when the divorce utterance contains simultaneous or conflicting temporal stipulations, such as stating three divorces before one divorce occurs, or stating three divorces today contingent upon divorcing tomorrow once?

Primary text

When the utterance implies that the realized divorce necessitates the occurrence of something impossible to occur alongside it, only the realized divorce (the immediate one) must be decreed to take effect, excluding what was attached to it conditionally. This is because the attached element is subordinate, and the subordinate cannot void the principal. The principal divorce must stand because its realization is possible and does not depend on the impossible subordinate condition. This is compared to a sick man freeing two slaves conditionally when his estate only allows for one to be freed; the one whose freeing does not rely on the condition of the other is freed, preventing the dilemma of potentially freeing neither.