Third Aspect
In the foundational analysis we note that when the command abandons the wording of a specific act in favor of an expression whose meaning is broader—just as it abandons “Feed him” in favor of “Honor him,” or “Dye [your hair]” in favor of “Oppose them”—this shift must serve a purpose. Otherwise, matching the expression to the intended meaning would be preferable to using a general term while intending a specific act. No benefit is apparent here except that the intended aim is bound to that comprehensive meaning which includes the particular in question. This becomes plain upon reflection.

Fourth Aspect
To know something in general is, by that very fact, to know it in its particulars, and a general intention necessarily carries within it the intention of the specific meaning it embraces. If, for example, you know that “every intoxicant is wine,” and you also know that nabīdh is intoxicating, then your knowledge of the general rule and its realization in this particular obliges you to recognize the description of the particular as wine. Likewise, if your aim is food in an unqualified sense, or wealth in an unqualified sense, and you learn of a specific food or a specific sum of money in a certain place, your intention turns toward it. In such cases knowledge and intent coincide, and speech clarifies what the speaker means and intends.