Abhidhamma vs Sutta: Did the Buddha teach about the birth of things?

The Abhidhamma acknowledges the Suttas define 'birth' ('jati') as follows: >1. The Section Derived from the Discourses > > 1.11. Definition of Birth PTS cs 235 Herein, what is ‘with continuation as condition: birth?’ > > For the various **beings (sattanam)** in the various **classes of beings (sattanikaye)** (there is) > birth, being born, appearing, arising, turning up, the manifestation > of the constituents (of mind and bodily form), the acquisition of the > sense spheres. > >Tattha katamā bhavapaccayā jāti? 17.2Yā tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti, khandhānaṁ pātubhāvo, āyatanānaṁ paṭilābho— 17.3ayaṁ vuccati “bhavapaccayā jāti”. > > https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/anandajoti#pts-cs235 However, the Abhidhamma says it defines 'birth' ('jati') as follows: >2. The Section Derived from the Abstract Teaching > > Herein, what is ‘with continuation as condition: birth?’ > > That which for various **things** (**dhammam**) is birth, being born, return, > turning up, manifestation: this is said to be ‘with continuation as > condition: birth’. > >Tattha katamā bhavapaccayā jāti? Yā tesaṁ tesaṁ dhammānaṁ jāti sañjāti nibbatti abhinibbatti pātubhāvo— ayaṁ vuccati “bhavapaccayā jāti” > > https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/anandajoti#pts-cs281 Are there any Suttas referring to the "jati" of "things" rather than the "jati" of "beings" in relation to dependent origination?