7- Last week Lee Weisman (who btw admitted in a phone conversation that he is totally unaware of the story of Avoda Zara loosing hair…shoin a reyusa oib her iz taka aza groiseh mumcha, also you keep on changing whether he was in India for 6 years or six months. Make up your mind.) said that Indians answer a question the way that the asker wants to hear. Im kein, there is no significance to the whole interview with the priest, specifically because you put the words in his mouth.
8- In interview with Rabbi Paskesz, you keep getting back to Rashi in Yevamos that says Tikrovos is a Doron. Indeed, rashi says that, but this in no way means that tikrovos is only a doron, rather the case of that shoe is that it was a doron to Avoda Zara, but there are also cases of Tikrovos Avoda Zara even if there is no Doron.
The rayas for this is that any Shechita to Avoda Zara assurs the entire beheima as Tikrovos Avoda Zara even if there is no intention of giving beheima to AVODA ZARA.
????? (????? ??:) ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??”?, ???? ?????? ??? ?????, ??? ????? ??? ??????? [???? ?”? ???? ????] ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????, ??? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???. ???? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?????, ???? ???? ????? ???? ??”?, ?? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ?”?, ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ?????. ???? ?”? ????? ?? “?????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????”, ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ???? “????” ????? ???, ??? ????? ???? ??”?, ???? ??? ??? ????? ???”? ???’ ??, ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????. ??? ????? ???’ ?? ??: ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?”? ???? ??? ????? ??????, ?? ??? ??? ????, ?? ???? ?????, ??????? ????? ?? ?? ??????, ????? ??.
????? ??? ?? ??????? ??”? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????, ??? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?????. ??? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?”? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??”?, ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??”? ??????, ???”? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ?”? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????, ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?”? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ????.
???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?”? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???. ???? ??? ??????? (??’ ??”? ????? ??: ?”? ????, ??”? ?????? ??. ?”? ?????, ???’ ?????? ??) ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??”? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???”? ????. ???’ ???? ???”? (?”? ?”? ???? ??) ???? “???? ????? ??? ?????? ??????… ???? ???? ????? ???, ??? ??? ???? ????? ???, ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????” ??”?. ??? ???? ????”? (?”? ??.), ??????”? (?”? ??: ?”? ???????), ?????? ??? ?????? ?”? ??? ???? ??.
That being the case by shechita, it follows that any cutting which is the tolda of shechita, also makes it tikroves Avoda Zara even without any mayse of giving like what Rabbi Paskesz said. Other cases of tikrovos Avoda Zara with an action of cutting making it assur without having any nesina to the Avoda Zara include:
?- ?????? ?????
?- ????? ????? ????? ?????? ???????? [?????]
?- ??? ????? ??”? [??”? ??: ?”? ????? ??:, ???”? ????’]
?- ???? ????? ????? ??????? [?????, ?????? ????]
?- ???? ????? ??? ?”? [??????? ??, ????? ??? ???’ ?? ????? ????? ??:]
?- ???? ????? ??? ??”? [????? ?”? ??]
?- ???? ????? ??? ?”? [???”? ???”? ????”? ??? ????”? ?”? ??.]
9- Rabbi Paskesz says that sheviras makal is an act of serving the Avoda Zara, you jump on him and say it is only tikrovos and not actual avoda. Rabbi Paskesz was only quoting the gemara, which you apparently are unaware of:
“??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??, ????? ??? ??????? ???? ????, ??? ??? ?????, ????, ??????
The word chayav means that the one who does it is chayav misa, meaning he served the Avoda Zara. Any act of giving tikrovos is an act of serving the Avoda Zara. Being that he is only quoting a gemara which you are unaware of, it is extremely unfitting of you to tell him to go learn the sugya and that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. I am sorry for saying this, but he actually spent some time on the sugya and the Rishonim and he isn’t the one who has no clue about the sugya and is parroting the mareh mekomos prepared for by someone else.
10- Your whole argument the whole time is that it is tallui in the way the priest think it is fitting to serve it. That being the case, when Mrs. Berger quotes the TTD who actually run the temple, you can’t get a bigger clarity than that. Even if there is a tzad that Avoda Zara is really talui in the way the galach thinks, there is no tzad that it is tallui in what biased Emma Tarlo from London thinks. And the TTD who actively run the temple, have a lot more of a de’ah in what the Avoda Zara is than some random priest living in America.
11- You mention quickly in the beginning of the show that there is two taaruvos, and therefore it is muttar. Basic mistake. The case of 2 taaruvos is only when a ring gets mixed into 1000 rings and one of the rings separates, and then falls into another taaruvos. But when the 1000 rings fall into 10,000 rings, it is still the same taaruvos. Following, since the hair mixed in India is never porish from the taaruvos, rather the whole taruvos gets remixed, the hetter of 2 taaruvos does not apply. ??? ????? ???? ???? (??’ ?”?), ??”?: “???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?”? (???. ?”? ??? ??????) ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?????, ?????? ???? ??????” ??”?.
There is much more to be maarich, but I will stop here.