The stone question

First, thank you for the answer.
Regarding the stone, I couldn't quite understand what was wrong with the question.
When you ask about a triangle that is round, the problem is actually the question, but in the stone question there is nothing illogical about the stone that cannot be lifted.
The question is directed at a person who believes in an omnipotent God in order to show him that the concept of omnipotence creates paradoxes.
It is not the question that creates the paradox, but God's omnipotence.
A stone that God cannot lift means that even if He wanted very much, He would not be able to do so.
And what does the Rabbi think of an answer like: God can create such a stone, by limiting Himself.

And what about an answer like: He can create the stone and he won't be able to lift it because the "omnipotent" should be able to be "unable"?

Read again and you will see that I explained all this.
An omnipotent stone cannot lift is a nonsense expression like a circular triangle. I explained it. It is like saying that the concept of a circle creates the circular triangle paradox and therefore rejecting the existence of the circle as a coherent concept or rejecting the claim about the existence of circles.
He cannot limit himself, as I showed in the example that he cannot turn himself into a person.
You probably didn't understand the last nonsense sentence either. I certainly didn't understand it anyway.

I've read it three times and I'm still having trouble.
I think you're building the answer for experts in philosophy and not for people who have almost no knowledge of the subject.
I'll ask: Can God decide that a certain person will get sick and die within ten days, and He (God) will have no ability to change the matter, is that a logical question?

I can't figure out what's unclear. You can't formulate a question that contains a logical contradiction and expect an answer. Such a question is meaningless. Therefore, a question that contains the phrase "a stone that the Almighty cannot lift" is meaningless and cannot and should not be answered. Just like the question: Can God make a round triangle, or is God a mess? What's unclear about that?
Regarding your question, He can either decide the first (that he will die) or do the second (change), but not both. Just like He can make a wall that is resistant to any shell or a shell that penetrates any wall but not both.
What's unclear here?

Regarding the patient, I didn't understand what "both things" meant, I meant that the patient would die *without* the possibility of changing it, not that he would die and God would change it, i.e., can He eliminate the potential possibility of healing the patient.
Additionally: Is the Rabbi completely parallel between the question about the circular triangle and the stone? Because from what I was able to understand regarding the circular triangle, the answer is that God cannot do this, and in parentheses: because it doesn't make sense, so is this the answer regarding the stone as well?
Meaning: God cannot make such a stone (because it doesn't make sense that the Almighty cannot.

Meir, are you sure you read what I said?
1. I explained in parentheses the meaning of “the two things”. Read again.
2. In addition, I also explained your second question. I did compare a circular triangle to a stone. It is completely the same. Read again.
3. And last but not least, which has again been completely explained. I explained that God cannot do this because there is no such thing (and not because it does not make sense, as you say). There is simply nothing to do here (what is He supposed to create? “an omnipotent stone cannot lift” is an empty concept like a circular triangle). It is like asking whether God can do blah blah blah blah? Can you try to answer the last question? If He cannot, then He is not omnipotent, right?

I explained the three things well. I see no point in repeating the same thing over and over again.

Ok, except for the patient, I understand.
What you wrote in parentheses are not the two things I wanted God to do (kill the patient and change it) but I wanted Him to kill the patient and not be able to change it, is it still possible to do B without A?
And where is the flaw in the answer that many rabbis answer that God can limit Himself?
As if we imagine that God has a button with which He chooses whether to heal the patient, then God can break the button and cause that even if He wanted to - He could not help the patient.
And there is no incapacity in this because God chose this.

If he limits himself, in the end he ends up limited. I gave the example that he cannot become a person (because then he could be shot and killed). In my understanding, he cannot limit himself because limiting the unlimited is again a logical contradiction. But what does all this matter? In a stone, he does not limit himself, and therefore it is clear that it is not possible there.

Doesn't the position that God cannot limit Himself (which I agree with) contradict the foundations of Kabbalah and the doctrine of Tzimtzum, as well as parts of the prayer such as 'for the sake of oneness'?

