Is expiation incumbent upon someone who swore not to play football for two weeks, and then played two days after the expiry of this period, believing that the oath period had ended, but he does not specifically recall his intention regarding the duration, and is it permissible to pay the expiation from money designated for necessities if the person is unemployed and his father supports him, or is fasting obligatory?

Whoever swore not to play football for two weeks, then played two days after the two weeks, and doubted their intention at the time of the oath, whether they meant two weeks or less or more, should refer to the reason that prompted the oath:

- If the reason for the oath was studying before an exam, and the study period was two weeks or less, then there is nothing upon them because they played after this period. - If the study period exceeded sixteen days, then they have broken their oath and atonement is required of them, because they played during this period.

However, if they doubt the intention and the scope of the oath, then nothing is required of them as long as they played after two weeks, because the period they uttered was two weeks, and anything beyond that is doubtful. Doubt concerning the origin of the oath or the occurrence of its breaking does not obligate anything, because the default is the acquittal of responsibility.