even if he had no intention whatsoever—even if, when asked, “Did you divorce your wife?” he answered, “Yes,” 1 while meaning to lie.

Likewise, whoever says, “I swore an oath of divorce,” intending deceit, and then does the very thing about which he swore, the divorce takes effect both in the ruling of the courts and in the sight of God.

If he says, “Divorce is binding upon me,” or, “Divorce is incumbent on me,” these are explicit formulas, whether uttered outright, suspended on a condition, or spoken as an oath.

If he says, “Upon me be the prohibition,” and intends his wife, it counts as ẓihār; otherwise it is meaningless.

If a man divorces his wife 2 and then immediately says to her co-wife, 3 “I make you her partner,” “You are her equal,” or, “You are like her,” the divorce applies to them both.

If he says, “Divorce is binding upon me,” or, “My wife is divorced,” while he has more than one wife, then—should he intend one specific woman—it applies to her alone; if he intends an unspecified one, the matter is decided by drawing lots, 4 and if he has no intention at all, they are all divorced.

A divorce merely conceived in the heart does not take effect; but if he pronounces it, or even just moves his tongue with it, it is effective, even if no one hears.

Writing an explicit statement of divorce to his wife also effects the divorce. If he later claims, “I only wanted to practise my penmanship,” or, “to distress my family,” the court rejects his plea and upholds the divorce.

For a mute husband, a clear gesture alone suffices to effect the divorce.