"Implicit"/"Explicit"; "Implicate"/"Explicate"--3

[This is a traditional explication or folding out of meaning.  It  

is quite clear and unambiguous.  And it is worth pondering.]

       But cast a different eye at the saying, one conditioned by a more recent existential mode of thought, and lo and behold, another explicit statement can be “unfolded” from it.  Stressing the “am” and the “be” in the first line (“If I am not...for myself, who will be for me?”), this explication arises:

               If I do not take the responsibility to carve out my own                               identity, who will fulfill my existence in place of me?  



Stressing “am” and “what” in the next line ("If I am only for myself, what am I?"), the meaning becomes,

               If only I am able to fulfill my existence, what is it that I am?
  


Leaving the third line ("And if not now, when?") to mean, 

               And if I don’t start becoming that now, whenever will I?
   
       The same words of Hillel, in Hebrew or translation, support both explications.  Each has merit.  But analogous with particles and waves, each will give only a single account of the saying.