מנחת חינוך כי תבוא - ביכורים

(1)The commandment of recital over the first-fruits: That we commanded when bringing the first-fruits to the Temple to recite these verses in this section over them; and they are from, “My father was a wandering Aramean” (Deuteronomy 26:5), until “behold I have brought the first of the fruit of the land that the Lord gave me” (Deuteronomy 26:10). And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 26:5), “And you will answer and you will say in front of the Lord, your God, etc.” And they, may their memory be blessed, called this commandment, (Sotah 32a), “the recital of the first-fruits.” I have written about the commandment of bringing them in the Order of Mishpatim (Sefer HaChinukh 91); and the commandment to bring them is likewise repeated in this section. And we already know that many of the commandments are repeated in the Torah; and all of them are for a great matter or necessity.
(2) It is from the root of the commandment [that it is] since a man arouses his thoughts and draws the truth in his heart with the power of the words of his mouth. Therefore, in that God did good to him, and in that He blessed him and his land to bear fruits, and he merited to bring the fruits to the House of our God; it is appropriate for him to arouse his heart with the words of his mouth and ponder that everything arrived to him from the Master of the universe, and he recount His kindnesses, may He be blessed, upon us and upon the people of Israel, more generally. Therefore, he begins with the subject of Yaakov, our father, whom God rescued from the hand of Lavan, and the subject of the slavery of the Egyptians over us, and His, blessed be He, rescuing us from their hand. And following the praise, he requests from Him to eternally bestow the blessing on him. And from the arousal of his soul with the praise of God and His goodness, he will merit that his land be blessed. Therefore, God commanded us about this, since He desires kindness.
(3) From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishnah Bikkurim 1:5) that the obligation of the commandment of the recital of the first-fruits is not upon all that bring first-fruits to the Temple, as there are those that bring [them] but do not recite. And these are them: a woman; a tumtum; and an androginos (the latter two being those the sex of which is in doubt) — since these are not able to say, from “the land that the Lord gave me,” as the land was only distributed to definite males. And so [too,] trustees do not recite, as they bring first-fruits for the sake of others. And so [too,] the slave and the agent do not recite, as they also cannot say, You “gave me” — as the land is not theirs.
(4) And from this matter we should learn to be very exacting, and to be careful about the language in our prayers and supplications in front of God, blessed be He — not to say anything in front of God without great precision. And remember this, my son, and keep it.
(5) And they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Mishnah Bikkurim 1:4) about this matter that converts bring them and recite, even though the land was not distributed to them. As it was given to Avraham first, and he was called “the father of many nations” (Genesis 17:4) — meaning to say that anyone who converts is considered like his son.
(6) And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishnah Bikkurim 1:6) that one who acquires two trees within his fellow’s field brings [them] but does not recite, as they were in doubt in the Gemara (Bava Kamma 81b) whether one who acquires two trees [receives] the land or not. But one who acquires three [trees] brings and recites. [These] and the rest of the details of the commandment are elucidated in Tractate Bikkurim and in the seventh chapter of Sotah.
(7) And this commandment is practiced at the time that the Temple is in existence, but only in the Land of Israel — as it is stated (Exodus 23:19), “The first fruits of your land you shall bring to the House of the Lord, your God” — by males, but not by females, as we have said. And rabbinically, they would bring first-fruits at the time of the [Temple] from the cities of Sichon and Og and from Syria. And one who transgresses this and brings first-fruits, but does not recite over them at that time, has violated this positive commandment.