Meir and all those asking here,
Understand that the Creator is spiritual, the very fact that He is spiritual shows that He is not limited, He can do everything, but not in our concepts! Therefore, concepts need to be defined as the Rabbi answered you! But the basic premise is that the Creator is omnipotent, He can do everything without lifting a finger! The Almighty is like a supernatural magician! But a magician without illusions! The Almighty has no tools, He is a craftsman without tools, so He has no problem doing everything!
When you say that the Almighty cannot - there is no such thing because everything depends on His will, and also saying the word “will” about the Creator is a problem, because if He has a will then it sounds like He needs something. In short, it is impossible to define our God in simple terms! We can barely digest that He is omnipotent!
You want us to say that He can limit Himself so that you can say that He is Jesus, right? This is fundamental nonsense because it is written that man will not fear me and live - then it is clear that he did not become a man because then he contradicts his words? And in any case it is impossible for Jesus “Messiah” to stand at the right hand of God as it is written in your books of the apostles! And without me there is no God. This is how it is written in our Bible, you have not seen any picture, because I spoke to you from heaven - so there is no way you would think that Jesus is God at all! And if you claim that he is of the seed of David, I mean Messiah, the son of David, this is also a lie because it is written: Your throne will be established forever!!!!
I have found David my servant with my holy oil, from my anointing. With whom my hand will be established, my arm will strengthen him. No enemy will bear him up, and the son of a stranger will not answer. And I will crush his enemies before him, and I will surround his enemies, and my trust and mercy will be with him, and in my name his horn will be exalted. And I will put his hand in the sea and in the rivers of his right hand. —–So if he were Jesus Messiah, no one would have been able to overcome him, and that is enough!!!! But I will add:

“When your days are fulfilled, and you have laid your fathers to rest, and have raised up your seed after you, who will come forth from your bowels, and I have prepared his kingdom.

He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son, who was in his transgression, and I have proved him with the tribe of men and with the afflictions of men,

And my mercy shall not depart from him, as I removed from the people of Saul, whom I removed from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you, your throne shall be established forever.

In Samuel: “I will be his father, and he shall be my son.”

In Psalms 5: “He will call me, “Father, you are my God and the rock of my salvation,

But I am the firstborn of my people, the highest of the kings of the earth.”

In Samuel: “And I will prove him by the tribe of men and by the plagues of men”

In Psalms: “And I will punish the tribe for their transgression and by the plagues of their iniquity.”

In Psalms: “His seed shall be for ever, and his throne as the sun before me, as the moon shall be established for ever, and as the faithful rod shall be established.”

In Jeremiah 33:

“In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah and Jerusalem shall be saved…

For thus says the Lord, David shall not have a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel.

Thus says the Lord, If you break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, so that day and night may not be at their proper time, then you will also break my covenant with David my servant, so that he will not have a son to rule over you on his throne.

This is the law: There is no permission to change the covenant with the Creator, so that your sharp covenant breaks the first and there is no basis for it, because the law of the Lord stands forever. And in the covenant of the tables it is written: Keep and hear all these words (the ten commandments written on two tables), which I command you: that it may go well with you and with your children after you, ——-forever——–when you do what is good and right in the sight of the Lord your God.” The covenant cannot be changed.

That is, the Messiah will come as we saw in Jeremiah and we ask 3 times a day:
The branch of David your servant will quickly sprout (soon), and his horn will rise in your salvation, for we have hoped and waited for your salvation all day long, the Lord will sprout a horn of salvation” Amen

Dear Niria, the Rabbi explains here on the site that he admits that the Torah of Tzmitzom and many other things have no place in the Toshveh from Sinai, we only received laws and from them many correct things and many inaccurate things developed.
And regarding the sake of the uniqueness of God Almighty, Rabbi Yair Chaim Bacharach disagrees with this. In his answer, “Chavat Yair”, he wrote: “That these things were not said, only to the most learned scholars”. He states there that he himself does not understand the interpretation of the prayer and its implications, and wonders whether the other Kabbalists do understand it correctly.
In any case, I personally did not understand the restriction in the statement from your perspective.

Neria Shalom.
Regarding the word "Leshem" I don't understand what the connection is. In any case, there is a dispute about the saying of the word "Leshem".
The statement that he cannot reduce himself does not necessarily contradict the Kabbalistic reduction, since there is a debate about whether the reduction was in the light or in the light (in the terminology of the Lubavitcher Rebbe), that is, whether the reduction was in the light of the Almighty and not in himself. In any case, it seems to me that the reduction in the spatial sense could be possible, only that it is not possible for him to be omnipotent.

