Question in verses

Hello Rabbi Michi and thank you for the response, a few comments:

A. Isn't ”every picture” a rule? I remember that in the Gemara, the word kol is required in several places as a rule.
B. Even if we require in particular and in general, there is a problem that it does not include everything, including everything, without exception. Rather, it is limited to the manner of the sermon that generalizes and narrows.
C. A sermon of klal, klal, and pert means to generalize beyond the particular, but only as a kind of individual. Again, there is a problem, that it is not the absolute rule.
D. If this verse does not come to teach about the Holy One who does not have a body and does not have the image of the body, then where do we learn this?

The fact that He does not have the image of a body stems from the fact that He fills the whole world (His glory fills the whole earth). And perhaps there is also a tradition in this. But these verses certainly do not teach this, since they deal with what is forbidden and permitted, not with theology. See the example I gave about sharing.
Indeed, sometimes they demand “all” as a rule, and I do not know when it is and when it is not.

And is there also a verse in the Torah that states this fundamental principle of the whole earth being filled with His glory, or is it just in the scriptures?

I don't remember right now. But if He created everything, then what needs to be added?

The Rambam writes in the introduction to the chapter on the third element – the negation of incarnations:
Evidence from the Torah:
And this is the third element that is indicated by what we say; that you have not seen any image, that is, you have not grasped Him who has an image, since He is, as we said, neither a body nor a power in a body.
Evidence from the Prophet:
And the Prophet said, And to whom will you liken Me, etc., and to whom will you liken Me, and I, etc., and if He were a body, then He would be like bodies

And regarding what you wrote above ” Even if you demand as you suggest, the conclusion is that there is no prohibition against worshiping a statue from outer space”
I am trying to understand whether the Torah's requirement of three criteria (such as a general and a particular in this case) is strict, meaning that if it is written in this way then we must demand it and reach such a conclusion (if it is shown that there was indeed an unambiguous general and a particular in this case). Or is it purely according to my logic and only if the result of the sermon does fit my logic then I demand it this way and if not then I do not. I would be happy to see evidence/examples of the sages' teachings for any opinion that the Rabbi brings.

PS I did not understand why the criterion of a particular and a general is needed like this:

In the law of the Sabbath of loss, this verse is stated [Deuteronomy 22:3]:

And you shall do likewise to his donkey and you shall do likewise to his garment – particular
And you shall do likewise to every loss of your brother – general
specific and general – the general adds to the particular, and multiplies everything.
Any loss must be returned.

In the laws of guardianship it is stated [Exodus 22:9]:

If a man gives his neighbor a donkey or an ox or a sheep – an individual
or any animal to be kept – a general
the individual and the general – the general adds to the individual, and multiplies everything.
The laws of guardianship apply to any object that can be kept.

So, apparently, if the Torah wanted to include every loss, could it have written only the general and would we have been in this species even without the individual?
(If the rabbi already has a written answer on this matter to review, I would be happy to refer to it).

Thank you very much and Happy Shabbat!

In general, the general adds to the particular beyond the ordinary analogy but leaves something out. Regarding every loss of your brother, the things are explained in the Shas in several places.
See B.M. 22:2, except for that which is lost from him and is not found with any person. And there on page 11:2, including the loss of land. And in Z. 22:2, including a convert. And see also Gittin, from A.

In the Bible

I didn't understand how “which is in the heavens and which is in the earth” could definitely be a general and not a particular, since we see that everywhere the Torah specifies, the Gemara requires it as a particular and not as a general?
Is there a parallel example where they require detail as a general and not as a particular?

Everything in heaven and everything on earth is also a generalization, not just a detail. If you examine what the Sages refer to as a generalization, you will see that there are more extreme examples of this.

N.B. Sorry for the long gap. I just recently had the opportunity to revisit the words of the Rambam and their consequences in your answer and the question arose in my mind.. Sorry for driving you crazy 🙂

Well, I don't have such extensive knowledge of chess to do a cross-section of all the places where a general and a particular and a general are required, so I'm asking the Rabbi, if it's not too much trouble.

Because from what I understand and remember, the particular is relative to what is written in general. That is, if something general/obscure appeared that does not come down to interpretation, and after it something a little more specific, then the detail will be required as a particular even if in itself it can be a general. And the same is apparently true in our verse.
And again, I would be happy for an example/parallel evidence if there is one.

An example I found immediately:
Rabbi Drish general and particular, and you made a menorah, a rule of pure gold, a hard detail, make a menorah, repeat and general, general and particular, and do you discuss anything but the kind of particular, what is the explicit detail of metal, even the whole of metal?
It is difficult to understand what the criterion here is for a general or particular. Why is a gold menorah cut into two parts at all?
Search the Sh”t project and you will find many more like this.