The most famous issue concerning trust in God is when does one do "effort" [Hishtadlut]? This is an argument among rishonim [first authorities. i.e. authors from the Middle Ages] And it is a known fact that concerning any argument among rishonim each is "the words of the Living God" so you do not expect to find a resolution. [note 1] [The way this is referred to in Hebrew is "a machloket Rishonim" "argument of first authorities". Once you have gotten to the point something is a Machloket Rishonim that is the resolution of the discussion.]
  For example if you find an argument between the Ri and Rabbainu Tam you do not expect to find a complete solution. You rather expect to find support for one or the other. You never expect to disprove one or the other. If one thinks he has disproved a Rishon that means he is either stupid or insane. [note 2]
  [It would be like today if someone says they can accurately predicate the value of  a stock or the whole stock market in the ten ten years. They simply means the fellow thinks he is a lot smarter than he really is.]
[I do not know the reason for this. It probably has to do with a fact noted by Michael Huemer that the logic of the Middle Ages was always logically rigorous. The problems had to do with the beginning axioms. After the Middle Ages the axioms always sound a lot better but the logic is almost always circular.

Notes:

[note 1] The idea of "these and these are the words of the living God" comes from the Gemara in terms of arguments among the sages of the Gemara or Mishna. The idea is that even if it has been decided that the law is like or or the other, that does not mean the other was wrong. Rather "both are the words of the living God" even though the law was decided by one.]

[note 2] This does not apply to "achronim" people that wrote after the Beit Yoseph [Rav Yoseph Karo].[After the Middle Ages] They can be wrong and often are.

how to encourage devotion towards God while being aware of the pitfalls? My own experience is that Torah scholars tend to be demons. The exception is the true and authentic ones that are learning Torah for it own sake.

Even though I hold highly of the importance of learning and keeping Torah, the trouble is that there are obstacles such as the agents if the dark side. This was clearly the point of Rav Nahman when he referred to the Torah scholars that are demons.  Clearly his intention was to increase devotion to God--not to diminish it. So his question was how to encourage devotion towards God while being aware of the pitfalls? His choice was this approach to openly warn people. This is unusual I admit.

However the only people that I have heard of that take this warning to heart is the Na Nach group.

My own experience is that Torah scholars tend to be demons. The exception is the true and authentic ones that are learning Torah for it own sake.

Trust in God

The two modern books on Trust in God are from Navardok and the Chazon Ish. So based on what I learned from them I have been thinking for about a week what trust in God really means.
I mean to say that it is not the issue of when to do "Hishtadelut" [put out effort to get your needs] and when not. Rather I have wondered what the basic idea of trust is in the first place.
It can not be the thought that God controls events because that is just faith. And it can not be that God controls events in your own life because that is also just faith. But it can not be knowledge that things will be good, because often they are not. So what is it?

I think trust in God means the thought and feeling that "God will help me"  even when reason says He will not or does not care.

[That is here is a case like the idea of Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross that faith [immediate non intuitive knowledge] is not a faculty of reason and can be counter reason. [Based in Kant about the limits of reason. That leaves Kant with trouble about knowledge that is not based on reason nor empirical evidence. So Fries decided there is a third faculty of knowledge not based on either one. But his approach also had problems until Leonard Nelson modified it. However I forget off hand what the problems were or how they were answered.]

Kelley Ross [The Kant Fries School] is different from Michael Huemer [Intuitionists] but not that very different. With Kelley Ross you have knowledge not based on Reason or senses. Faith. But with Michael Huemer you know things because he expands the role of Reason.

Carl Jung might provide some insight into what Rav Nahman of Breslov meant by Torah Scholars that are demons

The problem that Rav Nahman is pointing out about Torah scholars that are demons is referring to a problem that  exists in the religious world. That the people that are at the top are demons. This filters down into the entire religious world.
I mean to say that Rav Nahman is not saying that every single Torah scholar is a demon. Rather just those at the top.

You would have to understand this I think in the way of Carl Jung about arch types. That is these people start out with human souls. But then they get attracted by the money and  the ability show themselves as experts in Torah. So slowly they lose their human souls and get possessed by an arch type "Torah Scholar Demon".

The idea would be along the lines that Rav Nahman referred to in a different context that the Satan found it difficult to trick and seduce people into evil and so he needed assistants. So he sends his demons to posses the souls of Torah scholars to make his job easier.

{This theme comes from the Zohar and Gemara itself but are mentioned only briefly. Rav Nahman however mentions this throughout the LeM.]


To me it seems that it really ought not to be hard to figure out who is a a true Torah scholars from the realm of holiness. Off hand it ought to be simple. Anyone following the straight path of Torah--i.e the path of the Gra and Rav Shach is from the realm of holiness. And I really would go with this assessment except for the trouble that somehow it seems the Dark Side has managed to infiltrate even the straight and narrow Torah world of the path of the Gra. So a simple assessment seems no longer possible. [I myself had a great time in both Litvak yeshivas that I went to, but if things are the same today as back then I am not so sure.]

