I would have to say that I agree with the מדרגת האדם about trust in God. That is to say I presented his opinion beforehand as some kind of academic exercise. It is look like  an argument among Rishonim. And no one can decide between rishonim. Still as he pointed out the Duties of the Heart also agrees there is such a thing as trust without effort.

But what I wanted to say is that this whole thing got too much mixed up with the Torah alone approach. Just because people are learning Torah does not mean they are trusting in God. And just because a person has learned and is occupied with a vocation does not mean he does not trust in God.
In fact, nowadays it looks almost the opposite. So what I suggest is to start some kind of yeshiva that would in fact take the approach of Navardok to combine Torah with trust.
 This must sound mild to most people, but I could go on a  tirade about yeshivas that trust in money and make it their business to do anything to get money --anything except getting an honest job. I myself have been fooled by these places. But instead of rejecting the whole idea of learning Torah I say simply that the Rambam has already told us not to get paid or accept charity for learning Torah.  I should mention that You should trust in God even when things don't go your way. That is the problem of Theodicy.

I should mention that I have seen in many yeshivas an attitude that they deserve  free medical care, free food,  free housing.  They  deserve it from the government even though they claim the government is evil. This is not the Torah approach. Though if you are learning Torah, that is not working. And if the government gives you charity, that is charity, not a pay check for honest work.  And you should be grateful for the charity.

Appendix:

(1) The background of this essay is the Madragat HaAdam's view that one should trust in God and do no effort to gets one's needs met. What is decreed will come to you. What is not decreed will never get to you with all the effort in the world. He brings the Gra and the Ram'ban (Nachmanides) for proof. The Duties of the Heart says one should do effort. But also brings an idea like the 'Rambam {Maimonides} that when one accepts the service of God, then the yoke of this world is removed. (When you say Rambam you stress the first syllable. When you say Ramban you stress the last.)

[2] There were lost of miracles with Navardok people. But they were never recorded because it was considered natural that when one trust in God, God pays back in return. 

רש''י יכול לומר הוא מסביר את הרעיון של שבועות השומרים פי חוות דעתו של רבי חייא בר יוסף. אבל תוספות כשהוא שואל על רש''י מנסה להדוף את הנקודה הזו. את זה אני לא הזכרתי  ברשימותיי. רבי חייא בר יוסף אומר עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן כי  כאשר הוא אומר  אצל שומר את המילים "כי הוא זה" אנחנו צריכים לשים את המילים האלה במקום אחר, כי הם לא מתאימים עם במקרה של שומר. אם האובייקט יש פה, יש להחזיר אותו. רבי חייא בר אבא אומר שאנחנו לא אומרים את זה. המילים בהתאים במקומם משום שאנו אומרים  ששומר צריך להיות מודה במקצת (הודאה חלקית) כדי להישבע.  רבא בשבועות מ''ה ע''ב אומר אם יש דבר כמו "מיגו" אז אף פעם לא יכול להיות שבועת השומרים משום שומר יכול לומר "לא היו דברים מעולם" ויהיה נאמן. לכן, כאשר הוא אומר "נאנס" הוא צריך גם להיות אמין. רש''י במקום אחר אומר כי שומר לוקח שבועה אפילו על טיעון של "לא היו דברים מעולם". מה תוספות שואל בצדק כי רש''י נסתרת ישירות על ידי רבא  שאומר טענה של "לא היו דברים מעולם" הוא נאמן. כתבתי כי רש''י יכול לומר רבא הולך כמו רבי חייא בר אבא שצריך מודה מקצת כדי שתהיה שבועה, וכי המקום שבו רש''י אומר שומר לוקח שבועה אפילו על "לא היו דברים מעולם" הוא כמו רבי חייא בר יוסף. מה תוספות כותב בשבועות מ''ה ע''ב ד''ה מתוך אני חושב נועד לדחוף את התשובה זה של רש''י. שם הוא כותב את שאלתו על רבינו תם "למרות רבי חייא בר אבא מחזיק אין שבועה עם הודאה ונאנס הוא מודה שקיימת שבועה עם הודאה וכפירה. מה תוספות עושה הוא אמור לתת נקודה לא רק על השאלה שלו על רבינו תם אלא גם רומז על רש''י שאפילו רבי חייא בר יוסף גם מסכים שאתה צריך מודה מקצת כלומר אתה צריך כפירה והודאה. זה רק עבור נאנס לבד שיש שבועה. כך הוא כבר חותר להגיע ריב''א


I admit I am not sure why Tosphot would say this. The only reason I mention this is simply to show that Tosphot was aware that Rashi might try to answer the question of Tosphot in the way I had suggested and tried to fend this off by saying even Rabbi Hiya Bar Joseph agrees when there is complete כפירה that we need also הודאה I mean he needs מודה במצקת. Does Tosphot have proof of this? I do not know. In any case, this whole subject clearly needs a lot more thinking.

 Bava Metzia on BM page 98a; Shavuot 45b/

Introduction. According to Rabbainu Tam, Rav Chiya bar Joseph says עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן. That means a שומר שכר   paid guard you do not need כפירה. So if you have נאנסו והודאה  alone that is enough to take an oath. Rav Chiya bar Aba says שומר שכר   (paid guard) need כפירה in order to take an oath.



That in my book I said Rashi can say he  explains the idea of שבועות השומרים according to the opinion of רבי חייא בר יוסף. I don't think in my book I made this point very clear. At any rate, what I was saying makes a lot of sense. But Tosphot when he asks on Rashi tries to fend off this point.  רבי חייא בר יוסף says עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן.
רבי חייא בר אבא says we do not say this.



