God’s omnipotence and logical contradictions

Hello Rabbi. As I have seen many times throughout the site, there is a mass of people who did not understand the Rabbi's justification in this paradoxical mishna. I appreciate the Rabbi's patience for what seems to him like grinding water, while to us it is grinding millstones one after the other and things are difficult. There are a few points here that I would like to address in detail.
A. The Rabbi writes that God can "deal" with physical contradictions but not with logical ones. Ostensibly, the laws of logic (which were not enacted as the Rabbi emphasized) are in essence a set of glasses that show us the truth and how to reach it. The truth that is in a certain square in reality. It may be that this is a truth about a subjective, objective reality, or even one that is not physical but metaphysical. The Rabbi usually brings the example that Satan did not create (since he cannot due to the contradiction) and that is the triangular circle, which is a contradiction between concepts and is meaningless. And apparently logic is just a certain way to arrive at a physical contradiction; does that object have 0 or 3 sides. And so any example whatsoever that does not entail a contradiction in the very “world of concepts of logic” but a contradiction in a certain realistic grid.
And even more, a physical contradiction is itself a logical contradiction. That is, the problematic of physical contradiction is because of the logical law of non-contradiction. That is, a logical contradiction.
B. The rabbi answers that the stone that cannot be lifted is not possible because it is meaningless. So do not assume the existence of an omnipotent being. You are actually trying to resolve a paradox by saying that if you say that such a stone exists, then it is a paradox. I beg your pardon. This is the very paradox we are talking about.
C. Without the necessity of a paradox and overwhelming proof of its existence, common sense will reject the existence of the object that carries a paradox. The paradox is a muscle and exists and there are 2 options for how to deal with it: 1. The paradox proves the non-existence of an omnipotent being. 2. The paradox is resolved and the existence of the being is possible. We must now discuss whether option 1 or 2 is more logical. The Rabbi holds that 2 is more logical?! Here I have found a place where they do not make excuses but only make difficulties
D. I think that if we tilt the attribute of all ability only in the positive direction, then no stone will be able to paradox my God.
Thank you very much and have a good day!

A. I didn't understand your argument. When a body stands in the air despite the law of gravity, this is not a logical contradiction, and therefore God has the power to do so. He freezes the law of gravity. But He cannot make a round triangle.
B. I didn't understand again (it seems to me that you didn't understand). I claim that God is omnipotent. This is my (unproven) claim. You raise a problem against this claim that apparently contains a contradiction: the stone that He cannot lift. I claim that assuming that God is omnipotent, there is no such stone, and therefore your question is not a problem. If you assume that there is such a stone, you assume that He is not omnipotent, and therefore this is the desired assumption. Since you are the one who makes it difficult for you to assume my assumptions and not yours, and to show that from my assumptions I arrive at a contradiction. You will not be able to do this with the example of the stone. There is neither a problem nor a paradox here.
C-D. See the previous section.
Please

A. By freezing the law of gravity, the contradiction does not begin at all. God will freeze the Trinity and thus the circle will rest in its place in peace. A contradiction that God deals with is meant despite its existence and not by canceling it and canceling one of the sides that lead to the contradiction. You in the Bible say that God is stronger than gravity. But not above a contradiction. And if I remember correctly, you were talking about physical contradictions in which the two sides continue to collide with each other, such as the whole earth is full of His glory but He is nowhere, but I don't really remember.

B. I don't know how to summarize, but I'll try to prepare for a summary.
1. Omnipotence a priori means that it can perform all actions and has no impediment to acting.
2. Creating a stone that cannot be lifted is an action. (Of course, this does not go beyond the scope of an action even if there is no such stone)
3. Omnipotence can act (certainly by its very definition) to create a stone that cannot be lifted.
4. Omnipotence cannot lift a stone.
The Rabbi claims that I have assumed what was requested. Assuming a stone that cannot be lifted does not lead to an a priori contradiction by its very concept. It is possible for a stone to be lifted. The stone does not contradict itself. It contradicts an omnipotent being. On the other hand, the concept of omnipotence includes within it the ability to change, as its name suggests. Therefore, the stone is included within the concept of all ability. Because there is nothing that is not an exception to everything.

With the blessing of a good man, he will be accepted as a nation, and a blessing for the head of a broken man.

Well, really. There's no point in insisting on this.