(1) When you enter the land that your God יהוה is giving you as a heritage, and you possess it and settle in it, (2) you shall take some of every first fruit of the soil, which you harvest from the land that your God יהוה is giving you, put it in a basket and go to the place where your God יהוה will choose to establish the divine name. (3) You shall go to the priest in charge at that time and say to him, “I acknowledge this day before your God יהוה that I have entered the land that יהוה swore to our fathers to assign us.” (4) The priest shall take the basket from your hand and set it down in front of the altar of your God יהוה. (5) You*you See note at 12.7. shall then recite as follows before your God יהוה: “My father was a fugitive Aramean. He went down to Egypt with meager numbers and sojourned there; but there he became a great and very populous nation. (6) The Egyptians dealt harshly with us and oppressed us; they imposed heavy labor upon us. (7) We cried to יהוה, the God of our ancestors, and יהוה heard our plea and saw our plight, our misery, and our oppression. (8) יהוה freed us from Egypt by a mighty hand, by an outstretched arm and awesome power, and by signs and portents, (9) bringing us to this place and giving us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey. (10) Wherefore I now bring the first fruits of the soil which You, יהוה, have given me.” You shall leave it*it I.e., the basket of v. 4. before your God יהוה and bow low before your God יהוה. (11) And you shall enjoy, together with the [family of the] Levite and the stranger in your midst, all the bounty that your God יהוה has bestowed upon you and your household. (12) When you have set aside in full the tenth part of your yield—in the third year, the year of the tithe*in the third year, the year of the tithe See Deut. 14.28–29. —and have given it to the [family of the] Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat their fill in your settlements, (13) you*you See note at 12.7. shall declare before your God יהוה: “I have cleared out the consecrated portion from the house; and I have given it to the [family of the] Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, just as You commanded me; I have neither transgressed nor neglected any of Your commandments: (14) *Meaning of first part of verse uncertain. I have not eaten of it while in mourning, I have not cleared out any of it while I was impure, and I have not deposited any of it with the dead.*deposited any of it with the dead No part of the tithe may be left as food for the dead. I have obeyed my God יהוה; I have done just as You commanded me. (15) Look down from Your holy abode, from heaven, and bless Your people Israel and the soil You have given us, a land flowing with milk and honey, as You swore to our fathers.” (16) Your God יהוה commands you this day to observe these laws and rules; observe them faithfully with all your heart and soul. (17) You have affirmed*affirmed Exact nuance of Heb. he’emarta uncertain. this day that יהוה is your God, in whose ways you will walk, whose laws and commandments and rules you will observe, and whom you will obey. (18) And יהוה has affirmed*affirmed See note at v. 17. this day that you are, as promised, God’s treasured people who shall observe all the divine commandments, (19) and that [God] will set you, in fame and renown and glory, high above all the nations that [God] has made; and that you shall be, as promised, a holy people to your God יהוה.

הגדתי היום ליהוה אלוהיך, “I have declared today to the Lord your G’d, etc.” The word “your G’d,” instead of “our G’d,” seems incomprehensible here. How could the person making this declaration be allowed to exclude himself from the community by using such wording (grammar)? It appears as if he did not share the same belief in G’d as his compatriots! However, consider that if the wording had been ליהוה אלוהינו, it would not have been clear whom he considered as the Lord. Now that he uses the wording written by the Torah it is clear that when he addresses the High Priest he speaks of the Lord on whose behalf this Priest officiates. The moment he associates the Lord with the one in whose service the Priest serves, there can be no doubt that the donor also serves the same Lord, else why present the gift to the High Priest of that G’d? It is clear now that whoever is the G’d of the High Priest is also the G’d of the person bringing the bikkurim. It is possible that the expression introducing this declaration, i.e. הגדתי, represents sort of a continuation such as in Psalms 51,17 ופי יגיד תהלתך, “and let my mouth express Your Fame,” i.e. continue, extend the power of You G’d which is already evident in the world. The person engaged in prayer effectively extends G’d’s power, seeing that the very fact that he turns to G’d in supplication proves that he acknowledges G’d’s power to grant his requests. When we find the line הוא תהלתך והוא אלוהיך in Deut. 10,21, this implies that what the generation of the Exodus experienced in their lifetime was a continuation, an extension of the power of the Lord which had been not quite so manifest previously. The whole formula ליהוה אלוהיך, so typical of משנה תורה, the Book of Deuteronomy, which is itself a continuation of what preceded it, is therefore appropriate as an introduction to this declaration by the farmer bringing the bikkurim.

