In פרשה עקב קפיטל ח' פסוק ג' the Torah speaks about the mon, and the פסוק says, ויענך, he made you suffer, וירעיבך, and he made you hungry, ויאכילך את המן, and he gave you to eat the mon. And it says in the Midrash, in Kohelet Rabbah פרשה ה' י' and in Lekach Tov, in Devarim on קפיטל ח' פסוק ב', that the words וירעיבך goes on ויאכילך את המן, which means that when it says he made you hungry, this refers to giving you to eat the mon. Which means that Moshe Rabbeinu was saying here that Hashem made you suffer and Hashem made you hungry by feeding you the mon. But this needs explanation, because what's the pshat he made you hungry through feeding you the mon? Lichora the pshat would be that even though you ate the mon, nevertheless you remained hungry. As the Gemara in Yoma דף ע\"ד עמוד ב' explains the previous פסוק, where it says that השם says, וזכרת את כל הדרך אשר הוליכך השם אלקיך זה ארבעים שנה במדבר, you remember the way that השם led you for forty years in the desert, למען ענתך in order to make you suffer, לנסתך to test you, לדעת to know את אשר בלבבך what's in your heart, התשמר מצותיו אם לא whether you will listen to the mitzvot or not. So the פסוק here mentions למען ענתך that Hashem made you suffer. How did Hashem make them suffer the forty years in the midbar? So the Gemara says that the suffering was in the fact that the mon that they had didn't really make him satisfied, didn't really make him full. According to one opinion the reason is because אינו דומה מי שיש לו פת בסלו למי שאין לו פת בסלו, it's not the same a person who has bread in his basket for to a person that doesn't have bread in his basket. Because part of the satisfaction in a person's eating is when he knows that he is secure that he will have food later on. But when he has food only for now and he doesn't have it for later, he doesn't have it set aside in his basket so to speak, then he cannot be satisfied. And by the man, since it came every day for one day, so they never had enough for the next day, because the next day it would come again, so they never were in a situation where they had פת בסלו, bread in the basket. So that's why they were not really satisfied. Another opinion is that אינו דומה מי שרואה ואוכל למי שאינו רואה ואוכל, it's not the same when someone sees what he eats לגבי someone who doesn't see what he eats. A blind person when he eats is not really satisfied because he doesn't see what he eats. And the same was with the man, since as the Gemara says there, a person could feel in the man the taste of any food that he wanted, but he wouldn't see it. All he would see was man, and he would feel the taste of other kinds of food that he liked. So he really didn't see the food that he really wanted to eat, so that's why he was not really satisfied. But all this only explains why after they ate the man and physically they were full, nevertheless they didn't feel completely satisfied, there was still a hunger there. So it comes out that the man did not satisfy them completely. But we cannot say that the man actually brought about a hunger. All the man did, they were hungry before they ate it. Normally when you eat food that you see and food that you know that you are secure for later, it makes you satisfied, it fills your hunger completely. But the man did not fill the hunger completely because of the two reasons that we said before. But how can we say that the man brought about a hunger? From the lashon of the pasuk is משמע, ויענך וירעיבך ויאכילך את המן, he made you hungry, he gave you the man to eat, which means that the man brought about a hunger. What is the peshat that the man brought about a hunger?

And the truth is in the man we find two opposites, two extremes. And let's call these two extremes the extreme of ashirus, the extreme of riches, and the extreme of aniyus, the extreme of poverty. On one hand, the man was the most rich thing possible, because first of all, it was לחם מן השמים, it was bread from heaven, which is the most precious thing possible. It had no פסולת, as the Gemara says there in Yoma, there was no waste. And this fits to what we said before, that it was לחם מן השמים, because if it was from heaven, there is no waste there. Everything is good, there is nothing negative about שמים, and therefore the man that came מן השמים also didn't have any waste. They were able to feel all the tastes, as we said before, in the man, which is the most rich thing possible. And in addition to that, it actually brought riches to the people, physical riches, as the Gemara there says that when the man came down, together with the man came אבנים טובות ומרגליות, gems and diamonds, etc., came along with the man. So the man represents the most precious thing possible. On the other hand, we find that the man is connected to aniyus, it is connected to poverty, as we quoted the pasuk before where it says למען ענתך, that the man brought about suffering and and poverty to the people. As we said before, since they weren't secure because they didn't have one day to the other, and they didn't see what they're eating, so this brought a feeling of insecurity, a feeling of poverty within the people. So the man has these two opposites. But, on the other hand, these two opposites are not two opposites really, they all come from a result of the same thing. Being that the man was לחם מן השמים, bread from heaven, which means essentially it was an ענין אלוקי, it was a godly thing, and for אלוקות, for godliness, there is no הגבלות, there are no limits, and therefore, when the man came down into this world in a form of physical food, but being that it came מן השמים, it remained as it was before, unlimited. And that is the reason, as we said before, it had no פסולת, it had no waste, because it came מן השמים, and it remained לחם מן השמים, so it had no waste, and therefore it was not limited to specific taste, because only a physical thing is limited. But when it came