Once again thanks for being available as a sounding board.
It appears that in Shevuos daf 3B the issue of lav shein bo maaseh is revisited, just like in makkos & sanhedrin. Here in daf 3B the maase is eating after a shvua not to eat.
I was thinking that this is not a classic case of maase. eating chelev or dam is inherently an issur as opposed to eating bread (let us say) after a shvua. the difference being that the actual eating of the bread is not an issur but rather the utterance of the words by the mouth create the status of issur.
thus one could think (perhaps) that the maase issur is not eating, but rather what creates the issur is the utterance of words.
I was wondering if this could be another case similar to akimas sefasayim, as in the case in sanhedrin, where there is a quasi maase status to words. if so, one would not need to resort to the case of eating as a maase but rather all cases of utterances could be considered quasi maases.
does any body develop this thought on this daf??
Although a case could be made for the suggestion that the Ma'aseh of the Shevu'ah is the actual taking of the oath, this is clearly not the position of the Gemara, which differentiates between a Shevu'ah of "Lo Ochal" and "Ochal." In these to cases there is clearly no difference as far as the Ma'aseh involved in making the Shevu'ah whether it is later violated passively or actively. However we relate to the Isur of the Shevu'ah, the Ma'aseh of violating does not involve the swearing of the oath but rather violating it at a later time.
The same can be seen from the Hasra'ah, which is given at the time of the eating and not at the time of the Shevu'ah. Again, even if the Isur is the violation of the oath (and not an "Isur Achilah" such as Chelev or Dam), nevertheless the Shevu'ah is being violated by Ma'aseh when its violation involves an action.
D. Zupnik