I have heard it often enough for it to seem to be a pattern. I think some people don't feel the holiness in the Talmud.
At first I did not think anything of it.


But then I noticed even sincere people that long for God's holiness sometimes do not feel what is happening inside the Talmud.
Sometimes people close to me  would see me learning Talmud and  did not feel what or why I was doing so.
Sometimes you hear from a Breslov person that he walked into a Litvak (Lithuanian )Yeshiva and all he saw was people talking about some subject in the Talmud and they were not talking about God. And this was always presented as a proof to me that in Lithuanian yeshivas people don't think of God.
[Of course that is silly because we really don't have a lot of information about God. We know he is the First Cause who made everything something from nothing. And that is about it.]
In any case I have realized that there are people who don't feel what is going on in Talmud learning. So I would like to tell people what it is. It is numinosity. It is not that it makes devekut (attachment with God) possible but rather it is a level of devekut in itself.

And it simply is not that case that people don't think about God. From the day I left the world of Lithuanian yeshivas until today I have not seen one single prayer with the fervor and intention I saw at the Mir. At the Mir you could feel the Divine presence [Shechina] descend into the building during the morning prayers.

The Rambam (Maimonides) says prophets and the later scribes [sofrim] were allowed to add mitzvot but they could not say that God revealed the mitzvah to them. And if they would they would be stoned as a false prophet because God has already told us that the Torah he gave us is permanent  and that he will never add any mitzvah nor subtract any mitzvah.

And that was only until the end of the time of the Talmud. After the Talmud, no one has permission to add or subtract even a mitzvah derabanan [rabbinical decree].

OK. That is the introduction.  Now the question is about the blessing we say of lighting the Hanukkah lights. We say "who commanded us to light .." Would it not make more sense to say "Who commanded us to listen to the Sages?" After that is how the Rambam tries to get out if this problem. He says we are commanded to listen to the sages and they told us to light the Hanuka lights.  (There is also the issue about the main idea of לא תסור don't turn aside from what they say refers to the Sanhedrin.)



I remember sitting by Reb Shmuel Berenbaum with my wife one Yom Tov and he talked at the festival meal about this or something related. Later I noticed a similar discussion in a commentary of the Rambam. But it was a long time ago. It might have been related to the idea of the second day of the festivals in which the regular blessing are said. (The second day of the festival is not a law but a custom based on where the witnesses can arrive.)

Now all this is just common sense. We have Jewish communities in the Middle Ages and every community was able to make laws for its own members.  Just the laws would not have the force of a rabbinical law.
The problem is nowadays when all kinds of people claim to have divine revelation about some new mitzvah. This to me seems to be a problem.
You can even see this in Breslov which is generally just people sincerely looking to keep Torah.
But the leaders often claim Divine revelation. Just today I asked some fellow from Israel if he ever tried to be in a yeshiva. And he said he sold everything and came to Jerusalem  and found a job  and then walked into one Breslov yeshiva. It happened the minute he walked in the Rav was giving a lecture and was discussing the fact that he had critics. And he asked, "How can they criticize me when I have these amazing revelations from Heaven?" So Breslov does not seem to be immune from the general kinds of delusions which haunt the world of hasidim.

At any rate I do not mean to leave this hanging. My learning partner brought this up, and I do hope to recheck the Mishna LaMelech and Lechem Mishna  and (Ramban) Nachmanides about the issue of how there can be any such thing as a rabbinical mitzvah in the first place? [Since we are not allowed to add or subtract from the Torah. If anything comes up I hope to post it here.]
[I mean that the Ramban wrote a critique on the Rambam's Sefer Hamitzvot where he goes into this. I know he goes into this issue over there.]



I only mean for this blog entry to be an introduction to this problem.

I have mentioned learning fast a few times. . But the first time I saw this concept was from a book Biyan Olam בנין עולם which was from some Litvak in Israel. And in fact the Gra mentions this concept himself. And it is brought in the Talmud itself. [Avoda Zara 19:a] What slows people down is the Magen Avraham who people will always quote to you [not in his name] who held if you don't understand, it is not called learning. But it looks like the Gra did not hold from that particular Magen Avraham. [Orach Chaim 50 paragraph 2]
See the new edition of אבן שלמה from Israel where the editor brings proof of this in the Appendix

The Gemara says:
Rava said one should always say the words and go on even though he forgets and even though he does not know what he is saying.

