"For every matter of offense" — general. "for an ox, for an ass, for a lamb, for a garment" — particular. General-particular (The rule is:) There is subsumed in the general only what obtains in the particular. "for every lost object about which he will say" — reversion to the general. But perhaps (the idea is) to revert to the original generalization? Would you say that? We have here an instance of general-particular-general, (where the rule is:) The general is understood to be of the nature of the particular, viz. (In this instance,) Just as the particular are explicitly only movable, non-mortgaged possessions, so, the general (must be of that nature).