was speaking of a different matter and was not necessarily addressing the same case discussed in the beginning of the mishna.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma, as it was taught in the previous mishna: If one sold a wagon he has not sold the mules that pull the wagon. And Rav Taḥlifa, from the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, taught a baraita before Rabbi Abbahu: If one sold a wagon, he has sold the mules along with it. And Rabbi Abbahu said to him: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that he has not sold the mules? And Rav Taḥlifa said to him: Should I erase this baraita? And Rabbi Abbahu said to him: No, you should explain that your baraita is referring to a case where the mules are fastened to the wagon.

One can learn by inference from Rabbi Abbahu’s statement that the mishna is referring to a situation where the mules are not fastened to the wagon. And since the first clause, i.e., the previous mishna, is referring to a case corresponding to where the vessels are not on the donkey, i.e., the mules are not fastened to the wagon, the latter clause, the mishna here, must also be referring to a situation where the vessels are not on the donkey.

The Gemara rejects this proof: On the contrary, say the first clause, i.e., the preceding mishna: One who sells a ship sells the mast along with it, but he has not sold either the slaves or the antikei. And we said: What is the meaning of antikei? Rav Pappa said: It means the merchandise that is in the ship. But according to your logic, since the first clause, i.e., the mishna concerning the ship, is referring to a case where the merchandise is on the ship, the latter clause, the mishna here, must also be referring to a case where the vessels are on the donkey. Rather, the tanna teaches each statement individually, and the circumstances of one ruling do not prove that another ruling is referring to a parallel case.

The Gemara provides a mnemonic based on the letters of the names of the tanna’im who appear here: Zayin, gimmel, mem; nun, samekh, nun. Abaye said: Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Natan, and Sumakhos, and Naḥum the Mede all hold that when a person sells an item, he sells it and all of its accoutrements.

Rabbi Eliezer holds this, as we learned in a mishna (67b) that Rabbi Eliezer says: One who sells an olive press has sold the beam used for pressing the olives, despite the fact that the beam can be removed from the press. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds this, as we learned in a mishna (68b) that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who sells a city has sold the city’s guardsman. Rabbi Meir holds this, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: If one sold a vineyard, he has sold the accoutrements of the vineyard. Rabbi Natan and Sumakhos hold this, as they state with regard to the bitzit and the dugit, i.e., the light-going boats of the ship, which they claim are sold when the ship is sold (73a). Naḥum the Mede holds this, as is evident from that which we said in the mishna here.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: There are times when the vessels are sold, and there are times when they are not sold. How so? If the donkey was before him and its vessels were on it, and the buyer said to him: Sell me this donkey of yours, its vessels are sold. If the buyer said: Is the donkey yours? I wish to purchase it, its vessels are not sold. The Gemara asks: What is different in a case where the buyer said: Sell me this donkey of yours, and what is different in a case where he said: Is the donkey yours?

Rava said that when the buyer says: Sell me this donkey of yours, he knows that the donkey belongs to the seller, and as for that which he said to him: This, he said that to him due to its vessels. By contrast, when the buyer says: Is the donkey yours, this indicates that the buyer does not know that the donkey belongs to the seller, and this is what he is saying to him: Is the donkey yours that you can sell it to me? In this case, he is interested only in the donkey and not its vessels.

MISHNA: One who sells a female donkey has sold its foal along with it. But one who sold a cow has not sold its young. One who sold a dunghill has sold its manure. One who sold a cistern has sold its water. One who sold a beehive has sold the bees in it, and likewise one who sold a dovecote has sold the doves.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one sells a donkey he has sold its foal, but if one sells a cow he has not sold its calf. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If this is a case where the seller says to the buyer that he is selling it and its young, even the cow and its young should be sold as well. If this is a case where he does not say to him that he is selling it and its young, even the donkey should not be sold with its foal.

Rav Pappa said: This is referring to a case where the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you a nursing donkey, or: I am selling you a nursing cow. Granted, with regard to the cow, one could say that he needs it for its milk, and the suckling calf would not necessarily be included in the sale. But with regard to the donkey, for what reason is he saying to him that the donkey is nursing? Since he does not need the milk of a donkey, learn from here that he is saying to him that he is selling it and its young. The Gemara adds tangentially: And why does the mishna call a donkey foal a seyaḥ? It is because it follows after and obeys pleasant talk [siḥa], whereas an old donkey must be led forcibly.

The Gemara cites a related discussion. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Therefore they that speak in parables [hamoshlim] say: Come to Heshbon! Let the city [ir] of Sihon be built and established! For a fire is gone out of Heshbon, a flame from the city of Sihon; it has devoured Ar of Moab, the lords of the high places of Arnon” (Numbers 21:27–28)?

The Gemara interprets these verses homiletically. “Hamoshlim”; these are the people who rule over [hamoshlim] their evil inclination. They will say: “Come to Heshbon,” meaning: Come and let us calculate the account of [ḥeshbono] the world, i.e., the financial loss incurred by the fulfillment of a mitzva in contrast to its reward, and the reward for committing a transgression, i.e., the pleasure and gain received, in contrast to the loss it entails.

“Let it be built and established” means that if you make this calculation, you will be built in this world and you will be established in the World-to-Come. The phrase “city [ir] of Sihon” means that if a person fashions himself like this young donkey [ayir] that follows after pleasant talk [siḥa], i.e., if one is easily tempted to listen to his inclination, what is written after it? “For a fire is gone out of Heshbon…it has devoured,” i.e., a fire will go out from those who calculate the effect of their deeds in the world, and will consume those who do not calculate and examine their ways but instead do as they please.

A similar interpretation applies to the continuation of the verse: “A flame from the city of Sihon”; this means that a flame will come from the city of righteous people, who are called trees [siḥin]. “It has devoured Ar of Moab”; this is referring to one who follows after his inclination like this young donkey [ayir] that follows after pleasant talk. “The lords of the high places of Arnon”; this is referring to the arrogant. As the Master says: Every person who has arrogance in him will fall into Gehenna.

The Gemara interprets a subsequent verse: “We have shot at them [vanniram], Heshbon is perished, even until Dibon, and we have laid waste even until Nophah, which reaches until Medeba” (Numbers 21:30). “Vanniram”; this indicates that the wicked person says: There is no higher [ein ram] power governing the world. “Heshbon is perished” means: The account [ḥeshbon] of the world has perished, i.e., they claim there is no accountability for one’s actions. “Even until Dibon [divon]”; the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Wait until judgment comes [yavo din]. “And we have laid waste