יח <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> זנב העגל שאינה מגעת לערקוב אמרו חכמים כל מרבית עגלים כן כל זמן שיהו מגדלין הן נמתחות איזהו ערקוב שאמרו ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר בערקוב שבאמצע הירך:
18 In one case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah which regards yabeleth as a blemish.');"><sup>28</sup></span> it refers to the black part [of the eye] and in the other it refers to white.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A yabeleth in the white part of the eye only renders an animal unfit for the Temple.');"><sup>29</sup></span> But surely blemishes do not disqualify in the white part of the eye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 38a.');"><sup>30</sup></span> - Rather explain this [as follows]: In one case as well as in the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah infra 41a, like the statement of the quoted Mishnah that no blemishes disqualify the white part of the eye.');"><sup>31</sup></span> we are dealing with the white part of the eye, [nevertheless] said Resh Lakish: It offers no difficulty. In one case [the yabeleth] has hair on it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore although it is in the white part, since there is hair on the yabeleth it is not acceptable for a sacrifice.');"><sup>32</sup></span> in the other, it has no hai on it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the rule of the Mishnah stands that blemishes do not disqualify in the white part of the eye. Our Mishnah here however which declares a yabeleth to be a real blemish refers to a case where it is in the black part of the eye, even without a bone, while the scriptural text refers to where there is a bone; consequently both on the body and in the eye, a yabeleth constitutes a blemish.');"><sup>33</sup></span> ITS ONE EYE WAS ABNORMALLY LARGE etc. A Tanna taught: 'Large' means as large as that of a calf, and 'small' means as small as that of a goose. ITS ONE EAR WAS ABNORMALLY LARGE etc. And the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who do not agree with Rabbi Judah in connection with the case of one ball being as large as two of the other (Rashi) .');"><sup>34</sup></span> what is their limit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How small may its companion stone be and still not be regarded as a blemish.');"><sup>35</sup></span> - It was taught, Others say: Even if the second stone is only the size of a bean, it is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if it is less, then it is a blemish.');"><sup>36</sup></span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF THE TAIL OF A [FIRSTBORN] CALF DOES NOT REACH THE 'ARKUB<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Explained later in the GEMARA:');"><sup>37</sup></span> , [IT IS A BLEMISH]. THE SAGES SAID: THE GROWTH OF ALL CALVES IS IN THIS MANNER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To reach the 'arkub, and if not, it is a blemish, Another version (Tosaf. Yom Tob.) is that the tail does not usually reach the 'arkub and therefore if it is short of the 'arkub, it is not a blemish.');"><sup>38</sup></span> AS LONG AS [THE ANIMALS] GROW, THE TAILS ALSO EXTEND [BELOW]. WHICH ARKUB MENTIONED IS MEANT? R'HANINA. B. ANTIGONUS SAYS: THE 'ARKUB IN THE THIGH.