Does breaching an oath concerning a specific garment by using another benefit bestowed by the owner break the oath?

Primary text

If a person performs an action related to the owner for which there is a sense of favor, other than benefiting from the sworn garment or its price—such as residing in the owner's house, eating the owner's food, or wearing a different garment belonging to the owner—the oath is not breached. The oath is specifically tied to the sworn garment or what was obtained directly from it, and the ruling does not extend to other benefits because the oath and its associated reason are confined to the specified item.