Oath of divorce that is forgotten

Question:
He swore by divorce that he would not go to such-and-such a place, and he said, “She is divorced from me three times,” but he did not intend this divorce; rather, he intended to restrain himself from this place. Unfortunately, he was ignorant of the matter, and before a short time had passed, he went to the same place. At that point, he was not forgetful, but rather remembering, and he merely ignored the matter. What is the ruling on that?

Answer:
If a man divorces in connection with something he does, or something he does not do, there is a detailed ruling in this. If he says, “If I visit so-and-so, my wife is divorced,” or “If I enter so-and-so’s house, my wife is divorced,” or “If I eat so-and-so’s slaughtered meat, my wife is divorced,” or “If you do not eat my slaughtered meat, so-and-so, my wife is divorced,” or “If you do not stay until you eat my slaughtered meat, my wife is divorced,” or “If so-and-so speaks to me, my wife is divorced,” or “If I travel to such-and-such a place, my wife is divorced,”
All these things happen among people, so there is a detailed ruling: If he intended to effect the divorce if he did this thing, or if he did not do this thing, then the divorce takes effect. For example, if he intended that if he travels, his wife will be divorced, then it is according to his intention. Or if he said, “If you do not eat the slaughtered meat, my wife is divorced,” and his intention was that if she does not eat it, she will be divorced, then it is according to his intention.
However, if he intended to emphasize the matter and did not intend to separate from her, and separation did not cross his mind, but he wanted to emphasize it—wanting him to eat his hospitality, and his intention was not to separate from his family, but he wanted him to eat the hospitality when he heard the divorce, perhaps he would submit, perhaps he would sit and eat the hospitality—then its ruling is the ruling of the expiation for an oath. Its ruling is the ruling of an oath, and he owes its expiation, and the divorce does not take effect.
Likewise, if he said, “If I do not visit so-and-so’s house, my wife is divorced,” or “If I do not enter so-and-so’s house, my wife is divorced,” and then he did that, and his intention was to restrain himself from this thing, and his intention was not to separate from his family, but he wanted to restrain himself from this thing and emphasized it, then this has the ruling of an oath. He owes the expiation for an oath: feeding ten poor people, each poor person receiving half a sa' (a dry measure of about 3 kg) of the local staple food, and that is sufficient. Or he clothes them with a garment, a shirt for each one, or he gives each one an izar (lower garment) and a rida' (upper garment). This clothing must be of the type that is sufficient for prayer.
This is the answer to these numerous and many issues: If he intended to effect the divorce, the divorce takes effect. If he did not intend that, but rather intended to restrain himself, or to urge himself to the thing he wants—restraining himself by saying, “If I travel, my wife is divorced,” or “If I speak to so-and-so, my wife is divorced”—his intention was to restrain himself from traveling and speaking. Or if he intended to urge himself to it, saying, “If I do not fast on Mondays and Thursdays, my wife is divorced,” or “If I do not slaughter a sacrificial animal for so-and-so, my wife is divorced”—his intention was to urge himself to the thing—then its ruling is also the ruling of an oath, if he intended nothing but to urge himself and oblige himself to that thing.