The original Hajj is obligatory immediately, so this is even more appropriate because it has become specified by entering into it, whereas that which is obligatory by the foundation of the Law is not specified by that.

Section: He shall enter into the state of ihram for the make-up (qada') from the further of the two places: the miqat or the place of his original ihram. This is because if the miqat is further, it is not permissible for him to pass the miqat without ihram, and if his place of ihram is further, then the ihram for the make-up is incumbent upon him from there. Ahmad explicitly stated this, and it was narrated from Ibn Abbas, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, al-Shafi'i, and Ishaq. Ibn al-Mundhir chose this view. Al-Nakha'i said: He enters into the state of ihram from the place of the intercourse, because it is the place of the invalidation. Our evidence is that it is an act of worship, so its make-up is in accordance with its performance, just like prayer.

Section: When they perform the make-up, they shall separate from the place of the intercourse until they complete their Hajj. This was narrated from Umar and Ibn Abbas. [Sa'id and al-Athram narrated with their chains of transmission from Umar that he was asked about a man who had intercourse with his wife while they were both in a state of ihram. He said: Complete your Hajj, and when the following year comes, perform Hajj and offer a sacrifice; when you reach the place where you committed what you committed, separate until you complete your Hajj (8). They also narrated similar from Ibn Abbas (8)] (9). Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, 'Ata', al-Nakha'i, al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y) held this view. It was narrated from Ahmad that they separate from where they enter the state of ihram until they complete it. Malik narrated it in al-Muwatta' (10) from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him. It was also narrated from Ibn Abbas, and this is the view of Malik, because the separation between them is due to the fear (11) of returning to the forbidden act, and this is present throughout their state of ihram. The argument for the first view is that the ihram before the place of invalidation was valid for them, so separation was not required in that part.