ארמי אובד אבי, as if the Torah had written” my father Avraham was an Aramite, lost, and exiled from his birthplace Aram.” G’d had told him in Genesis 12,1 “go forth for yourself from your homeland, etc.” Later on, Avraham himself relates to Avimelech the king of the Philistines, (Genesis 20,13) that G’d had made him wander, away from his father’s house, etc. The meaning of the word אובד here is similar to תועה, the root Avraham used to describe wandering without specific objective, almost like walking because one is lost. The word occurs clearly in that sense in Psalms 119,176 תעיתי כשה אובד בקש עבדך, “I have strayed like a lost sheep; search for Your servant, etc.!” We also find the word in this connotation in Jeremiah 50,6 עמי רועיהם התעום, “My people were lost sheep; their shepherd led them astray.” In other words, the recital by the farmer goes back to the Jewish people’s origin, the farmer saying: ‘our forefathers came to this land from an alien country and now G’d has given it to us.

A WANDERING ARAMEAN. The word oved (wandering) is an intransitive verb. If Aramean referred to Laban then Scripture should have read mavid or me’abbed. Furthermore, what reason would Scripture have had for stating, Laban sought to destroy my father and hewent down to Egypt? Laban did not cause Jacob to descend to Egypt. It thus appears to me that the term Aramean refers to Jacob. Scripture, as it were, reads, when my father was in Aram he was “perishing.” That is, he was poor, he had no money. Similarly oved (perish) in Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish (Prov. 31:6). Let him drink, and forget his poverty (Prov. 31:7) is proof. The meaning of our phrase thus is, a perishing Aramean was my father. Its import is, I did not inherit the land from my father, for my father was poor when he came to Aram. He was also a stranger in Egypt. He was few in number. He then became a large nation. You O Lord took us out of slavery and gave us a good land. Let the one who disputes not argue, “How could Jacob be called an Aramean?” Look, we find the same with Ithra the Ishmaelite who, as Scripture clearly states, was an Israelite.

(12) Bear in mind that you were slaves in Egypt, and take care to obey these laws.

(1) וזכרת כי עבד היית וגו׳ AND THOU SHALT REMEMBER THAT THOU WAST A SERVANT [IN EGYPT] — Only on this condition did I deliver you from Egypt: that you keep and do these statutes.

The reciting of a certain portion of the Law when the first-fruits are brought to the temple, tends also to create humility. For he who brings the first-fruits takes the basket upon his shoulders and proclaims the kindness and goodness of God. This ceremony teaches man that it is essential in the service of God to remember the times of trouble and the history of past distress, in days of comfort. The Law lays stress on this duty in several places; comp. “And thou shalt remember that thou hast been a slave,” etc. (Deut. 5:15). For it is to be feared that those who become great in riches and comfort might, as is generally the case, fall into the vices of insolence and haughtiness, and abandon all good principles. Comp. “Lest thou eat and be full, etc., and thine heart be lifted up and thou forget the Lord” (ibid. 8:12-14); “And Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked” (ibid. 30:15). On account of this fear the Law commanded us to read each year a certain portion before the Lord and His glory, when we offer the first-fruit. You know how much the Law insists that we shall always remember the plagues that have befallen the Egyptians; comp. “That thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life” (ibid. 16:3); “That thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son what things I have wrought in Egypt” (Exod. 10:2). Such a law was necessary in order to perpetuate the memory of the departure from Egypt; because such events verify prophecy and the doctrine of reward and punishment. The benefit of every commandment that serves to keep certain miracles in remembrance, or to perpetuate true faith, is therefore obvious.

Keep your mouth from being rash, and let not your throat be quick to bring forth speech before God. For God is in heaven and you are on earth; that is why your words should be few.

For God is in heaven and you are on earth. And even if the weak one is above, and the strong one below, the fear of the weak one is upon the strong one, how much more so when it is the strong one [=God] Who is above and the weak one who is below.

