divorced—I intend three divorces,” the stronger view is that this counts as one divorce. Accordingly, he does not have the right to pronounce three divorces, because this adds no further irrevocability and constitutes falling into what is prohibited. Threefold divorce is prohibited, unless he first takes his wife back and then divorces her again afterward, should he wish to do so.
His words, “If he has intercourse through the anus, or short of the vagina, then he has not resumed marital relations,” mean that anal intercourse is prohibited, and full sexual enjoyment is not attained through it. The author is describing an actual occurrence here; he is not ruling it permissible. It is unlawful for a man to have anal intercourse with his wife. If he does so and persists in it, they must be separated, because he has persisted in a prohibited act.
His words, “or short of the vagina,” mean that he has intercourse in an area other than the vagina, such as between the thighs. This does not constitute resuming marital relations, because it is not the intercourse through which full pleasure is attained. Such intercourse is permissible and unobjectionable.
If he has intercourse with her while she is menstruating, then the apparent view is that it is not valid, because intercourse during menstruation does not attain full sexual enjoyment. Unless, that is, he says that he did so in order to hasten the matter, and that he is prepared to have intercourse once she has purified herself. In that case, we may perhaps say that this constitutes a resumption of marital relations, so that he is not required to divorce her or have the marriage annulled; rather, he is required to have intercourse with her after she has become pure.
His words, “If he claims that the period remains, or that he had intercourse with her when she was previously married, he is believed with his oath”: he claims that the period—the four months—still remains. Thus, the wife says, “His four months have elapsed, so let him divorce,” while he says, “The four months have not yet elapsed.” The presumption is that the period remains, but since the woman’s statement is possible, we say that it is necessary