More On פועל and פעולה

לרפואת נתן חיים בן זעלדא בתוך שח"י!!

In a recent post we spoke about the difference between פועל and פעולה. The term פועל refers to the person who is fulfilling the mitzva. פעולה refers to the act being performed. We have to ask ourselves what is the primary obligation about any given mitzva or aveira. Is it the פועל - that the PERSON should do or not do this act. Or is the פעולה - that act must be done or may not be done. 

The Yerushalmi [Shabbos 1/1] presents an interesting question. What is the din if one ate a half kezayis of forbidden chelev, vomitted it [isn't that what would YOU do if you are somehing unkosher?!] and then ate it again [ugh! or phonetically "uch!"]. On one hand he ate a half kezais twice so that should equal a whole kezais. On the other hand - he ate one half of an actual kezais? 

The Yerushalmi says - חייב! Out. 15 minutes in the penalty box for a violation of "forbidden eating on the line of scrimmage".  The half combines to constitute a whole. 

The Yerushalmi contrasts that with the halacha that if one took a half of a date [חצי גרוגרת] from the public to private domain and then took it back outside he is פטור. How do you figure? Why is it different from the first case??

The Yerushalmi says [in "Yerushalmese"]: 

"תמן נהנה חיכו בכזית ברם הכא לא נתעסק בכגרוגרת שלימה"

There [in the eating case], his palate enjoyed a kezais [so he is חייב]. Here [in the carrying case], he wasn't involved with more than a kezais [so he is פטור]. 

The Rogochover explains that with regard to eating, the איסור is on the פועל - the individual [or indivYIDual] and since he ate a whole kezais [without paying attention to the fact that it was the same half twice], he is חייב. While with regard to carrying, it is the פעולה that is forbidden. The פעולה, the act of carrying, was done on only a half of a fig, so no חיוב. 

[The Meforshim add that in the eating case we must rule that the חיוב is for הנאת חיך - enjoyment of the palate. Because if it would be for הנאת מעיו - the feeling of satisfaction, then one would be פטור because the stomach is not satisfied with a half a fig size which vomited and eaten again. This is a famous machlokes between Rav Yochanan and Reish Lakish Chullin 103]. 

ע"ע בשו"ת ארץ צבי סי' ע"ו