I found this approach encouraging while I was in yeshiva because  the yeshiva I was in was into learning in real immense depth. That is a good thing. But I also needed this counter weight to get a general idea of what was going on.
And I should mention that at the Mir in NY, it was a given that in the afternoon one was supposed to be learning fast.

The Geon from Villna says two things stop a person's prayer from being accepted. One if he has sins.
The other is not relevant right now.

 But if you want your prayer to be answered and you know you have done some sin , it makes a lot of sense to go to someone who in your best judgment is righteous. The problem is deciphering who is a tzadik.
being a tzadik after the time of the Baal Shem Tov became big business.

If what Putin is doing is escalation, then I would say now not to escalate. The worst thing would be war. So if Putin wants Donetsk and Lugansk, then let him have them. What is the big deal anyway?
What exactly is in Donetsk that makes it worth a world war? Some coal?
Now normally speaking I would not say this, because it is not nice to just walk in and take over. But most of what good there is in the Ukraine comes from Russia anyway. The buildings and the infrastructure, schools, doctors, etc. all come from when the Ukraine was part of the  USSR.

As it is it is hard to do any kind of business in the Ukraine because business agreements are worthless. You can buy a apartment from someone you think is the owner and the next day the real owner shows up and asks what are you doing in my apartment? In Russia at least business is possible.


But this is all not really relevant to the main point. What seems to be happening is that Putin seems intent on matching whatever the Ukraine does. If the Ukraine sends in more troops then Donesk makes a draft and the Russians send in hardware and military advisers. There is not end to this scenario except not to escalate in the first place.
Don't send in more troops and then Russia will not send in more troops. And the young soldiers on both sides get to live out their normal lives instead of dying over a border which has always been fluid.

Even the critics of Musar(--the movement of Israel Salanter to get people to learn Jewish books of ethics from the Middle Ages-) admit it brings one to fear of God.  In fact that is their major criticism of it. They don't like the fact that it brings one to fear God. They think that is a bad thing. So no one is disagreeing with what Musar accomplishes. Rather they don't like what it accomplishes if done with the proper fervor and intensity.

Some people might think that fear of God is a bad thing.

Highly recommended spiritual groups: The Lithuanian Yeshivas in New York, Mir, Chaim Berlin, Torah VeDaat. But for these places you in general need to have some knowledge of Talmud. For beginners in NY I would recommend Shar Yashuv.In Israel the best is Ponovicth. But that is known anyway as the MIT and Cal Tech of all yeshivas.

Less recommended  are almost any other Litvak Lithuanian yeshiva.
But cult places are to be avoided at all cost. They are dangerous cults (as the Gra pointed out).
But they have charisma, and people get spiritual highs from cults. Even so they are traps.
Sadly, some people feel that dangerous cults are only found in Hindu or Buddhist  groups. They feel anything Jewish is Kosher and the more Jewish and strict it is the more kosher it is. The truth is just the opposite. The more strict they are the more likely they are to be a cult. Especially when they parade their Jewishness.

The Rambam has a parable

The Rambam has a story inside the Guide about learning Physics and Metaphysics. It is the parable of the Kings palace. In short in the parable you have a country of a king in which people differ in their closeness to the king. there are people outside the country, inside, in the capital city, around the palace in the outer part of the palace and in the inner part.
The parable refers to how close people are to God. There the Rambam puts philosophers and scientists in the palace with God.
But he also makes a condition that they need to be facing God.

This comes mainly from learning Talmud. I believe in free market and family values.And any Jew that believes in Torah I highly recommend to vote Republican no matter who the candidate is.

Just for a lesson about what happens to when you attack the Republican Party whose symbol is the elephant.:

A bathing bull elephant got a painful surprise when a 13-foot crocodile chomped down on his trunk at a South African game reserve.

American tourist Ashley Lewis, 31, snapped amazing photos during her Dec. 26 trip to the Sabi Sands reserve of the reeling bull elephant rearing up on his hind legs with the croc latched onto his trunk.

“We had been sitting in our truck on the riverbank. Suddenly, about 300 yards upstream we heard loud and frantic trumpeting from an older bull elephant,” Lewis, a fitness marketer from Michigan, told Barcroft Media.

The elephant was bathing with his herd in the river when a crocodile lurking just below the surface sank its teeth into his trunk.

“The elephant reared up and down, taking the croc with him as if he was waving around a toy,” Lewis said.

