The idea of trust in God was the major focus of Navardok. Even though in the Madgragat HaAdam [the major book of Yoseph Yozel Horwitz] the founder of that branch of the Musar movement has one chapter devoted to trust in God, it is a theme that permeates the entire book.

The basic approach from how I understood it in the Mir in NY is to do what is required of you and leave the rest up to God. There that meant in translation "learn Torah and God will take care of everything else". And in fact that worked for people very well.

My own approach at this point however is slightly different. I hold from that basic structure except that I would add learning Physics and Metaphysics as part of the category of "learning Torah" as mentioned in all book of Maimonides and was apparently the general approach of the Rishonim who based themselves on Rav Hai Gaon. [You can see this also in the Obligations of the Hearts  a Rishon who came before the Rambam.]

The idea that all you need is trust in God in the Mir in NY meant to do what is required of you by the Torah and leave the rest up to God. Doing what is required meant mainly learning Torah but also included doing kindness when it is a situation that requires that and taking care of one's health. [That last one is from a verse "you shalt be careful for your soul" 

The issue between Michael Huemer and the Kant Fries school [Leonard Nelson] seems to be if there is such a  thing as non intuitive [that is not by the five senses] immediate knowledge, [faith]. That does not mean that Nelson necessarily that there is "implanted knowledge". [Huemer is right that there would be no reason to imagine that implanted knowledge has anything to do with reality.]

But what I think the idea of immediate non intuitive [that is not sensed] knowledge is that it is a kind of faculty that perceives things in the same way that the ear receives sound, the eyes light and the faculty of reason perceives universals. [The point is however that to reason you have to have beginning axioms. Otherwise you get the regress of reasons.]

I would like to add that this third source of knowledge comes even before Nelson [and Fries] It has its root in Plato with knowledge of the forms that is recalled. And Leibniz used this same idea but with the Platonic idea of preexistence of souls.

[Husserl and other who thought scientific knowledge is purely empirical and all empiricists and rationalistic were shown by Michael Huemer to be incoherent. [In one essay he shows how even the most basic empirical knowledge has to have some a priori content. The opposite side of things I recall him brings some sources that I forgot off hand.] In any case, Huemer does not go with the idea of non intuitive immediate knowledge as Nelson did. But he is not all that different since Huemer expands the role of reason. So he is including in Reason the same kind of thing that Nelson would have called immediate non intuitive. [For background I just want to mention that it all starts with Hume who wanted to confine the faculty of reason to "mereology", it merely tells you when there is a contradiction in your original axioms. The problem with Hume is he never proved that but simply assumed it--probably based on the fact that he used to be  a Geometry teacher to young students.]

It seems to me that Hegel is important but to this side of things, he does not add much from what i could tell. On one hand he certainly disagreed with Fries that there could be such a thing as non intuitive immediate knowledge. But he does have this way of approaching knowledge by a "dialectical process" which to me seems to be exactly what Huemer was getting at--that knowledge comes by an interplay between the senses  and pure reason. Would not Hegel just say that is dialectic?

Thus if a woman or man would go into the sea or a river with clothing that does not prevent the water from getting in that is a valid immersion.

The issue of a woman seeing blood once a month is called "Nida". If she sees after 7 days from the start then she is a "Zava".

I had a few thoughts about this today.

One is just that i wanted to share some information that I have had to share with others after it came up already  few times, [even though I have nothing new to add to the subject].

The basic way to go to a natural body of water after seeing blood is even with clothing. I mean to say that according to the law of the Torah only רוב ומקפיד הוא חציצה. That is the only time when going into the water can be invalid is if one is wearing clothing that stops the water from getting to most of the body and also that one does not want the water to get to the body. That is for a "division" between one and the water one would mean  deep sea diving gear. However there is a decree from the time of the Scribes that also מיעוט ומקפיד או רוב ואינו מקפיד חוצץ that is if there is something like a band-aid that one does not want the water to get through would also be a division between one and the water. Or clothing that would prevent the water from getting in even if one would not care if the water would get in. But there is no decree on a case where מיעוט ואינו מקפיד. Thus if a woman or man would go into the sea or a river with clothing that does not prevent the water from getting in that is  a valid immersion. [This is from the first part of tractate Eruvin, but it is also brought in tractate Nida. I have not added anything new here.]

[A nida goes into a natural body of water after seven days even if she saw blood for the entire seven days. (Which anyway almost never happens. A woman usually sees for 3, 4 or five days). The situation with a Zava is more complicated. Let's says she saw on day 8. She is a small zava. Then she waits one day and goes into a natural body of water. Same for two days. But if three days she is a regular Zava and needs seven clean days.  That is she needs to wait for an entire period of seven days without seeing any blood and then go to a river or sea and immerse and then she is clean.

w53 F Minor  w53 in midi  w53 in nwc format

Henry Kissinger held the peace of Westphalia was the political. It established the sovereign states of Europe. But from the point of view of the people at the time it was religious. Protestant versus Catholic. The Enlightenment thought as political [as the idea of getting rid of kings and priests and putting intellectuals in charge.] did not play a role as far as I can see.
The modern world with limited [or no] monarchs, and little role for religion from what I can see is a result of the English Glorious Revolution.

[Not that I think to go back to the way things were.]

From my point of view I think that one of the great benefits of trust in God is you stop worrying about politics or thinking you or "the people" control it.

It is well known that the main emphasis of Navardok was on trust in God. But he did not settle for the idea that he would sit and learn and God would take care of the rest. Rather he encouraged others also to learn Torah and trust in God.

That was from the advice of Rav Israel Salanter that he ought to concern himself with the needs of others. [He said in that generation that the troubles were so great that this was needed.]

But no school of Musar thought using Torah to make money was the proper approach. People certainly gave to Navardok but he never asked.

So it is a good question what one [let's say] wants to sit and learn Torah [not learn a profession] today? And I do not know a good answer to this question. I heard that Rav Shach said one should sit and learn and then when he gets married then to do something [anything] for making a living.

But none of the above are the reasons I bring up bitachon [trust] now.
The reasons I bring up the subject have nothing to do with when and how to make a living.
Rather I am thinking of a short note in Rav Nahman's book Sefer HaMidot that by trust in God good thoughts are drawn to one. על ידי בטחון נמשכים לאדם מחשבות טובות which to me seems to be a tremendous idea. [Of course it is well known that everything in the sefer hamidot has some source in the Gemara but simply Rav Nahman collected them in a short simple way].
It is common with Rav Nahman that he connects things in such a way that if you have a particular problem and you do not know how to deal with it, then you can find in his writings some connection to some other thing. So when you work on the other thing you get the first thing solved.

{I was also thinking of Rav Nahman's idea of how to learn what is known as "bekiut" which usually means going through a lot of material in the second half of the day. [That was how it was understood in the Mir and Shar Yashuv.] But Rav Nahman's idea of bekiut was not the usual type. For him it meant to go very fast. As fast as possible. [In the Conversations of Rav Nahman 76]. I think there is a element of trust in God to learn in such a way. [Also I am thinking that the idea was another idea mention in the major nook of Rav Nahman the LeM. There is intellect in potential and intellect in actuality. [I for get the actual chapter. I think it was around Vol I:25 or 24 or around there]. I think learning fast and getting through the book you are doing many times is learning in such a way that you get intellect in potential. Then by in depth learning, it becomes actual.