מן השמים, that it was a godly thing, it had no limits, and since it had no limits, you couldn't limit it to a taste of a specific thing. It had any taste in the world, it had an unlimited amount of taste. And not only that, it wasn't even limited to being food which mainly is צומח, things that grow, but it also brought along דומם, it brought along unmovable objects, which is אבנים טובות ומרגליות, which these are things that are not even food. Because it is לחם מן השמים, so it's unlimited, so it's unlimited completely. Not only unlimited to taste, but also unlimited in what category it is. That it wasn't only in the category of צומח, in the category of things that grow, similar to things that grow, or חי, things that live, the living animals, and therefore you were able to taste in it the taste of חי, of an animal, of meat, you were able to taste in it the taste of צומח, of things that grow, but it also came along with דומם, with unmovable objects, the אבנים טובות ומרגליות. And this is also the reason why there was no limit of how much you collected, as we know that whatever a person collected in the man, he always came out with the same amount, with an עשירית האיפה for each person, with an עומר for each person. Those people who collected more didn't have more, those people who collected less didn't have less. This also shows an unlimited thing. לחם מן הארץ, bread that comes from the ground, is limited, and therefore, if a person collects more, he'll have more. It's limited to what he does. If he collects less, he will have less. But לחם מן השמים, being that it's unlimited, it's בלי גבול, so it's not limited at all to what a person does. And this is the main difference between the man and regular bread. Being that the man was לחם מן השמים, it had no limits. לחם מן הארץ, bread from the ground, has limits, and therefore bread from the ground or any other food is limited to a certain taste, it is limited to how much you do and how much you collect, it has waste, etc., but the לחם מן השמים didn't have that. But this is all מצד the man itself. Since the man came מן השמים, this was the quality of the man.

But when we're looking at it מצד the aspect, the outlook of the people who collected the man, being that they are human beings, so they are not able to grasp an ענין רוחני, a spiritual thing, an ענין אלוקי, a godly thing, and therefore, since they're not able to grasp it, to them it also came out to be תכלית העניות, a concept of poverty. Because when something is limited, then you're able to grasp on it and say, \"This is it, this is mine.\" But if something is unlimited, then you cannot pinpoint and say, \"I grasp it and I have it.\" And therefore, as rich as it was, no one was able to say, \"I have it,\" and therefore no one felt that he owned it. So then it's a concept of poverty. And that's the meaning in the Gemara that אין לו פת בסלו, that by the man, the people didn't feel that they have it in their basket. They didn't have, feel that they grasp onto it, that they own it, that they really have it. And that is also the reason why the eye couldn't see it, because the physical eye, the limited eye, cannot grasp the unlimited. And therefore, as far as the eye is concerned, it didn't grasp, it didn't see, it didn't take in what this really was.

And this explains the peshat in the פסוק where it says, \"וירעיבך ויאכילך את המן\", that He made you hungry by giving you to eat the man. And the question we asked before was, meila if we say that by eating the man, they still remained hungry, that we understand, as the Gemara says. But what's the peshat that He made you hungry by giving you to eat the man? But the peshat is based on what we said before: everything in the world was created with a certain limit. It has its limits, its qualities, what it is, it is what it is, and not something else. And that's what לחם מן הארץ is, bread Bread from the earth is like that. It's food and not something else. And with it, within food itself, it is limited to its taste. And since it's limited to a taste, the person is able to grasp onto the taste, and therefore, when he grasps onto it, it satisfies him. That's the concept of being satisfied when you eat, because you know you take it in and you grasp onto it, it becomes part of you, and that's how you are satisfied. But when it comes to the לחם מן השמים, the bread from heaven, which was unlimited, and a limited human being will connect himself, will take in this unlimited bread, even though he knows that this is the most rich thing possible that is unlimited, but on the other hand, just because of that itself, he cannot grasp it completely, as we said before, and not only that, as much as he takes, being that he is limited, he always feels that there is more, because it is unlimited. So every time he feels a taste, he knows there are more tastes he's able to feel. So therefore, when a limited being takes in an unlimited thing, so he constantly sees there is more, so he's never satisfied with what he has. And therefore it brings about within the person a feeling of hunger. Hunger means that he's not satisfied, he feels hungry to more and cannot fill himself up. And this what happened by the man. Being that the man was an unlimited thing, so when the limited human being grasped onto it, this itself brought out within the person a greater hunger. First of all, in gashmiyut, a greater hunger because he knew that there were more tastes he could have, and since you can't have everything, so this brought about a hunger. But in ruchniyut, being that this was an unlimited thing, and the person is a limited person, so this brings about within the person a feeling of hunger, because it is something that he cannot grasp. And therefore the Torah uses the lashon by the man that this is a food אשר לא ידעת ולא ידעון אבותיך. It's food that you don't know and your parents didn't know, which really means that