The stubborn reptile loosened its grip only after the elephant slammed it to the ground, bashed it with his knee, and gouged it with his tusks, Lewis said.

The elephant then booked it out of the water, and is expected to make a full recovery, Barcroft Media reported.

The fate of the crocodile is unknown, but reserve rangers believe it likely suffered serious injuries.

http://nypost.com/2015/02/05/foolish-croc-chomps-down-on-elephants-trunk-regrets-it/

It seems to me that when I was at Walt Disney's "Its a small world after all," I got the impression that he was saying that people differ in dress, but all biological differences are irrelevant. [the song itself is from Mozart]

This came up because of my question about elite schools. The idea of my learning partner was that the USA is not elite enough. 

This seems to me to relate to the fact that most species have changed within the last 10000 years And the human species is also evolving into different species. Perhaps many different species. But at minimum we can see the major differences with be three. Whites. Blacks. Muslims.

The differences in species start with race and can come about by one groups being separate from another group for enough time. It does not matter why one group is separated from another. But it is that separation that causes the species to diverge.
This may not sound like Sunday school, nor John Locke. But it is simple biology.

In the Talmud, Sanhedrin, 62b.

Rabbi Zachi said there is something stricter about the Sabbath Day than other commandments of the Torah. For if one forgets concerning the Sabbath, and does two acts of work, he brings two sin offerings; and if he forgets about the other commandments, and does two acts, he brings one sin offering.
This is part of a whole discussion. But for now I wanted to make note of an amazing question.
It is the fact that the Gemara asks on Rabbi Zachi, and even as the Gemara tries to answer him, it still remains clear that the Gemara is unhappy with his statement. 
It asks, 
"What is he talking about? If one forgot two types of work on Shabat--so that he is liable twice, but also for other commandments if he eats blood and fat he is also liable twice. If on Shabat he did one type of work twice, he is only obligated once, but also if he ate blood twice also he is only liable once."

Then the Gemara tries to claim his statement is referring to idolatry and that will bring a support to Abyee.

But what is wrong with what he says at simple face value? We know on Shabat there is חילוק  מלאכות, division of work. He forgets two kinds of work he is liable twice. This we don't have any arguments about. If he forgot two or more areas of his beard he is not supposed to shave, then he is liable once. There is no division of work in other commandments.
This questions comes from my learning partner. And I can tell you don't bother looking at Tosphot or the Maharsha. No one addresses this. This is one thing I have found out about him. Often he will think of questions that should have been obvious but for most people are not.

You might ask maybe he means he forgot Shabat? Then he is in fact only liable one.


סנהדרין סב: רבי זכאי אמר יש חומר בשבת מה שאין כן בשאר מצוות. בשבת אם עשה שתי מלאכות בהעלם אחד הוא חייב  שתי חטאות משא''כ בשאר מצוות. הגנרא שואלת על איזה מצב הוא דיבר? אם הוא עשה טחינה וקצירה בהעלם אחד שזה חייב שתיים כמו כן בשאר מצוות אכל חלב ודם הוא חייב שתיים. אם עשה שתי פעולות  טחינה שזה חייב אחת כמו כן אכל דם ודם וחייב אחת. יש פה קושיה גדולה. מה שרבי זכאי אומר  בדיוק גמור. בשבת יש חילוק מלאכות משא''כ בשאר מצוות. בשבת אם עשה שתי מלאכות בהעלם אחד-היינו ששכח שתיהן- הוא חייב שתיים.  אם שכח ואכל שני מיני חלב הוא חייב אחת.

To make this clearer: the Gemara is treating the works of Shabat as separate mitzvot. But they are not. They are only part of one mitzvah--Shabat.

I am not saying there is no answer here, but it eludes me for the moment. [Two years later I am pretty sure I never found an answer.]

When I was in high school I felt I needed more of a challenge. The school I was in was going too slow for my taste. [Today looking back on it it is hard  to see what I was thinking.] In any case, my parents made the efforts and found an elite private school that had very high standards and feed into the Ivy League school in the USA. After they accepted me, when it came time to make a final decision to attend or not I backed down. This gives me a little perspective on what an elite school is.

I now have a little perspective on some mistakes I made in life after  that. Because a one time I was in a very good yeshiva in NY--the Mir. And then I got involved in Breslov. And I must have been thinking that by leaving the Mir and joining Breslov that was coming close to a true tzadik. Yet now I see that leaving an Ivy league yeshiva to join a mass movement is not the same thing as coming close to a tzadik. In fact now it looks to me just the opposite. Joining Breslov in no way implies one is coming close to a tzadik. In fact, what ever fear of God one has before he joins, he will probably lose because of the nonsense people say. \?

