Bava Batra 78B

מלתא אחריתי קאמר.

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

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי, תא שמע: מכר את הקרון ⁠– לא מכר את הפרדות. ותני רב תחליפא בר מערבא קמיה דרבי אבהו: מכר את הקרון ⁠– מכר את הפרדות. ואמר ליה: והא אנן ״לא מכר״ תנן! ואמר ליה: איסמייה? ואמר ליה: לא, תתרגם מתניתך באדוקים בו.

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

מכלל דמתניתין בשאין אדוקים בו; ומדרישא בשאין עודן עליו ⁠– סיפא נמי בשאין עודן עליו!

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

אדרבה ⁠– אימא רישא: אבל לא מכר לא את העבדים ולא את האנתיקי. ואמרינן, מאי ״אנתיקי״? אמר רב פפא: עיסקא דבגוה. ומדרישא בעודן עליו. סיפא נמי בעודן עליו! אלא תנא ⁠– מילי מילי קתני.

The Talmud rejects this proof: On the contrary, say the first clause, i.e., the preceding Mishnah: 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 Mishnah concerning the ship, is referring to a case where the merchandise is on the ship, the latter clause, the Mishnah 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.