What is the ruling if a husband swears successive oaths restricting intercourse, where the total duration exceeds four months?

Primary text

There are two distinct legal views regarding cumulative successive oaths exceeding four months, such as swearing not to have intercourse for four months, then for another four months, or for two months followed by four months. One view holds that it is not Ilaa because each oath is for a duration less than the Ilaa period, meaning he can engage in intercourse after each specific period without breaking the oath, similar to someone limiting their oath to that shorter duration only. The second view states that it becomes Ilaa because he has restricted himself from intercourse for a continuous period exceeding four months, analogous to a single oath imposing such a restriction. Furthermore, this second view reasons that without this ruling, he could indefinitely prevent intercourse through successive oaths without being considered in Ilaa, which contradicts the intent of the law.