Saturday is the day of the week one is supposed to rest from labor. We know what "labor" means because the Bible tells us to build the Temple, but not to do so on Saturday.
So we know that the types of labor that went into building the Temple are the types of labor you are not supposed to do on Saturday.
If one forgot that today is Saturday and did some kind of work, then he brings a sin offering (Leviticus chapter 4);-- a she sheep or a she goat. It is best not to forget because this can get to be expensive.
There are other kinds things for which one brings a sin offering. One example is eating fat that is over the stomach of a cow. [That is called chelev in Hebrew]. But that is indistinguishable from fat from other areas of the animal. So lets say Joe is at his table and eats a piece of fat he things is allowed.
Then Mr Smith comes in and asks, "Where is the chelev I left on the table?" Joe brings a sin offering. But he would also bring a sin offering if he thought chelev is permitted.
That is: there are two kinds of accident for which one brings a sin offering; (1) a mistake in material facts, or (2) a mistake in law.



If you forget it is Shabat is that the same as a mistake in material facts or in law?
What I am getting at is this.
One bows to an idol and he did not know it is an idol. He is not liable.
But if he thought it is not an idol because it is made of clay, not silver or gold, then he is liable a sin offering [a she goat].[The Book of Numbers 15] Rambam שגגות ז:א
So he made a mistake in law and he is liable. And that is what we find in laws of Shabat also. If he did not know something is forbidden, he is liable a sin offering. But what if he forgot? You would say it is the same thing. Then in idolatry why in Sanhedrin (62b) does Abyee not say שגגת עבודה זרה [accidental idolatry] is when he forgot?
I answered once that Shabat he is required to remember so forgetting it is close to doing something on purpose.(To me today this seems ad hoc, or a Pollyana kind of making an unwarranted exception for one thing.)
But today it occurred to me that idolatry might not be like Shabat. My learning partner has suggested that you can't say someone is liable for idolatry unless there is a physical object involved.
Let's say someone bows to Apollo. Without a physical statue in front of him, you can't say he is liable
So what I suggest is forgetting Shabat where there is no physical object involved is forgetting a law, and thus he is liable. But forgetting an idol is an idol is forgetting material facts, and thus he is not liable.
Appendix: I am probably not writing this in the proper order.
In any case, you can ask: if the Rambam is right (that serving the idol he thought was allowed because it was clay), then why did not Abyee and Rava jump on that example?  Answer: They did. Rava certainly did when he says "אומר מותר". [H says it is allowed.] And Abyee is also doing the same. He is saying a case of mistake in law is a שגגה accident.
 יש ארבעים ושלשה חטאים שבשבילם אדם מביא קורבן חטאת. יש שני מיני שגגה בהרבה מהם, שגגת מציאות ושגגת דין. החברותא שלי רוצה לומר שרק כשיש הנאה יש שגגת מציאות. למשל אדם אכל חלב ולא ידע שהוא חלב ואחר כך אמרו לו. הוא חייב חטאת. אבל אדם שהרים ירק בשבת בחשבו שהוא תלוש, והתברר שהיה מחובר, הוא פטור בגלל שהיה מתעסק. לפי זה אפשר להבין אביי בסנהדרין סב: אביי אמר שאם אדם השתחווה לאנדרטא (ורש''י מוסיף ולא ידע שפעם היתה נעבדת והתברר שהיתה נעבדת), לא כלום הוא
אני שאלתי על זה מהרמב''ם הלכות שגגות ז:א' וב'. זדון עבודות ושגגת עבודה זרה חייב רק חטאת אחת. אבל החברותא הראה לי שהרמב''ם מסיים שהוא חשב שאינו עבודה זרה בגלל שלא נעשה מכסף או זהב. משמע שטעה בדין.