(4) Another explanation. “See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri …” (Shemot 31:2) This is one of the seven people called by multiple names. There are those that were called by four names, which is Eliyahu, Bezalel had six, Yehoshua six, Moshe seven, Mordecai two, Daniel five, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah had four. Eliyahu had four: R’ Elazar ben Padat said ‘Eliyahu was from Jerusalem and was among those who sat in the Court of Hewn Stones. He was from the city of Yehudah and his portion was in two tribal lands – five in Benyamin, as it says “And Zelah, Eleph, and the Jebusite, which is Jerusalem…” (Yehoshua 18:28) and three in Yehudah, as it says “Zenan, and Hadashah, and Migdal-gad.”

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda, a man of Kefar Gibboraya, and some say he was a man of Kefar Gibbor Ĥayil, taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For You silence is praise” (Psalms 65:2)? The best remedy of all is silence, i.e., the optimum form of praising God is silence. The Gemara relates: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Israel to Babylonia, he said: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say an adage: If a word is worth one sela, silence is worth two.

When a person purchases a tree in a field belonging to a friend, he may not bring [the first fruits], because he does not own land. [If he purchases] three [trees], he does own land. Even if he formally acquired only the trees, it is as if he owns land. If he purchased one tree and the land around it, he should bring [the first fruits].

A person who purchases two trees in his colleague's field must bring [the first fruits], but may not recite the declaration. [The rationale is that] there is a doubt whether he has a right to the land [on which the trees stand] or not.What should he do? He should first consecrate them to the Temple treasury for it is possible that they are ordinary produce and non-consecrated food is not brought into the Temple Courtyard. The priest then redeems them from the Temple treasury and partakes of them.He must separate terumah and the tithes from them, because of the possibility that they are ordinary produce. He must give the tithes from them to the priests, because it is a possibility that they are first fruits and forbidden to non-priests. He should not bring them himself, but instead, send them via an agent so that [the fact] that the declaration [is not recited] will not prevent them from being eaten. For whenever a declaration concerning [first fruits] is not fit to be made because of a doubt concerning their status, [the fact that] a declaration [is not recited] prevents it [from being eaten].

§ The mishna teaches that if one writes a document granting his property to his son from today and after his death, neither he nor the son can sell the property. It was stated that in a case where the son sold the property during the father’s lifetime, and then the son died during the father’s lifetime, after which the father died as well, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The purchaser did not acquire the property, and Reish Lakish says: The purchaser acquired the property. The Gemara explains their reasoning: Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the purchaser did not acquire the property because he holds that ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is considered to be like ownership of the item itself. Even though the property itself did not belong to the father, it is as though the father owned the property, because all of the produce belonged to him in practice. Therefore, the son’s sale can take effect only after the father’s death. If the son dies first, since he never attained ownership, his sale can never come to fruition. And Reish Lakish says: The purchaser acquired the property, because he holds that ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is not considered to be like ownership of the item itself. Therefore, the father’s rights do not prevent the son, who owns the property itself, from selling it, and eventually the purchaser receives full rights to it. The Gemara asks: But didn’t they already engage in a dispute concerning this issue one time? As it was stated: With regard to one who sells his field for just its produce, meaning that he retains ownership over the field itself and he sells the rights to all of its produce to someone else, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The purchaser brings first fruits from this field to the Temple and recites the verses in the Torah associated with the bringing of the first fruits, in which he thanks God for: “The land that You, Lord, have given me” (Deuteronomy 26:10). And Reish Lakish says: The purchaser brings the first fruits, but he does not recite the verses, since it is not his field. The Gemara explains the reason behind the dispute: Rabbi Yoḥanan says he brings the first fruits and recites the verses because he maintains that ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is considered to be like the ownership of the item itself. Even though the field itself does not belong to him, it is as if he acquired the field because all of the produce belongs to him in practice. And Reish Lakish says that he brings the first fruits and does not recite the verses because he holds that ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is not considered to be like the ownership of the item itself. Why was it necessary for them to engage in a dispute concerning this issue twice? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the dispute to be stated also in the context of one who sells his father’s property and then dies. This is because Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said to you that although in general ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is considered to be like the ownership of the item itself, here it was necessary to emphasize this principle, because it might enter your mind to say that with regard to a father and son, the father presumably waived his rights in the property itself. Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches us that even in this case, the father’s ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is considered to be like the ownership of the item itself. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish could have said that although in general ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is not considered to be like the ownership of the item itself, as one who sells the produce of his field retains full ownership of the land itself, here it was necessary to emphasize this principle, as it might enter your mind to say that in any sale concerning oneself, even vis-à-vis his son, one grants preference to himself. Accordingly, if one grants the property itself to his son, reserving the rights to the produce for himself, he retains the rights to the property itself as well. Reish Lakish teaches us that he does not retain the rights to the property.