this is an inyan that there is no ידיעה, there is no concept of grasping onto it and understanding it, being as bli gvul. And this is why this brought about in the person a hunger, feeling that he's not satisfied. Interpreting this to a spiritual level, it means that by eating the man it brought a person to anivut and to bitul. That being that a person felt that there is much more to it, and he doesn't have it, so then this brought a person to bitul, realizing that there's a lot that he is missing. When a person would eat לחם מן הארץ, feeling that he grasped whatever he has, and it becomes part of him, so this made a person satisfied, and he felt that he has what he needs, and he is what he is. But when it came to eat the man, being that this brought about within the person a hunger, so he felt that there is much more to it, there is bli gvul, and therefore this showed a person how low he is, that he really is only limited, and he really is nothing, so this brought about within the person the feeling of bitul and the feeling of anivut. Similar to these two things, which is the לחם מן הארץ and לחם מן השמים, the bread from heaven and the bread from earth, the bread from earth, which is regular bread, and the bread from heaven, which is the man, and it's takeh called לחם מן השמים. As it says in פרשת בשלח, קפיטל טז, פסוק ד, it's also called דגן שמים, the grain from heaven, as it says in תהלים, קפיטל עח, פסוק כד. And that is the reason why there are certain opinions in the ראשונים that the berachah that the Yidden used to make over the man was המוציא לחם מן השמים. As it says in the Rama miPano, Sefer Maamar Shabbatot Hashem, חלק ב, in the beginning, he says that that's the berachah they're going to make on the man in the future. The man which was put away in the bottle, which was put away for the time of Mashiach, so when the Yidden will taste it, they will make a ברכה המוציא לחם מן השמים. And in Sefer Chasidim, סימן תתתמ, it says clearly: על המן היו מברכים הנותן לחם מן השמים. That on the mann they would make a berachah: הנותן לחם מן השמים. And even though the question that comes up is that in the time before David Hamelech there was no such thing as berachot, nevertheless we do find that there were certain berachot even before David Hamelech, as it says in במדבר רבה, פרשה יח, כ״א, and brought down in different places. So the mann was לחם מן השמים.

So similar to these two, the לחם מן הארץ and לחם מן השמים, we also find in Torah, because we know that the Torah is compared to לחם. It says in pasuk: לכו לחמו בלחמי, which means Torah. So Torah is bread, and there's a reason why the Torah is compared to bread, because just like bread, food, comes into the person and becomes one with the person, and the person becomes what he eats, it becomes united with a person, not like a levush, a garment, that even though you put it on, and it changes the look of the person, but it doesn't become one with the person, while bread becomes one with the person, so too with chochmah, when you understand something, it actually becomes one with the person. Therefore mitzvot are called levushim, because mitzvot is done by the person, but it doesn't become one with the person. When you put on tefillin, it's you who's doing the mitzvah, but the tefillin is not one with you. But when you learn Torah, you understand the chochmah, it becomes one with the person's mind. Therefore, it's compared to לחם. So לחם is chochmah, and in לחם itself, we find the two types of לחם, so in chochmah itself, we also find the two types of chochmah. There is chochmah which is חכמה לחם מן הארץ, and there is chochmah, wisdom, which is לחם מן השמים. And it's self-understood that which chochmah is called לחם מן הארץ? Those are all the other wisdoms, the חכמות חיצוניות, the secular wisdoms. Even though it's מן הארץ, nevertheless, it is chochmah. And the difference between that and Torah, which is like לחם מן השמים, is that these wisdoms are all limited. They have a limit to what they are, and that's it. Every sevara has its limits, and there is nothing more to it. On the other hand, חכמת התורה, which is לחם מן השמים, is unlimited. And that is the reason when a person learns chochmah, לחם מן הארץ, חכמות חיצוניות, he becomes satisfied, because he feels he's grasped onto the chochmah. And when he grasps onto, it becomes part of him, then this brings about in the person gaavah, that he feels, \"Ah, I have more. I grasped onto more, it became part of me.\" On the other hand, when a person learns חכמת התורה, being that it's unlimited, so he has much more, lehavdil, than he has in חכמות חיצוניות, but on the other hand, it brings about in the person a hunger. He feels that as much as he has, there is much more, because it's bli gvul, it's unlimited. And therefore, it doesn't bring about in the person a feeling of gaavah, but it brings out in the person a feeling of anivut, a feeling of bitul, because he feels the more he learns, the more he sees that's there, and the less that he knows, so therefore, it brings about a bitul. So we see the comparison that just like the difference between לחם מן הארץ and לחם מן השמים, that when a person eats לחם מן הארץ, it brings about a person more gaavah, that he knows that he becomes bigger and he feels satisfied. When you'll eat לחם מן השמים, the מן, it brings about more bitul in the person. The same thing is in Torah, that when a person learns the חכמות חיצוניות, it brings about more gaavah. He feels satisfied, he grasps onto it. But Torah, being that it's bli gvul, so on one hand, it's bli gvul, like the most, it's the biggest ashirut, it's the most rich thing it's possible. At the same time, it has the quality of bringing a person into bitul, into anivut, because a person feels that there is much more than what he has, and therefore, it brings about in the person a feeling that what he has is very little, and therefore, it makes a person a bigger