הבעיה כאן היא זאת. כשהרמב''ם רוצה למצוא שגגת עבודה זרה הוא הולך לטעות בדין ואז הבן אדם חייב קרבן. וכשהגמרא רצתה למצוא שגגה שהוא פטור בשבילו היא הלכה לטעות במציאות. איפה הדיון הפשוט? שהוא שכח שהצורה הזאת היא עבודה זרה??
  רואים מזה שהגמרא והרמב''ם מדקדקים לומר דווקא טעות בהוראה
לא כמו שבת שבמצב שאדם שכח שהיום שבת כן הוא חייב קרבן.
אני חשבתי לתרץ שבן אדם חייב לזכור את השבת ולכן כשהוא שכח זה קרוב למזיד והוא חייב חטאת, מה שאין כן בעבודה זרה. אבל היום חשבתי שיכול להיות שע''ז אינה כמו שבת. דוד אמר לי שאי אפשר לחייב בן אדם על ע''ז אלא אם כן יש חפץ גשמי. בלי זה אין על מה לחייבו. מזה אני בא להציע ששגגת שבת איפה ששכח את השבת אין שום חפץ גשמי. זו היא טעות בדין, ולכן הוא חייב חטאת. אבל כששכח שאיזו צורה היא ע''ז זה שכחת מציאות ולכן הוא פטור.
עכשיו אפשר לשאול אם הרמב''ם צודק למה אביי ורבא לא תפסו את הדוגמה שלו--שחשב מותר בגלל שנעשית מן חומר לא כסף ולא זהב? תירוץ: זה כן שבם אומרים. רבא אמר שגגת ע''ז היא כשהוא אומר מותר. אביי גם אמר ששגגת ע''ז היא כשעשה טעות בדין וחשב מאהבה ומיראה מותר.

Individuality is known to be an important principle.  "One was Abraham" That Abraham served God only by thinking that he was alone in the world and not looking at people that tried to stop him from serving God in the way he knew he was right.  They were trying to tell him the only way of getting to God is by intermediates. And also anyone who wants to come close to God can do so only in this same way--by not looking at the people that want to distract him.
But it is less known that the Gra said a similar thing.on Proverbs 14 verse 2.
"We know from the Rambam that for a person to correct his own character flaws he has to do things that are wrong in the eyes of people." [This we know from Maimonides in the eight chapter introduction to Pirkei Avot.]

The Gra says one who succumbs to social pressure to do what is right in the eyes of people but which he knows is wrong in terms of his own need for character correction, God despises him.

In other words there is no mitzvah to follow social norms. There is only a mitzvah to follow the Torah. And the Torah does require of people to have good character. Good character is one of the 613 mitzvot.  מה הוא רחום אף אתה תהיה רחום מה הוא חנון אף אתה תהיה חנון "As God is compassionate so must you be compassionate. As God is kind, so you too should be kind." And this is listed in the list of the 613 by the Rambam.
I have to say this because some people think the Torah requires conformity with the group. But clearly only stupid people can think that because it is self contradicting. Even so I have heard it from many people who have clearly not thought out their position.

The Gra, Eliyahu from Vilnius says that every word of Torah is a mitzvah that outweighs all the other mitzvahs.
In this context he is talking about the Oral and Written Law. You need to be careful about this because nowadays many people think any ideas that any jerk says in Hebrew is called Torah. Some go further and say that anything  some idiot with a paper of ordination from three other idiots says is a halacha. [The Oral Law is the two Talmuds, Mechilta, Sifra, Sifri, Tosephta. Five books. Nothing more or less. ]

In any case, the Gra is getting this from a Mishna and a statement in the Jerusalem Talmud.
And that is important because it has become customary to change what the Torah's view is on things in order to make it more compatible with some delusional idiots ideas of what Torah ought to say.

So this idea is money in the bank. We can count on this idea as being accurate, that every word of Torah outweighs all the other mitzvahs.
And when the Talmud says when a mitzvah comes along that can't be done by others one stops learning, the Gra says that means one is allowed to stop learning to do the mitzvah, not that he has to.


And here the Gra is making a lot of sense. For one who is occupied in one mitzvah does not have to do any other mitzvah even if the other mizvah is greater. So it makes sense that one can go and do the other mitzvah if he wants to, but he does not have to.

This is all in the way of introduction. I know the Rambam holds from learning Physics and MetaPhysics as the fulfillment of the command to love and fear God because of how it inspires a person. I just wanted to bring the idea of the Gra as a first axiom and then

 And learning Torah is like sacrifices that need to be for the sake of heaven for them to have any value. A sacrifice that is offered with intention to eat it after its time allotted is not just not a mitzvah, but karet [cutting of from ones people].