Rabba said: What is the difficulty? Perhaps Rabbi Meir is uncertain, in the case of an individual who purchases one tree, whether or not the buyer owns the ground, and the Rabbis are uncertain, in the case of an individual who purchases two trees, whether or not the buyer owns the ground. Due to this uncertainty, the owner of the tree must bring the first fruits to the Temple, as he might be obligated in this mitzva. He does not recite the passage of thanks because it is not definitely established that he is obligated to bring the fruits. The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Meir really uncertain whether the buyer owns the ground? But it teaches: Since he did not acquire any land; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir states definitively that the owner of the tree does not own the ground. The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita should be emended as follows: Perhaps he did not acquire any land. The Gemara asks: But let us be concerned that perhaps these fruits are not first fruits, and he is bringing non-sacred fruit to the Temple courtyard, which is prohibited. The Gemara answers: The case is where he consecrates them. The Gemara asks: But the priest is required to eat first fruits, and he cannot do so if they are consecrated. The Gemara answers: The case is where the priest redeems them. The Gemara asks: But perhaps they are not first fruits, and thereby he removes them from the obligation of teruma and tithes, as one does not separate teruma and tithes from first fruits. The Gemara answers: The case is where he separatesteruma and tithes from the fruits, due to the uncertainty over their status.

לא שש עשרה אמה—No; sixteen cubitsOVERVIEWThe גמרא concludes that there is no contradiction to עולא, for the משניות, which teach that he brings ביכורים, are all in cases where he owns sixteen אמות radius of land around the trees. תוספות clarifies this answer.----------------------------------תוספות asks:ואם תאמר והא אמרינן בהמוכר את הספינה (לקמן דף פב,א ושם) גבי שלשה קנה קרקע –And if you will say; but ר' יוחנן states in פרק המוכר את הספינה regarding the משנה there which rules that if he bought three trees he acquires the land around the trees –וכמה תחתיהן וביניהן וחוצה להן כמלא אורה וסלו –And how much land is he קונה around the trees; he is קונה the land underneath the trees and the land between the three trees and outside the trees the amount of space necessary for the harvester and his basket –תוספות answers:ויש לומר דהתם כשענפי האילן גדולים הרבה ויוצאין חוץ לשש עשרה אמה –And one can say; that the גמרא there is in a case where the tree branches are very long and they extend beyond the sixteen אמה radius.תוספות asks:ואם תאמר קונה אילן אחד אמאי אינו מביא וקורא למאן דאמר קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי –And if you will say; one who buys one tree, why is he not מביא וקורא according to the one who maintains that ‘an acquisition for the fruits is just as an acquisition for the principal’ –ומאי שנא ממוכר שדהו לפירות –And why is this case of קונה אילן אחד different from one who sells his field for פירות –דמביא וקורא לדידיה כדאמרינן בפרק השולח (גיטין דף מז,ב ושם) –Where the rule is that the buyer is מביא וקורא as ר' יוחנן states in פרק השולח –תוספות anticipates and rejects a possible answer to his question:וליכא למימר דהאי תנא סבר דקנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף דמי –And we cannot say that this תנא (who rules that הקונה אילן אחד is not מביא וקורא), maintains קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף דמי and therefore he is אינו מביא וקורא; this is not so –דהא רבי מאיר אית ליה דכקנין הגוף דמי בהשולח (שם דף מח,א) ובהחובל (בבא קמא דף צ,א ושם) –Since ר"מ maintains in פרק השולח and in פרק החובל that קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי –ואית ליה לקמן (דף פא,א) דקונה אילן אחד (אינו מביא וקורא) –And nevertheless, he maintains later that one who buys one tree is מביא ואינו קורא –תוספות answers and distinguishes between קנין פירות elsewhere and here:ויש לומר דשאני התם שהקרקע קנוי לו עד זמן קבוע –And one can say that there (by a ‘regular’ קנין פירות) it is different than here, for there the land is acquired to him for a specific time, and during that agreed upon time the owner (seller) cannot renege –אבל הכא אם יתייבש מיד האילן אין לו בקרקע כלום –However here by the tree, if the tree would dry out immediately, he does not own anything in the land, he cannot even plant another tree there, therefore he is אינו קורא –אי נמי התם קרקע קנויה לו לכל דבר למשטח בה פירי ולמיזרע בה סילקא וירקא –Or you may also offer another difference; there the land is his (the buyer’s) to do anything with it, to spread out fruit on the land (to dry) or to plant there beets and vegetables –אבל גבי אילן אין לו אלא יניקה לבדה:However, regarding the tree, he only has the nourishment from the land, but he cannot use it for any other of his purposes.SUMMARYAccording to עולא, regular trees receive sixteen אמות; trees with branches that exceed 16 אמה receive an additional כמלא אורה וסלו. Even if we maintain קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי, nevertheless one who is קונה אילן אחד is not מביא וקורא, either because his קנין פירות could end immediately, or his rights are very limited.THINKING IT OVERIs there a difference להלכה between the two answers תוספות gives regarding קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי?

