[Avodah] If and When

[Kenneth Miller via Avodah]

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> R' Yishmael famously (Mechilta BaChodesh-Yisro 11, Mishpatim 182
> or <http://j.mp/1SbnwEg>) says that "im" usually means that the
> decision is up to you, but three times it's a chiyuv:
>    - "Im mizbach avanim ta'aseh Li" (Shemos 20:21)
>    - "Im kesef talveh es ami" (Shemos 22:24)
>    - "Im taqriv minchas bikurim" (Vayiqra 2:14)
...
> LAD, "im" introduces an implication -- X implies Y.
...
> When X is always obligated, then Y will also be always
> obligated, but the "always" is because X is.

If I'm understanding you correctly, your logic will work only if there is another pasuk somewhere which *already* obligates us to build a mizbe'ach of stone, to lend money without interest, and to bring bikkurim in this manner. If so, then a fuller translation can be written with the word "if", and without the word "when", like this:

: (You are already obligated to build a stone mizbe'ach, and)
: if (today is the day that) you will build a stone mizbe'ach,
: you will not build it from cut stones...

But I thought that R' Yishmael's whole point is that THESE ARE the source pesukim for those mitzvos, and that there are NO other pesukim which obligate you to do these things. That's why R' Yishmael made the whole point of stressing that these "im"s really mean "when". His fear was that if we translate "im" as "if", then someone might think these pesukim are like Hilchos Gittin: "IF you get divorced, here is the right way to do it, and IF you make a stone mizbe'ach, here is the right way." R' Yishmael's point is that there is no "if" - you MUST do these things, and WHEN you do it, this is how.

So over Shabbos, I tried to verify my idea. Thanks to RMB, who quoted not only the 3 pesukim, but identified their location, it was pretty simple to look them up in the Torah Temimah. But what I found was rather odd.

Torah Temimah Shmos 20:127 quotes R' Yishmael in the Mechilta, pretty much the same way that RMB did, and points out that this is NOT the source for the obligation for build a stone mizbe'ach - that is in Ki Savo. This RMB's logic fits: "If (today is the day that) you build a stone mizbe'ach, don't build it of cut stones."

Please note: In the excerpt of the Mechilta which the Torah Temimah quotes regarding the mizbe'ach, R' Yishmael says that there are 3 cases where "im" is not optional, but the other two are not specified. This is very different than the Torah Temimah about lending money.

Torah Temimah Shmos 22:198 does quotes R' Yishmael in the Mechilta, but it doesn't mention the word "im" explicitly, nor is there any reference to two other cases. He simply asks whether it is a reshus or a chovah to lend money, and he answers that the obligation appears in Parshas Re'eh. I find it curious that this Mechilta is worded so differently than the previous one, but the message is clearly the same.

Finally, we have the pasuk about bikkurim. It turns out that the Torah Temimah on this pasuk doesn't mention R' Yishmael at all. It does mention R' Yehudah, but from the Toras Kohanim, and not from the Mechilta. Further, my unlearned reading of R' Yehudah had little or nothing to do with the reshus/chovah question, but Torah Temimah Vayikra 2:80 DID see a reshus/chovah question that troubled R' Yehudah.

I am left with several questions, the main one being whether or not Bikkurim really was R' Yishmael's third "im". And that's where I'll leave this thread, for more skilled minds to investigate should they be so inclined.

Akiva Miller
KennethGMiller at juno.com


____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/557d895b6e89195a4573st02vuc