I am not one to try to decide between these people. But what I would suggest is that if we can't be learning Torah with the kind of התמדה constancy as the Gra was advocating, at least we can put in a couple of hours per day. [For people just starting that would be the written law that is to go through the Old Testament word by word from beginning to end, and the Mishna. upon which the Talmud is based. Also one session with Talmud in depth to begin to get an idea of the depths of the Talmud because that is important at the very beginning of ones learning. If you don't get that right away, you never get it. You find lots of people that think learning Talmud in depth means memorizing lots of commentaries  or other nonsense.

To the Rambam learning Physics and Metaphysics brings to fear and love of God which are the major goals of the Torah.
Let me try to be short.
The Torah is clothed in the Creation. So when you learn about God's creation you are learning God's wisdom.

But you could in theory go into this in detail with bringing different places where the Rambam go into this in more detail. This is probably a worthwhile project also since for some reason people tend to go away from physics when they start learning Torah thinking there is some kind of contradiction.

Major sources: Rambam beginning of the Guide, beginning of Mishna Torah, end of vol III or (vol II) in the Guide in the story about the palace of the King,


 To put this all together you have to start with the idea that the goal of Torah is to come to love and fear of God. Then you need the idea that the the world was created by the ten statements of Genesis, and thus those statements are the life force of all that is in the world. And that those ten statements are the clothing of the Ten Commandments. And the highest statement is the first one "In the beginning God created heaven and earth" in which it does not say openly God said. It is the hidden statement which is the life force of everything and everywhere where God's glory is hidden.
Thus Torah is God's revealed wisdom and Physics and Metaphysics is his hidden wisdom.

That is the short and simple of it.
 There are people that if exposed to straight Torah will not be able to accept it.  This explains also how often it is better for people to learn the natural sciences rather than open Torah, because זכה נעשית סם חיים, לא זכה נעשית לו סם מוות. By being exposed to open Torah one can become worse. And in fact this often happens before our very eyes.
Also seeing the wisdom inside ever aspect of creation binds ones soul to the purpose of that individual creation which in it s higher source is close to the purpose of all creation which is God's glory.




____________________________________________________
Appendix:
1) I want to suggest that this learning should be coupled with regular books of Fear of God. Mainly books from the Middle Ages. The world after the Middle Ages lost a lot of Fear of God and so to be inspired in that direction one needs books from that period. Also Musar books after the Middle Ages have a lot of Kabalah and that tends to side track people from good charter into religious fanaticism.
This is why I think the original Musar Movement of Israel Salanter was based on Medieval books of Fear of God and not books based on Kabalah.
I was in fact in a place once that was following this approach of Israel Salanter (Musar),  and the effect was electric. (That was the Mir in Brooklyn, NY.)

To the Gra  learning Torah means the Oral and Written Law.

That is the two Talmuds and the Mechilta, Sifra Sifri and Tosephta.

You can see this even more clearly in his disciple Chaim from Voloshin. In one letter he says אין לנו אלא דינא דגמרא. we only have the law of the Talmud when he is arguing with some rav about some decision of his.

But learning Halacha was not on the agenda of the Gra. The Gra wanted people to learn the Oral and Written Torah, and after that kabalah after they had finished the Oral Law.


What I am suggesting  is to learn like the Litvaks: Gemara Rashi Tosphot with the Rambam and Chaim Soloveitchik.
 On the side I would have a Halacha session in Rambam, Tur Beit Yoseph, Shulchan Aruch. But I would not make halacha into the main thing. In the Mir in NY halacha was a half hour in the morning compared to four hours of depth Gemara until Mincha and the 4 hours of fast Gemara in the afternoon.

What does trust in God mean?

  Do you  go after your own needs, but also trust in God?
Or do you need to sit and learn Torah, and assume that what is decreed for you will come automatically? [As the disciple of Reb Israel Salanter wrote in his book Madragat HaAdam מכאן שאין אדם צריך לשום סיבה אלא מה שנגזר בשבילו יבא ממילא בלי שום סיבה כלל] (Translation: "From here we learn that a person does not need any cause, but rather what is decreed for him will come to him without any cause at all--as the Ramban/Nahmanides concluded.")

