Genesis 2:20

וַיִּקְרָא הָֽאָדָם שֵׁמוֹת לְכָל־הַבְּהֵמָה וּלְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וּלְאָדָם לֹֽא־מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ׃

Hebrew interlinear

Tap a word to see its entry

The same verse in five languages

Hebrew

וַיִּקְרָ֨א הָֽאָדָ֜ם שֵׁמ֗וֹת לְכָל־הַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּלְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וּלְכֹ֖ל חַיַּ֣ת הַשָּׂדֶ֑ה וּלְאָדָ֕ם לֹֽא־מָצָ֥א עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ׃

Greek (Septuagint)

καὶ ἐκάλεσεν Ἀδὰμ ὀνόματα πᾶσιν τοῖς κτήνεσιν καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς πετεινοῖς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς θηρίοις τοῦ ἀγροῦ· τῷ τε Ἀδὰμ οὐχ εὑρέθη βοηθὸς ὅμοιος αὐτῷ.

Greek text from Swete's edition, CC BY-SA 4.0

Latin (Vulgate)

Appellavitque Adam nominibus suis cuncta animantia, et universa volatilia cæli, et omnes bestias terræ: Adæ vero non inveniebatur adjutor similis ejus.

Spanish

Así el hombre les puso nombre a todos los animales domésticos, a las aves del cielo y a todos los animales salvajes. Sin embargo, no se encontró entre ellos una ayuda adecuada para el hombre.

Classic Spanish (Reina-Valera 1909)

Y puso Adam nombres á toda bestia y ave de los cielos y á todo animal del campo: mas para Adam no halló ayuda que estuviese idónea para él.

English

The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

What the text says

Summary

The text states that ha'adam ("the man", H0120H) assigned shemot ("names", H8034) to all livestock, birds, and wild animals. Despite this comprehensive naming, no ezer ("helper", H5828) kenegdo ("corresponding to him", H5048+H9004+H9033) was found for him among these creatures.

Key words

  • va-yiqra ("and he called", H7121H) — qal narrative form, marking sequential action: naming follows directly from the preceding events in the storyline.
  • shemot ("names", H8034) — feminine plural noun, indicating multiple, individual acts of naming rather than a single collective designation.
  • le-khol...u-le-khol ("to all...and to every", H3605) — construct chains repeated three times, structuring the totality of creatures (livestock, birds, field animals) into one exhaustive list.
  • matza ("he found", H4672) — qal perfect, denoting a completed search with a negative result (lo, "not", H3808 precedes it).
  • kenegdo ("corresponding to him", H5048+H9033) — preposition ke ("like") plus noun with pronominal suffix "his", expressing correspondence or counterpart rather than mere assistance.

What the text says

The verse divides into two grammatical movements joined by the conjunction u ("and", H9002). The first movement, introduced by the narrative verb va-yiqra, has ha'adam (with the definite article, H0120H) as subject, performing the act of naming across three categories of creatures: ha-behemah ("the livestock", H0929), 'of ha-shamayim ("bird of the heavens", H5775+H8064), and chayat ha-sadeh ("animal of the field", H2416C+H7704G). Each category is introduced by construct forms of kol ("all/every", H3605), producing a formulaic totality.

The second movement shifts grammatically: the noun adam here appears without the article (H0121G, glossed as a proper name), followed by lo-matza ("he did not find") — a qal perfect verb negated. The object of this failed finding is ezer kenegdo, a construct-like phrase where ezer ("helper") is qualified by kenegdo, literally "like/corresponding to what is in front of him." The grammar signals a search among the just-named creatures that yields no match of this specific description.

Differences between versions

The Hebrew alternates between ha'adam (with article, word 4) and adam (without article, word 23) within the same verse. The LXX renders both occurrences as the proper name Ἀδάμ ("Adam"), and the Vulgate does the same with "Adam," treating the term consistently as a personal name throughout, where the Hebrew shows a grammatical distinction (articulated common noun vs. unarticulated form functioning as name). The phrase ezer kenegdo is rendered by the LXX as βοηθὸς ὅμοιος αὐτῷ ("helper similar to him") and by the Vulgate as "adjutor similis ejus" ("helper similar to him"), both emphasizing similarity, while the Hebrew kenegdo more literally expresses spatial/positional correspondence ("opposite/corresponding to him").

This explanation describes the text using linguistic data; it adds no doctrine or confessional interpretation.