Honorable Rabbi, if I may ask, why is the Rabbi concerned or answering Neria's question about the possible reduction while others asked about the vision of the dry bones and you said that it is not clear, in other words, that the prophecies in the Bible are not clear enough? What is the difference exactly? How do you make the distinctions?

B. Why would God, the Almighty, reduce His light and not care to make light if He did not have to reduce His light in the end?

Moshe, I didn't understand the question. What is the connection between the possibility of reduction and the interpretation of prophecies?

It is impossible to make light that would not have to be reduced, since without reduction there would be no room left for the world. The reduction is not because light is lacking, but because where there is light, the world cannot exist.

Can God create another God?

I suppose not. An essential characteristic of God is that He is one. If another one is created, there will be two, and this contradicts His definition. Beyond that, God was not created (He is the root of everything), and therefore a God who is created is not God.

So in fact, it can be said that apart from being subject to pure laws of logic on their own part (making x true and false at the same time), there is an additional subjection to logic, which stems from several fundamental and fundamental definitions of God (being the necessity of reality, being one, etc.), which cannot be contradicted.
This is interesting because in principle it was possible to say that he could create another God, and the attribute of unity would be rejected from its place.

My meaning: And the attribute of unity will be rejected from its place for the sake of all abilities, which is part of perfection.

Logic never stands on its own. When you adopt any definition, you have to remain consistent with it. This is also a logical requirement. If part of God's definition is unity, then it is impossible to create another God. Unless you assume that this attribute is not essential to Him. That is why I was precise and wrote “I assume not”, since what I assumed was that the attribute of unity is essential to Him.
The claim that the attribute of unity would be rejected for the sake of completeness is irrelevant for two reasons: 1. There is no harm to completeness here (inability to deviate from logic is not incompleteness). 2. You will not be able to achieve completeness in your broad sense in any case, since there will always remain things that God cannot do (such as killing himself, or even turning himself into a mortal person who can be killed). So there is no point in giving up unity in order to achieve any ability in the sense that in any case it will not be achieved this way.

I meant that the fact that the Almighty is subject to being one, and cannot deviate from this and do the opposite is a disadvantage, so it is better to exclude in defining his attributes as uniqueness.
What you wrote that “inability to deviate from logic is not a lack of completeness” is in a situation where a certain action forces a deviation from logic, but in a situation where there is no such necessity, as here where it can be said that he can create another G-d (because this is not an essential attribute), there is a slight disadvantage in this. Why does he have to be one?
And regarding the second point, it is true that we will not reach complete perfection, but if we can exclude shortcomings, why not do so?

I explained things. If units are its essential feature, then this is a deviation from logic for all intents and purposes. And there is no reason to except for "disadvantages" that are not disadvantages.

Shalom Rabbi,
In my opinion, this question also tries to pose the problem that God created us (those with free will).
I assume you are familiar with the thought exercise that says that in order to predict deterministically (say, if there were a way) our choices, knowledge of the future must be hidden from us.
Because knowledge itself can change the choice. Theoretically, it is possible to predict the activities that I will do and choose to do with complete accuracy, but if I were told what they are from the start, I would be able to choose differently. For example, if a prophet (or a sophisticated computer) were to tell me before noon what I will eat for lunch from the available options, I would be able to choose differently, thereby “destroying” any prediction he makes.
So the question that I think arises from the stone is whether God has absolute control? If so, how could he create me? A being who cannot be controlled, a being with his own control?
Doesn't it follow that logically, I and God are two completely different entities? That his power over me is limited? Or as discussed in the previous responses, a God who created another God?

I don't understand the question. First, I don't see any logical problem with our existence as free will. God is omnipotent and could have taken away our choice (so our power over us is unlimited), but He chose not to. Is He not omnipotent because He cannot choose what He did not choose, or not choose what He did choose?
You are right that this is the same answer as the stone question, and I have written this here more than once. Knowing in advance non-existent information is like creating a circular triangle or a stone that the omnipotent cannot lift.
I also don't see the connection to the question of whether knowing the future can change it.

Is our future also “non-existent information” to God?

See the columns on knowledge and choice. In my opinion, yes.