The Gra said this issue is addressed in the Gemara Rosh HaShanah 26b.
The actual text of the Gemara is just about two lines. It says:
"The people in the local study hall did not understand a strange word in a verse in Psalms יהבך. 'Cast on God  יהבך [burden] and He will support you.' And then they saw Raba Bar Bar Hana walking with a merchant, and the merchant used that word and said, 'Put  יהבך on my camel'; and so then they understood it."
The Gra explained:  "They thought that one should do השתדלות (effort), one should take actions to get his needs meet, but also trust in God. But because of that, they did not understand the verse. They thought it should say צרכיך, 'Cast on God your needs and He will support you.'  After they saw that their original assumption was faulty, and that rather one should just sit and learn and then what one is supposed to have will come automatically, then they understood the verse." (This was in fact how all Navardok yeshivas were started: two students just would come to any Russian town and simply sit and learn Gemara and Musar in the local beit midrash [study hall] and a yeshiva would just pop up around them.)
They would not ask for money. They simply learned Torah.]
This above approach was clearly what people were saying or implying in Far Rockaway [Shar Yashuv] and later in The Mir Yeshiva in NY. The idea was in incredibly simple and straightforward: "Learn Torah and God will do the rest. He will take care of everything else."  [Though if you actually try to pin me down I could not tell you if anyone actually put it in such basic fundamental terms.] [In any case, I could not say I could fulfill this. I wish I had.]

 I have a modified version of this. That is there are things which  are obligations upon me that it would not be right to shirk. And when there are actual obligations that the Torah puts upon me,  I need to do. The cases where one should trust are things that are not actual obligations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above I am presenting the idea of Navardok of trusting in God, and assuming He will help without any effort on my part. That is the path of the Gra and Navardok. On the other hand the Duties of the Heart [חובות לבבות] says one should do effort. So what we have here is an argument among Rishonim [first authorities, i.e anyone from the Middle Ages]. And I was trying to show how I try to navigate my way between these two options.
__________________________________________________
So trust is  a kind of value that has nothing in the secular world to correspond to. And it is like walking on a tight rope over Niagara Falls. You really never know when to trust, and when to put out your own effort. It is highly personal. To bring this message to the larger public, the way to do so  is by starting a kind of Navardok yeshiva --which means a regular Litvak Musar Yeshiva, but with an extra emphasis on trust in God. [Or to set aside one room of your home or a yeshiva just for Musar. I saw this in Netivot in the yeshiva of Rav Montag there, and this makes a lot of sense to me. This helps to bring the basic message of the Torah into focus: to be a mensch, that is to have good traits.
___________________________________________________
This kind of conflict- when to trust and when to expend effort- is really just a single example of a larger set of conflicts in values that occur in life. Much of moral philosophy deals with conflicts in values. But even conflicts in moral values are even more basic to nature that we are aware. This is an example of  logical contradictions one gets into when he enters into areas where not just human reason, but even pure reason can't enter as Kant goes into. [That is this is an area of numinous value, the dinge an sich. ]

On a personal note I think I should have stuck with the basic approach of yeshivas in those days -"Trust in God, learn Torah and God will take care of the financial issues." When I left this kind of framework, not only did things fall apart from a Torah perspective, but from a financial perspective also-- almost with a vengeance. That was  to tell me in so many words, "You abandoned Me, so I will abandon you."  Whether you ascribe this interpretation to the events that occurred at that time or not does not really matter, because the fact is this: as long as I  trusted that God would take care of things, and I sat and learned Torah,  God did take care of everything in the best possible fashion possible. And when I stopped, so did He.

Appendix:

(1) I am not going into The problem of Evil or Theodicy. While I  try to have this attitude of trust, still when things do not go my way, I do not  make that a question on God. And it seems that this is required in order to have true trust in God. It has to come with its complement--of a determination not to ask questions when things go wrong.

(2) We know the self is hidden. We can't know our motivations. We often think we are acting from the most noble motivations. It is obvious to others that this is not the case. They can see through our self deception easily. The reason we fool ourselves is we think we have some kind of  special access to know out own motivations. And that is a delusion. But we do know what we are consciously committed to. And to know that is absolutely simple. We can only be committed do what is right or not. Those are the only two options and we can know every second whether we are acting in accord with what we know is the real truth of if we are putting self interest ahead of the truth

(3) Thus what I suggest is to learn the Madragat HaAdam [the book of Musar by  Joseph Yozel Horwitz  of Navardok] in order to try to get to trust in God as much as we can. That is what I am suggesting is that learning Musar is a way of penetrating into the Hidden-Self [the Ding An Sich]. And I am pretty sure that Reb Israel Salanter must have been thinking along these lines also. Reb Israel Salanter must have thought of his system of learning Musar as being a kind of spiritual practice that can penetrate the veil that separates us from the hidden reality. And I am inclined to agree.