רבא בשבועות מ''ה ע''ב says if there is such a thing as a Migo then there can never be שבועת השומרים because the שומר can say לא היו דברים מעולם and be believed. So when he says נאנסו he should also be believed. Rashi in a different place in Shas says that a שומר  takes a שבועה even on a plea of לא היו דברים מעולם. Tosphot asks rightly that that Rashi is contradicted directly by רבא who says a טענה של לא היו דברים מעולם is believed.
I had written in my book that Rashi can say Rava is going like רבי חייא בר אבא [you need מודה מקצת for there to be an oath] and that the place where Rashi says the שומר takes a שבועה even on לא היו דברים מעולם is like רבי חייא בר יוסף.

What Tosphot writes in Shavuot I think is meant to fend off this answer of Rashi. There he writes in his question about Rabbainu Tam "even though רבי חייא בר אבא holds there is no oath with הודאה ונאנסו  he admits there is an oath with הודאה וכפירה" What Tosphot is doing is saying a point not just about his question on Rabbainu Tam but also implying with his "even" to say that רבי חייא בר יוסף also agrees  מודה מקצת that is  כפירה והודאה would have an oath.

___________________________________________________________________________

 רש''י can say he  explains the idea of שבועות השומרים according to the opinion of רבי חייא בר יוסף.   But תוספות when he asks on רש''י tries to fend off this point. That much I did not mention in my notes. רבי חייא בר יוסף says עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן that is when it says by a שומר the words כי הוא זה we need to put those words somewhere else because they don't fit with the case of a שומר. If the object is there let him give it back.
רבי חייא בר אבא says we do not say this. Rather the words fit in their place because we say with a guard he need to be מודה מקצת admission in part in order to take an oath.




  רבא בשבועות מ''ה ע''ב says if there is such a thing as a מיגו then there can never be שבועת השומרים because the שומר can say לא היו דברים מעולם and be believed. So when he says נאנסו he should also be believed. רש''י in a different place  says that a שומר  takes a שבועה even on a plea of לא היו דברים מעולם. What תוספות asks rightly that that רש''י is contradicted directly by רבא who says a טענה של לא היו דברים מעולם is believed.
I had written  that רש''י can say רבא is going like רבי חייא בר אבא you need מודה מקצת for there to be an oath, and that the place where רש''י says the שומר takes a שבועה even on לא היו דברים מעולם is like רבי חייא בר יוסף.

What תוספות writes in שבועות מ''ה ע''ב ד''ה מתוך I think is meant to push off this answer of רש''י. There he writes in his question about רבינו תם "even though רבי חייא בר אבא holds there is No oath with הודאה ונאנסו  he admits there is an שבועה with הודאה וכפירה. What תוספות is doing is saying a point not just about his question on רבינו תם but also implying with his אפילו to say that רבי חייא בר also agrees you need מודה מקצת That is you need כפירה והודאה. It is only for נאנסו alone that would get an oath. Thus he is already striving to get to the ריב''א.

It sometimes happens you want to tell someone something that they need to hear but are not ready to hear. This happened with me and my father. He was not happy with my decision to go to yeshiva in at Shar Yashuv. It was not that he was unhappy with the Torah path. He just thought and wanted for me an honest vocation along with learning Torah..  That as a rule is true. But what I tried to tell him was that there is such a thing as learning Torah for its own sake. -And that also is true. but he knew that  if in fact you are learning Torah for its own sake,  then you need a kosher vocation on the side.

 What goes around comes around. My father wanted to tell me things that I was not ready to hear. And as a result of this I decided to turn off my connection with him. I had a kind of spiritual connection with me mother and a deep love for my father.  And that was the only time he had ever used his authority. Never before, nor ever after. And I was not willing to understand that what he was saying was Torah with a vocation. What he was saying was 100% true. But still I could not listen and as a result I lost my connection with him. 

For all the years after that I did not feel I had a connection with my father--because of that incident. But when he died some terrible thing happened to me. I felt like I had lost some kind of outer shielding. I had not realized that just by my father being alive and well there was a deeper connection with him than I had consciously been aware of. 

q48 c major q29   q26 a major  q20  j9 [j9 might need some editing] j10 j12 a minor 

Songs for the glory of God

q35 [q35 in midi] q67  [q67 in midi]    [This q67 needs editing. But I can not do it right now.] q63  [q63 in midi]  [This q67 also needs editing] l98 Exodus4       q96 in Eflat major in mp3 [q96 in F major in midi] [i do not know how two different pieces got the same name of q96]  [Exodus4 was from about 18 years ago on a trip back from Uman to California. We stopped in Philadelphia and I got out of the bus and this song just hit me like that. I spent the whole 1/2 break just writing it down and got back to the bus just as it was pulling out. q66 in midi   q66 in mp3

q79 E flat major [q79 needs editing] [q79 in midi]

I am surprised that libertarians think people can protect their own rights, but not a whole country. Some libertarian philosophers I have  a great deal of respect for. But in this subject they seem to be off. If a hostile population is intent on invading Europe and the USA, why should the borders be open? After all a country is made up of people. If people can protect their own right and space, so also a whole group of people ought to have the same right. I don't invite jihadists into my home. Why should a country invite them into its boundaries?

And this does not just mean physical boundaries. Every group has laws and norms. In the Talmud we find that to become Jewish there are standards. That is to keep the laws of the Torah. There is a whole formal process that this involves. No anyone can get in the front door. And even after you are in the front door there are standards. This is so in any group. Whether it is the Jewish people, or the Army or Marines. You certainly don't let people in that openly claim to want to break down the country or group.