because co-residing in a house is not achieved when they are two separate houses. It is distinct from entering, for he entered it while it was in an altered state.

Section: If he swore that he would certainly leave this house, his oath requires leaving it in person [and with his family, just as if he swore to leave this town, his oath encompasses leaving in person]; because an owner customarily leaves his house several times a day, so the obvious meaning of his state is that he did not intend the customary exit; rather, he intended the exit which constitutes relocation, whereas leaving a town is the opposite of that. When the swearer has left, is he permitted to return? There are two narrations from Ahmad: One is that there is nothing against him in returning, and he does not violate the oath by it; [because his oath] was on the act of leaving, and he has left, so his oath was dissolved by doing what he swore to do, and he does not violate it thereafter. The second is that he violates it by returning, because the obvious meaning of his state is the intention to abandon that which he swore to depart from, and this is not achieved by returning. It is possible to interpret this narration as applying when the thing sworn upon has a cause that triggered his oath, or the circumstances indicated his desire to abandon it, or he intended that in his oath; thus his oath required the persistence of avoiding it. If it was not like that, he would not violate it by returning; because an oath is interpreted, in the absence of that, according to the requirements of the wording, and its requirement here is the exit, which he has done, so his oath was dissolved by it. The same ruling applies if he swore to depart from it, except that if he swore to depart from a town, he does not fulfill it except by departing with his family.

1830 - Issue: He said: (And if he swore not to enter a house, then he was carried and entered it, and it was not possible for him to refrain, he does not violate the oath.)

[Ahmad] stated this in the narration of Abu Talib. This is the opinion of Al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the People of Opinion. We know of no disagreement regarding it, and this is because the action does not exist from him, nor is it attributed to him.