(4) I should mention that the greatest yeshiva in the world Ponovitch has a connection with Navardok. The Stipeler Rav, Rav Kinevsky was a son-in-law of Rav Yoseph Yozel Horwitz the rosh yeshiva of the Navardok yeshivas.  

(5) The story with Navardok was the students were taught Ethics and Trust in God along with Gemara. And the kinds of students that came out of such schools really had good character. [Students of Navardok would just go to any random Russian city and sit and learn in the local synagogue and a yeshiva would automatically pop up around them.
Kelm learned Musar most of the day. The Mir (in the city Mir) learned from I think about from 1.5 or more hours per day of Musar after it became  a Musar yeshiva. [But in NY, the Mir had a 20 min. session in Musar before the afternoon prayer and 15 min. before the evening prayer.]

(6) Trust in God has become considered to be opposed to work. That is if you see someone learning Torah all day that is supposed to mean they trust in God. If they are working, it means they are not.
I disagree with this formulation of the problem. While it is true that to get a good picture of what trust in God is in practice, I do not agree that this formulation is the right one.  The way I see things is that Torah ought to be learnt along with a vocation, and survival skills.
That is in fact what you generally see in "Mizrahi" institutions. Or "Bnei Akiva." That is religious Zionism.

(7) I do not want to make it seem like I have trust in God nowadays. But I try to repeat that small paragraph about trust from the Gra when I wake up in the morning in the hope that eventually it might sink into me to begin to trust God again.

(8) Musar today I think should be directed towards finishing all of the four classical books of Musar along with the books of the disciples of Israel Salanter.  [There are two books from Isaac Blasser. The אור ישראל and a second one that just came out recently in Bnei Brak of his writings and letters. I saw this book in Netivot in Rav Montag's yeshiva but most people are completely unaware of the existence of this second book. The letters of Simha Zissel from Kelm I found completely unintelligible and no one has reprinted them. The מדרגת האדם {Level of Man}is  a masterpiece. The book אור צפון {Hidden Light}from the Rosh Yeshiva of Slobodka I think is important, but for some reason he wrote in every chapter something that seems contrary to the simple explanation of the Gemara. I was not able to make much progress there. That is incidentally where Rav Avigdor Miller went to yeshiva.]

(9) Trust also goes with accomplishment in Torah, not intelligence. See this note: "But in any case, is there any compelling evidence of a correlation between IQ and achievement? Richard Feynman  had an IQ of 123, which is OK, but not exactly astronomical, Yet he was one of America’s greatest theoretical physicists. ... Amusingly, William Shockley, inventor of the transistor, was among the elementary school children tested by IQ  researchers (in the 1920's). His IQ was not high enough to be a “termite”, so he was shut out of the experiment and was not deemed “gifted”."


(10) I have been hoping that by saying over to myself that piece of Musar [That Gemara Rosh Hashanah along with the commentary of the Gra] that somehow the concept of trust would get inside me. I can not say that I succeeded in that, but it did help me withhold action. I was in a situation which was very terrible but I thought that unless I am actually force to leave that I should not do so based on this idea of the Gra that if it is from Heaven it will happened whether you like it or not. So I stayed and somehow after years of torture somehow the situation just seems to have been resolved.


(You might that you are not allowed to learn in some beit midrash. That happened to me but that is from Heaven. In that way God will guide your steps to where you ought to be.  )

Asking for money to learn Torah seems to violate the Rambam's idea that for one to seek charity in order to learn Torah causes one to lose his portion in the next world. But to accept charity that is offered seems to be OK in terms of the end of the Laws of the Seventh year --"not just the tribe of Levi but all who put themselves out to serve God and turn from the pleasures of this world, God will provide." This seems to be in accord with the Mishna in Pirkei Avot. [Perhaps this is an issue of סוגיות חלוקות (differing approaches in the Gemara)? But I think this is not a case of disagreement but rather to seek charity to learn is forbidden, but to accept it if offered is OK. ]  But in a practical sense I think the majority of people have  a kind of intuition of who is learning Torah for its own sake and simply accept money in order to continue to do so,- as opposed to those who are learning Torah for ulterior reasons of personal gain. And all intuitions have a prima facie plausibility on the face of it unless some other intuition comes along with more prima facie plausibility that can defeat the first one as Dr. Michael Huemer goes into.