From what I understand, God cannot create God. This is simply because the second creation will not be God, right? Why is there a logical contradiction in the question of the stone? I failed to understand.

You did not answer about the reduction (or I did not understand) and the inability to limit. Can you address this again, please?

I explained in detail. I don't see what could be unclear. Who spoke about God creating God?
I don't remember what the question was about the reduction. I'll rephrase it.

There was someone in the thread here who talked about how God cannot create God.

How can there be a limitation when it actually means that God limits Himself?

From here he recites that he can limit himself. Of course he has control over this and he can always go back and take control of everything, so it's actually simple. This goes into the issue of reduction in the literal sense or not, which is just being discussed in a series of Thursday (evening) lessons.

Is God omnipotent? Where does this nonsense come from?

Can he pee?
Can he not exist?

Of course not.
Conclusion: “omnipotence” is a human verbal fiction and the whole question falls apart.
The concept of “ability” is a fiction.
Things are not “able” things either exist or do not exist

Of course He can create the unimaginable!
For example, the world of souls..

Is there a source in the five books of the Torah for God to be omnipotent? If not, is there a problem with faith in assuming that it is possible for God to not be omnipotent (but still create the heavens and the earth, perform miracles, etc.)?

I remember that this question has been raised before. I think that if someone comes to this conclusion, they will be able to reconcile it with the Scriptures. There is the “wonder of the thing” and the like, but it can always be reconciled that the reference is to very great abilities but not necessarily to every ability. It would seem to me that if God is at the basis of all reality, it is unlikely that He would have a finite ability, since the fact that He has an ability at level X requires an explanation (why X in particular?). Every ability is the obvious situation. But this is just my understanding of course.

Hello Rabbi,
In your book and here on the site, you list a number of examples: the stone that cannot be lifted, the sorcerer, the shell, etc. in order to illustrate the logical fallacy, the incomprehensible and therefore these are meaningless problems!.
On the other hand, in the series of “God and the World”, you explicitly say that these examples (unlike the example of the round triangle!) indicate the limitation of God, the deficiency that exists in Him because of His perfection.
How does an argument against the difficulty of the problem and its disqualification, do you now bring it as a kind of evidence of the deficiency of God, of His limitation????
What is the meaning of the turn?!

No turning point.
A circular triangle is an empty concept. Therefore, to say that God cannot make a circular triangle is not a limitation of His. The same is true of the stone that the Almighty cannot lift. On the other hand, to say that He cannot pay (because He is perfect) is a limitation of His. There is something well-defined that He cannot do and I can.

I'm sorry, but you're repeating the explanation you give on the website and in the book.
The question is why in the series "God and the World" you didn't define them as a logical fallacy, devoid of meaning and definition. Instead, you explicitly linked them to God, as significant and stemming from His absence?
Referring you to lesson 10, starting at minute 30:45.

I'm sorry that you're upset. You're repeating the same thing again without any basis for it. I listened again and didn't see anything like that there (on the contrary, I explicitly say there between limitations that stem from his full potential and contradictions). But too bad about the chatter. I wrote my position here. This is my position and I didn't back down.

Hahaha…strange…
I can't understand why you're avoiding it. After all, the things are crystal clear and were said by you yourself.
Well, well, apparently it's really a waste of energy. Let the listeners judge.
Thank you.

Omnipotence is a concept that humans invented. So of course God is not omnipotent.
God cannot have a quality that is a creation of human imagination.

The rule is simple. Imagine attribute X.
God cannot have attribute X.

Erez, I also listened to the tweet just now. It clearly stated exactly what was explained here in all the answers. Instead of insisting, listen again. (I can't send a message with the link to the video at the relevant time. Strange)

Can't figure out what's hard to understand here.
In the shiur the rabbi divides the limitations into 2 categories:
1. Limitations that stem from his perfection., because of all his ability.
Examples: the stone that cannot be lifted, the shell, the sorcerer. They are significant. They are not meaningless.
2. Limitations despite perfection. A round triangle. This is a category of logical fallacy. Meaningless. Meaningless.

In the book and on the website, the examples of the stone, the shell and also the round triangle, are all under one category. They are presented and explained as a logical fallacy. Meaningless.
What else needs to be explained here?!?!!