The Gemara answers: The case is where he renders them exempt from the obligation of recitation, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, who says: If one harvested the fruits and sent them in the possession of an agent, and the agent died on the way, the owner or any other person brings the first fruits but does not recite the passage of thanks. What is the reason? As it is written: And you shall take, and you shall bring. The Gemara is citing from the following verse with a slight variation: “And you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you shall bring in from your land that the Lord your God gives you” (Deuteronomy 26:2).

בצרן ושיגרן ביד שליח—He harvested them and sent them in the hand of an agentOVERVIEWר' יוסי בר חנינא stated in a ברייתא that if he harvested the produce and sent it for ביכורים through a שליח and the שליח died on the way to ירושלים, the rule is that the master may bring these ביכורים to ירושלים but he does not read פרשת ביכורים, because the תורה writes ולקחת והבאת that the taking and the bringing must be as one.--------------------------------פירוש רבינו שמואל בהספינה (בבא בתרא פא,ב) בצרן הבעל ושגרן ביד שליח –The רשב"ם explains in פרק הספינה; the owner harvested them and sent it through a שליח –דאם בצרן שליח והביאן השליח בירושלים שליח ודאי אין יכול לקרות –For if the שליח harvested it and the שליח brought it to ירושלים, the שליח certainly cannot read פרשת ביכורים –כדתנן במסכת בכורים (פרק א' משנה ה') –As the משנה teaches in מסכת בכורים, for he cannot say אשר נתת לי יהוה –אבל הבעלים קורין דיכולין לומר הנה הבאתי דשלוחו של אדם כמותו –However if the שליח both harvested and brought the ביכורים, the owners could read, for they can say, ‘behold I brought’ since one’s agent is considered as himself –תוספות disagrees with the רשב"ם:וקשה לרבינו תם למאי דחשיב לבצירה לקיחה למה ליה למימר ומת שליח –And the ר"ת has a difficulty with this רשב"ם, for according to the רשב"ם who considers the בצירה to be the לקיחה, why did ריב"ח need to say, ‘and the שליח died’ –הוה ליה למתני בצרן הוא ושגרן ביד השליח או שבצרן שליח והביאן הוא –He could have said, ‘and the owner harvested them and sent them with the שליח’, or he could have said, ‘the שליח harvested them and he brought it’; in these two cases he is מביא ואינו קורא since we require לקיחה והבאה כאחד –תוספות answers (according to שיטת הרשב"ם):ויש לומר דאשמועינן רבותא דאף על גב דמת שליח וגמרו הבעלים הבאה –And one can say; that ריב"ח is informing us of a novelty that even though the שליח died and the owner completed the הבאה –דאיכא לקיחה ומקצת הבאה בבעלים אפילו הכי אינו קורא דבעינן לקיחה וכל הבאה באחד –So there is לקיחה בבעלים, and a partial הבאה בבעלים, and nevertheless he is not קורא, for we require the לקיחה and the entire הבאה כאחד, but here part of the הבאה (which the שליח brought) was not כאחד –תוספות offers another answer for the רשב"ם –ואי גרסינן או מת אתי נמי שפיר וזו אף זו קתני –And if the text reads 'או מת' (instead of ומת) it will also be understood, and the ברייתא is teaching us in a manner of this (without מת) and even this (when מת) –תוספות offers an alternate explanation as to the nature of לקיחה:ורבינו תם מפרש דבצירה לאו היינו לקיחה ובצרן אורחא דמילתא נקט –And the ר"ת )who asked on