Expiation for an oath after fasting, then breaking the oath

The questioner : A man said, "By Allah, I will not enter so-and-so's house." It was reported that he would not enter so-and-so's house. He said, "I took the oath today, today, Thursday, corresponding to the eighth of Dhul-Qa'dah." He said, "By Allah, I will not enter so-and-so's house." Two days later, he regretted it and said, "I wish I could break the oath, but I don't have any extra money right now." We told him to fast for three days, because . He fasted for three days. Then it happened that a relative of his died, and this man was the only one who would inherit from him. The relative owned ten million riyals. Who gets the millions? The man who fasted for the expiation of the oath. Then he entered the house. Do we say now that because he entered the house, he must expiate with money? Also, I haven't seen any poor people, because he is now wealthy, or do we say he does not have to, because he expiated for his oath by fasting?

The Shaykh : What is the condition for the obligation: breaking the oath or the oath itself? The condition for the obligation is the oath. Breaking the oath is the cause of the obligation. Now, the breaking of the oath, which is entering the house, did not happen until he was wealthy. So do we say you must expiate now, because if you had broken the oath while you were wealthy, feeding the poor would have been obligatory on you?
And fasting is not permissible in this case. He says that the author of al-Mughni, al-Muqaddam (may Allah have mercy on him), said that fasting is not permissible, because at the time the obligation arose, he was not among those who fast, but among those who feed or give charity. And the majority said that it suffices for him, because by his fasting, the oath was dissolved. If the oath is dissolved and then he breaks it, and the breaking of the oath coincides with a person who is innocent, he owes nothing for it. And this is the correct opinion. This is the correct one, because Allah the Exalted called that a release, and He said: . And if this is a release, then if the breaking of the oath coincides with a person who is innocent, he owes no expiation, because he has already released it in the previous expiation. Do you see it? My eye, here? Yes, indeed.
If he had prevented the oath, if he said, "I have just taken an oath, and I wish to be released from the oath. I wish to be released so that I become free, so that if I want to go, I go, and if I want not to go, I do not go." He says, "Expiate now, and there is no blame on you. The oath is dissolved completely. Yes. Do not proceed with the fasting, because he is praying at the end of the fasting, and he is not qualified for that."