Learning from a verse not to learn from the sidelines

I’m not sure I understood you. The Gemara says that it was possible to learn on the equal side of the stones, and the Torah wrote a verse that we should not do so. I understand that you are asking why not learn even though it is similar (there is no perception of the hand of man), that is, what is the point of the verse that says not to learn, since the stones are truly similar to the equal side of the teachers? Did I understand your question correctly? If this is the question, I will offer two answers and a discussion between them.
Simply put, the verse seems to say that despite the similarity here, one does not study for some other reason (perhaps there is a hidden reason that we would not have thought of). But there is another possibility, and I am more inclined to it.
We find in several places ‘the interpretation of a severe side’, meaning that what the two teachers have, since in A there is a severe side X and in B there is a severe side Y, which does not exist in C (of course, here in the Sugiya it is a light side and not a severe side because they learn Kola – a pleasure permit, but this does not matter to the logic). See, for example, Ketubot Lev A”A (and Tus’ below) and Kuts D and Erikot Ritva there. Tus’ and Ritva above make it difficult that if one interprets a severe side over the learning of a shuffling side, then the doctrine of the shuffling side has been abrogated from the world (because each of the teachers always has a severe side. If it were not for this, there would be two Ketubots that come as one and do not teach). And they make all kinds of lame excuses. And I once offered a very logical explanation (it is written in some of my books, if you like).
The usual assumption on the equal side is that the special characteristics of each learner are not the cause of the law: B proves that X is irrelevant and A proves that Y is irrelevant. It follows that the characteristic common to both, Z, is probably the relevant one, that is, it is the cause of the law in question, and it is also present in the learner. Why is the explanation that hangs the law on Z preferable to an alternative explanation that hangs it on the conjunction (X or Y)? Occam’s razor, according to which it is better to hang the law on one characteristic rather than on two. This is a simpler theory. (Every scientific generalization is based on this logic: why assume that the mass is the cause of the object falling to the Earth, and not its rectangular or circular or triangular shape, if God and the shapes of the objects I observed?).
This is the usual logic of the equal side. From here you will understand that one must distinguish between halakhic characteristics and factual characteristics. If X and Y are factual, then the interpretation of the severe side really does not apply, but if these are halakhic characteristics (severe laws that are in A and B), then it could be said that the two melamedim have one common factual characteristic (which does not exist in the melamed) that is expressed halakhically differently in the two melamedim, meaning that they have two different severe laws (the same factual characteristic causes different laws in a different context), and if so, then perhaps this characteristic is what causes the law being taught, and in any case one should not learn from both of them to teach (because this common characteristic is not necessarily in the melamed, because it is not severe). This is the interpretation of the severe side. And in fact, if you examine all of the Shas, the interpretation of the severe side is raised only in halakhic characteristics. Never in factual characteristics.
Let us now return to the issue of the AZ. First, of course, there are factual characteristics (connected and living), and therefore, seemingly, a serious side analysis does not belong there. Therefore, in principle, we would study a serious side analysis there. My argument is that the verse means to say that although there are factual characteristics here, a serious side analysis should still be done, meaning that the verse reveals that here the law (the kula of the excess in enjoyment) is caused by each of the two characteristics separately (either connected or living) and not by any equal side that exists in both (the perception of the human hand). In other words, Occam’s razor should not be applied here. In any case, this kula exists only in the two teaching subjects and it should not be studied to teach (the stones) because they are not connected and not in the teaching subject.
And the NFP in this is with regard to something else that does not have the perception of a human hand but is not an animal and is not connected, but is not a stone. Regarding such an object, there is no verse that prevents teaching that it is permissible in enjoyment because the verse speaks of stones, but nevertheless it would not be permissible. This is because the verse teaches that the permission in enjoyment is only in what is an animal or what is connected (and not in everything that does not have the perception of a human hand). On the other hand, if we were to understand the Gemara simply (which the verse came to teach a specific harshness regarding stones), then the verse again states that there is no permission in enjoyment only regarding stones and that is it. Everything else that does not have the perception of a human hand would be taught on the equal side of the two teachings and would be permissible. I am not even sure that we would logically need to say that there would be no perception of a human hand, because if we ruled out the equal side, then the factor is not the common side (that there is no perception of a human hand) but each of the two unique characteristics of the teachings.
In my opinion, this explanation is accurate from the words of Rashi, who wrote:
It is written, “You shall abhor us” – in the worship of idols, you are a deity,
It is not clear why he adds that the innovation is only in what is permitted in the commentary. On the contrary, everything (meaning at least everything that does not have a human hand. As mentioned, I am not sure that this is necessary at all) is permitted, since everything is taught on the equal side of what is permitted in the commentary, and only stones were reduced, since the verse innovated that they do not make an equal side. Of necessity, he learned as I suggested: the verse comes to teach that the permission in pleasure is stated only about the two teaching (animals or connected) and not about other things, even what is not stones.