Deuteronomy 21 about the case of a dead person found outside a city and no one knows who killed him. You bring a calf as a atonement.

What I have not figured out in Rav Shach on the Rambam in Laws about Murderers and Guarding of One's Life [chapter 9 law number 6] is probably simple to see but I have been perplexed about this. He needs that the Rambam should ignore our Gemara [Bava batra chapter 2] that says you only measure towards the close city in the mountains. If we are talking about a person that was murdered where there are lost of cities around you by the largest city. Not the closest. The Rambam ignores that Gemara and says you always go by the largest city.
The way Rav Shach answers this Rambam is perplexing to me.
The basic idea Rav Shach  borrows from is 10 stores. Some sell permitted meat and some sell forbidden meat. If one goes into one store to buy food and forgot which one he does not go by the majority because כל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה דמי "Things that are set in place you consider to be half and half." That is you do not go by the majority. But if the meat is found outside the stores then you go by the majority. So we already have a way to understand things. Our Gemara that is looking for a reason to ignore the largest city and go by the closest can be going parallel to the case of one buys in a store but forgot which one. There you do not go by the majority or largest.
But the Rambam has some other reason to think our case is like finding meat outside the stores.
So he has a ready made answer. The Yerushalmi in which there is a argument if the calf [Egla Arufa] is brought for the murderer or the murdered.We can say the question is from where did the murdered come from. Or the murderer. In either case this is where seem fuzzy to me. What Rav Shach wants to do is to say the Gemara that says you go by the closest is because it is going like the Yerushalmi. And the Rambam would claim he is going like our Gemara.
This is hard for me to get. The Yerushalmi says it is for the murderer. And there we would say it is a case of half and half. [This is what Rav Shach wants.] And our Gemara would say the calf [that is brought into a wadi and killed] would say we go by the murdered. And that would be like the case the meat is found outside the stores where we go by the majority.
On one hand the idea of applying the Gemara abut ten stores [from Hulin chapter 7] makes some degree of sense because of the difference between when to use majority and when not. But on the other hand the  gemara in Bava Batra does not at all seem clear to mean to only measure close when it is  a city in the mountains. Plus the verse itself says to measure to the nearby city. If the way the achronim are understanding this sugia that it is referring to a city that is by itself in the mountains it seems to make no sense to measure to a nearby city when there is no other one.

[My own guess about this problem would be to look at Kapach. [i.e the original Rambam that was from Yemen back at the time of the Rambam. Sometimes there are slight differences which clear up all teh problems.]]

The basic problem that Rav Nahman of Breslov refers to in terms of Torah Scholars that are demons is not easy to understand in today's terminology. No one really thinks that anyone walking around is actually a demon in disguise. But that might be more of a problem with modern thinking more than with Rav Nahman. And in fact modern world view change every ten years. For example Freud used to be thought to be obvious and common sense. Now totally discredited. Existentialism also was the big thing. Now obsolete.

השמטות של שמואל הורוויץ [the left out portions of the Life of Rav Nahman] were not ever included in the Chayee Moharan as being Not Politically Correct. But there you can find signs of how to tell.[So it is not just up to your own discretion. Rather Rav Nahman did give more details--but until now have not been widely known.]

There was in fact never done a thoroughly academic version of any of the books of Rav Nahman and so grave mistakes have been made by people that published them. [Mistakes that were not done by intention but still drastically grievous.]

Avi Preder [part of the Na Nach group] and David Bronson [in Uman] are more "in the know" but most in Breslov have not done the research to be able to tell.

Bitachon in God [Trust in God]`

Bitachon in God [Trust in God] has nothing to do with how many rituals one does. Just the opposite.
But on the other hand one does not hear much about trust in God in the Reform world. The Chazon Ish has the logical approach to Bitachon that I have heard of. It is not that you assume God will help. Rather it is a feeling that God is guiding things in the right way.\
Rav Nahman also has in his stories a few examples of this. The famous "Story abut Trust" however for me did not bring out this point as much as another story I think I saw in the "Chayee Moharan."
There was merchant who had a giant diamond. He booked passage on a ship. He was treated like royalty. But the diamond fell into the sea. Still he pretended he still had it and by his keeping strong and not losing faith that things would work out OK then in fact they worked out.

The advantages of trust in God are first of all something that Rav Nahman said: "By trust in God good thoughts are drawn to you."

This is the advantage of inner peace.
However I realize that it is possible for one to imagine that he is trusting in God when in fact he is depending on the system. That is self delusion.

I am I admit not sure about the whole idea of "kollel". But whatever one says about it, the point is being religious has nothing to do with trust in God.\ Being religious means presenting a facade of religiosity in order to gain money and power.