The Ruling on the Divorce of a Drunk Man

Question:
A man pronounced divorce while in a state of intoxication, stipulating that he would not ride in a car with other people. Then he rode with them, but in the front of the car, while the others were in the back?

Answer:
The car is all one unit, whether the front or the back. However, if his mind was with him, the divorce takes effect if he intended the divorce. If his mind was not with him, and he was speaking while not of sound mind, with his intellect absent, then he is like a madman; his divorce does not take effect. If he speaks while not of sound mind, like a madman, his divorce does not take effect.
As for if he is of sound mind, the details must be clarified. If he intended to restrain himself from riding, as in the case mentioned earlier of the one who divorced on the condition that he would not speak to so-and-so, or would not sit with him, if he divorced... and his intention was not to separate from his wife, but rather to restrain himself from riding and to be strict with himself, then its ruling is the ruling of an oath, and he owes its expiation. If he intended to effect the divorce, meaning he rode, then the divorce takes effect on his wife; one divorce takes effect on her in that case if his mind was with him, whether he rode in the front or the back, unless he specified that he would not ride in the front or in the back; in that case, it is as he specified and as he...