Study Zevachim folio 60B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
שלשה זקנים, וזה אחד מהן: רבי ישמעאל אומר, יכול יעלה אדם מעשר שני לירושלים ויאכלנו בזמן הזה? ודין הוא – בכור טעון הבאת מקום, ומעשר טעון הבאת מקום; מה בכור – אינו אלא בפני הבית, אף מעשר – אינו אלא בפני הבית.
3 elders, and this is one of them: R' Yishmael says: One might have thought that a person would bring second-tithe produce up to Jerusalem in the present, after the destruction of the Temple, and eat it. And ostensibly, it could be derived by means of a logical inference that one may not do so: A firstborn offering requires bringing it to the place, to Jerusalem, and eating it there, and second-tithe produce requires bringing it to the place (see Deuteronomy 12:17–18); just as the firstborn offering may be eaten there only in the presence of the Temple, so too, second-tithe produce may be eaten there only in the presence of the Temple.
מה לבכור, שכן טעון מתן דמים ואימורים לגבי מזבח!
R' Yishmael notes that this derivation can be challenged: What is notable about a firstborn? Bringing the firstborn to Jerusalem is required only in the presence of the Temple, because it is notable in that it requires placement of its blood and its sacrificial portions upon the altar; will you say the same with regard to second-tithe produce, which requires only that it be consumed in Jerusalem?
ביכורים יוכיחו. מה לביכורים, שכן טעונין הנחה!
He continues: First fruits will prove that placement of blood upon the altar is not a factor, as they do not require placement of blood upon the altar, and yet they are brought to Jerusalem only in the presence of the Temple. R' Yishmael counters: What is notable about first fruits? They are notable in that they require placement alongside the altar. Perhaps, since second-tithe produce does not require placement at all, even in the present one must bring it to Jerusalem and eat it there.