"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).