According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, the accessories of a donkey (which will be explained in the Sugya) are not automatically sold together with the donkey. Nachum ha'Madi rules that - they are.

Rebbi Yehudah holds that, if Shimon, pointing to Reuven's donkey, says 'Sell me ...

... this donkey of yours (Chamorcha Zeh)' - he means to purchase the donkey as is (together with the accessories).

... this donkey, assuming it is yours (Chamorcha Hu)', - he means to purchase the donkey only ...

... even if the accessories are actually attached to the donkey.

Ula establishes the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Nachum ha'Madi by 'Sak, Diskaya and Kumni'. 'Diskaya' is a type of sack (see Rabeinu Gershom). Rav Papa bar Shmuel translates 'Kumni' as - a sort of saddle specially manufactured for women.

In the case of a saddle, a saddle-cloth, and the strap or breast-strap that tie them in place, even the Tana will concede that they are all included in the sale ...

... because most donkeys are designated for riding and not for transporting loads.

The Din of Kumni differs from a regular saddle - because it is generally men who ride donkeys. Consequently, as far as the incidence of use is concerned, to purchase a donkey for women to ride on is comparable to purchasing one for transportation.

The Beraisa incorporates the saddle and the saddle-cloth ... (but not the sacks and the Kumni) in the sale of the donkey, in a case where the owner specifically stated 'the donkey and its accessories' but not the sacks and the Kumni - unless the owner specifically stated 'Hi ve'Chol Mah she'Alehah', in which case they are all included ...

... implying that - had he not specifically stated 'the donkey and its accessories', the purchaser would not even acquire the saddle ... (a Kashya on Ula, who said that both Tana'im agree that he does).

We reconcile the Beraisa with Ula - by establishing the Halachah in the Reisha of the Beraisa even where he did not state 'the donkey and its accessories', and the Tana only refers to where he did state it, to teach us that even then, the purchaser does not acquire the sacks and the Kumni.

We ask whether the Tana Kama and Nachum ha'Madi argue where the donkey is actually 'wearing' the accessories at the time of the sale, but if not - then even Nachum ha'Madi would agree that the purchaser will not acquire them.

Alternatively - they argue where the donkey is not wearing the accessories, but if it was, even the Rabbanan would agree that he will acquire them.

We learned in a Beraisa 'u'vi'Zeman she'Amar lo "Hu ve'Chol Mah she'Alav" harei Kulan Mechurin'. Initially, we consider this a proof - that our Mishnah must be speaking where the animal is wearing the accessories, and the author of the Beraisa is the Rabbanan.

However, we reconcile it with them even if we establish the Machlokes where the donkey is not wearing the accessories and what the Tana really means to say is - 'u'vi'Zeman she'Amar lo "Hu ve'Chol Mah she'Ra'uy Lih'yos alav", Harei Kulan Mechurin', to concur with the opinion of the Rabbanan.

We then attempt to resolve the She'eilah by quoting Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah ('Pe'amim Mechurin, Pe'amim Einan Mechurin ... ') - who speaks specifically when the donkey is actually wearing the accessories (and so, we assume, do the Tana Kama and Nachum ha'Madi who precede him).

We refute that proof too however - by establishing the earlier Tana'im, where the donkey is not wearing the accessories.

And we correlate Rebbi Yehudah with them - with reference to what we can infer from their Machlokes (that both agree that they are sold), in which case he comes to teach us that even then, there are times when the accessories are not sold.

Rebbi Avahu reconciles the Beraisa cited by Rav Tachlifa bar Ma'arva, which rules 'Machar es ha'Karon, Machar es ha'Perados', with our Mishnah, which rules 'Lo Machar es ha'Perados' - by establishing the Beraisa where the mules are hitched to the cart, and the Mishnah, where they are not.

We try to resolve our current She'eilah from there - inasmuch as we would expect the Seifa of the Mishnah 'ha'Mocher es ha'Chamor ... ' (our case) to likewise speak where the donkey is not wearing the accessories.

We query this proof however, from the Reisha (the Mishnah before) 'Machar es ha'Sefinah ... Aval Lo Machar es ha'Avadim ve'es ha'Antiki', which Rav Papa interpreted to mean - the goods that the ship is transporting.

We therefore query the proof from 'Machar es ha'Karon ... ' - by asking why we compare 'Machar es ha'Chamor' to 'Machar es ha'Karon' (where the mule is not hitched to the wagon), and not to 'ha'Mocher es ha'Sefinah' (where the goods are loaded)?

We are therefore forced to conclude that - each case is independent in this regard, and we cannot learn one from the other.

Abaye says that Rebbi Eliezer, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Nasan, Sumchus and Nachum ha'Madi all hold that - in one way or another, the accessories of a main object are automatically sold together with the main object.

