Is a husband liable for violating an oath if his wife buys a garment she previously refused to let him wear, and another woman gives it to him, or he buys it and wears it in a manner that does not imply a favor from his wife?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Expiations
Primary text
There are two opinions regarding the violation of an oath if a husband swore not to wear a garment his wife refused to allow him to wear, and subsequently, either another woman purchased it for him to wear, or he purchased it and wore it without it being considered a favor from her. One opinion states that he is liable for violating the oath because it contradicts the vow. Furthermore, when the wording of the Lawgiver is more general than the specific cause, the generality of the wording must be followed, which applies similarly to oaths. This is analogous to a husband telling his wives, 'You are divorced,' when the cause for divorce was only one; all wives are divorced in both cases.
Supporting text
The second opinion holds that he is not liable for violating the oath. This is because the specific cause is deemed to restrict the wording of the oath to what was present when the cause occurred, effectively making the oath as if it were intended (as if it were mentally stipulated) or as if it were qualified by a linguistic context.