the רשב"ם) explains that בצירה is not the same as לקיחה, and ריב"ח mentioned ‘ובצרן’, as an aside –שבעלים בוצרים כדי לעשות בעין יפה לפי שאין שיעור לבכורים –Since the owners harvest the ביכורים in order to give the ביכורים with a ‘good eye’, since there is no requisite amount for ביכורים, so to ensure that it is a fitting amount the owners do not trust their workers but rather do it themselves, but it is not לקיחה –ולקיחה היינו לקיחה מתוך הבית –And the 'לקיחה' of ריב"ח that refers to taking the ביכורים out from the house –וחדא קתני בצרן ושגרן ביד השליח ומת שליח בדרך דאז הוא רגילות שמביאן אחר –And the ברייתא is teaching one case; ‘he harvested it (not relevant) and sent it with the שליח (at this point the לקיחה and the [partial] הבאה was כאחד [by the שליח]) and the שליח died on the way’, in which case it is usual that another person (שליח) brings it –ולא הוי לקיחה והבאה באחד:So therefore it is not לקיחה והבאה כאחד (since two שלוחים were involved in the הבאה).SUMMARYAccording to the רשב"ם the לקיחה is the בצירה, while according to the ר"ת the לקיחה is taking it out from the house.THINKING IT OVER1. According to the רשב"ם that we say שלוחו של אדם כמותו, so even if the לקיחה was done by the בעלים (בצרן), and the הבאה by the שליח, it should be considered לקיחה והבאה כאחד, since שלוחו של אדם כמותו?!2. According to the ר"ת, can the בעלים be קורא, when there is only one שליח (since שליח של אדם כמותו); two שלוחים?

I יהוה am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage:

אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים WHO HAVE BROUGHT THEE OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT — That act of bringing you out is alone of sufficient importance that you should subject yourselves to Me. Another explanation: because He had revealed Himself to them at the Red Sea as a mighty man of war and here He revealed Himself as a grey-beard filled with compassion, as it is stated in connection with the Giving of the Law, (Exodus 24:10) “and there was under His feet as it were a brick-work of sapphire”, which is explained to mean that this (the brick-work) was before Him at the time of their bondage; “and there was as the essence of heaven” (i. e. joy and gladness) when they had been delivered (cf. Rashi on Exodus 24:10), thus the Divine Glory changed according to circumstances, — therefore He stated here: Since I change, appearing in various forms, do not say, “There are two divine Beings”; it is I Who brought you forth from Egypt and Who appeared to you at the Sea (cf. Mekhilta). Another explanation: because they then heard many voices, as it is said (v. 15) “the people heard the voices (הקלות)” — voices coming from the four cardinal points and from the heavens and from the earth — therefore God said to them, “Do not say there are many Deities”. — Why did God say in the singular אלהיך, “Thy God”, (as though speaking to one person alone)? To afford Moses an opportunity to speak in defence of Israel at the incident of the golden calf. This, is exactly what he did say, (Exodus 32:11) “Wherefore, O Lord, doth Thy wrath glow against Thy people”, for not to them didst Thou give the command, “There shall be to thee no other gods” but to me alone! (Exodus Rabbah 43:5)