We will find the respective Mishnahs of Rebbi Eliezer ('ha'Mocher es Beis ha'Bad, Machar es ha'Koreh') and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel ('ha'Mocher es ha'Ir, Machar es ha'Santer') - in the previous Perek ('ha'Mocher es ha'Bayis').

Rebbi Meir's ruling ('Machar es ha'Kerem, Machar Tashmishei Kerem') differs technically from the other Tana'im - inasmuch as it is a Beraisa, whereas all the others are Mishnayos.

Rebbi Nasan and Sumchus (Bitzis and Dugis) and Nachum ha'Madi (in the current Mishnah) - all appear earlier in Mishnayos in this Perek.

We learn from the Lashon 'Kulhu Sevira l'hu' that Abaye is not coming to completely equate all the above Tana'im - because if he was, then he would have said ' ... Amru Davar Echad'.

The only Tana in the above list to agree with the rulings of all the others is - Rebbi Meir.

Our Mishnah now discusses the sale of a donkey and the sale of a cow with regard to their young. 'Si'ach' is - a baby donkey.

The distinction that our Mishnah draws between the two is that - in the case of the former its baby is sold together with it, whereas in the case of the latter, it is not.

Regarding the sale of a trash-heap, a water-pit, a bee-hive and a dove-cote have in common is the fact that - the Tana declares their respective contents sold together with them.

The Tana is referring to a trash-heap - that is three Tefachim deep or tall, and where the owner tends to place the manure of his animals.

The reasoning behind this ruling is that - the contents of each of the above is Tafeil (secondary) to them, and will not therefore apply in the reverse case.

With regard to a cow and a donkey, if the owner specifically states that he is selling ...

... the animal with its young one - it is obvious that both respective babies will be included in the sale.

... the animal (period) - it is obvious that neither will be included.

Consequently, our Mishnah (which draws a distinction between a donkey and a cow) must be speaking - where he said 'Chamor Menikah (a feeding donkey) or 'Parah Menikah, Ani Mocher lach'.

And the reason for the difference, in this context, lies is the respective meanings of 'Chamor Menikah' and 'Parah Menikah'. According to Rav Papa ...

... 'Parah Menikah' means a cow that has milk (since he did not mention the baby).

... 'Chamor Menikah' can only mean a feeding donkey (incorporating its baby), seeing as donkey's milk is forbidden.

A young donkey is called 'Si'ach' (which means quiet speech) - because it docilely follows its master's instructions (as opposed to an older one, which only responds to a stick).

Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeni amar Rebbi Yonasan, commenting on the Pasuk in Chukas interprets "Al-kein Yomru ha'Moshlim 'Bo'u Cheshbon' " as an invitation to come and make a reckoning. The "Moshlim" are the Tzadikim who control their Yeitzer-ha'Ra.

'The reckoning' refers to - the (temporary) loss incurred by performing a Mitzvah against the (permanent) gain, and of the (temporary) gain to be won by sinning against the (permanent) loss.

By 'Cheshbono shel Olam', he means that - this was a major reckoning that encompasses the world (of gigantic proportions).

And he interprets ...

... "Tibaneh ve'Sikonen" to mean that - if they respond to the Torah's call, they will be built in this world and established in the next.

... "Ir Sichon. Ki Eish Yatz'ah' me'Cheshbon" that - on the other hand if, like donkeys, they go after (the) sweet talk (of the Yeitzer-ha'Ra), then a fire will go out from those who do make a reckoning and consume those who don't (as we learned above, that one person will be burned by the other's Chupah).

... "ve'Lehavah mi'Kiryas Sichon" - and a flame will emanate from the town of the Tzadikim who are compared to trees (as we find often in Tanach).

When the Pasuk continues "Achlah Or Mo'av", it is referring - to those who follow their Yeitzer-ha'Ra like the donkey that goes after sweet talk, who as we just explained, will be consumed by the flames that emanate from the Tzadikim.

"Ba'alei Bamos Arnon" refers to conceited people, about whom Reish Lakish said they are destined to fall into Gehinom (where they too, will get burned).

And Rebbi Yonasan finally explains the continuation of the Pasuk ...

... "va'Niram, Avad Cheshbon" to mean that the Rasha claims 'Ein Ram' (there is no G-d [ke'va'Yachol]), and no-one will take him to task for his misdeeds.

... "ad Divon" 'ad she'Yavo Din' (until the final reckoning arrives).

... "va'Nashim ad Nofach" 'ad she'Tavo Eish she'Einah Tzerichah Nifu'ach' (until the fire that does not need to be fanned [i.e. the fire of Gehinom]) arrives.

"ad Meidva" might mean 'until it hurts', and it might mean 'ad de'Avid Mai de'Ba'i (until He [Hash-m] gives him what he deserves [because in this world they have it good, thereby ensuring that they will suffer in the World to Come]).

According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, fire will consume someone who separates from Torah-study. Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan says that - he will fall into Gehinom.