"You shall not covet your neighbor's house"—general. "and his man-servant, and his maid-servant, and his ox, and his ass—particular. general-particular (The rule is:) There exists in the general only what exists in the particular. "and all that belongs to your neighbor"—reversion to the general. (This leaves us with) general-particular-general (The rule is:) You deduce only what is in accordance with the particular, viz.: Just as the particular is something which is acquired and bestowed, so, all that is acquired and bestowed (comes under "You shall not covet," [and not coveting another's learning]). But then, why not say: Just as the particular speaks of movable property, which does not serve as surety, so, all such property ([and not land] comes under "You shall not covet")? Since it is written (in this context) in the second Decalogue (Devarim 5:18) "his field," (we must revert to) "Just as the particular is something which is acquired, etc.") Or, just as the particular does not enter your domain except with the acquiescence of the owner, so all such things (are subsumed in "You shall not covet') to exclude one's coveting another's daughter for your son or his son for your daughter. I might think that (if one covets) in speech, (he is in transgression of "You shall not covet; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 7:25) "You shall not covet the silver and gold upon them and take, etc." Just as there, he is not (in transgression of "You shall not covet") until he performs an act, so, here.