English translation — בראשית א

Sicha 1<pg>1</pg>

A.

"And the man called names to all the cattle and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field"<sup>1</sup>

— and fish were not mentioned.

And we find regarding this two opinions<sup>2</sup>

: There are those who explain<sup>3</sup>

that he did not call them names

(And regarding the reason for the matter, the Radak wrote<sup>4</sup>

"And he did not mention the fish of the sea because it is not possible according to nature that the Almighty placed in them that they would come before man, for their life is only in water, and when they leave the water they die,

also they have no organs of walking, only organs of swimming"),

and there are those who say<sup>5</sup>

that also to the fish Adam the first man called names

(except that it is not explained in the verse).

And superficially, one must say,

that these two opinions are dependent on the definition of the matter of naming.

And as an introduction:

It is brought in the Midrash⁶

that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the ministering angels that the wisdom of Adam is greater than theirs,

"Bring before them the cattle and the beast and the fowl. He said to them, 'This, what is its name?' and they did not know. He passed them before Adam. He said to him, 'This, what is its name?'

(He said)

"Ox, this; donkey, this; horse, this; camel, this, etc.'"

And the content of the matter, that the wisdom of Adam the first was that he recognized the nature and character of all the creations and called them names that indicate the essence and character of those called by these names,

and as explained at length in the commentators on the Torah⁷

and the commentators on the Midrash.

And one can explain this in two ways⁸

: a)

The calling of the names is for the benefit of man,

that through the names he will recognize and make known the characteristics of those called by name⁹.

b)

The calling of the names was for the sake of the creations themselves,

that before a creation has a specific name, its characteristics are not revealed

(as it were),

and through being called by a specific name, they become revealed, etc.¹⁰.

And according to this,

the name is

(also)

for the benefit of the one called by the name

(and one could say that the calling of the names itself effects the revelation of the nature and characteristic of the one called by the name).

And ostensibly one can say that this is the reason for the difference between the opinions,

whether Adam called names also for the fish or not:

According to the opinion that he did not call names for the fish — the reason for the matter is,

because the calling of the names is for the sake of man,

so that he can use them etc.,

and this does not apply

(so much)

to fish,

and as it is written in Chizkuni¹¹

"Fish he did not bring because they are within the water and they do not come out, and if they come out they die, and he has no dominion over them"

[that <pg>2</pg>

Although it is explicit in the verse&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;

"And they shall rule over the fish of the sea" — but the ruling over fish is not similar&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

to the ruling over all the beasts of the field etc.,

for over them man rules while they are alive and uses them,

but not so with fish, that the ruling over them is in a manner that he takes them out of the water and thereby they die and he eats them&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

etc.]

— and since it is a limited use,

there was no need for Adam to call them names.

And according to the opinion that he called names also for fish,

this is because the calling of names is

(mainly)

for the sake of the animals themselves,

that through this their nature and their quality is revealed&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;,

and this applies also to fish.

2.

And one can say,

that this is the content of Rashi on the verse¹⁶

"And whatever the man called a living soul, that is its name" — "Invert it and explain it,

every living soul that the man called, that is its name forever",

for at first glance, what does Rashi come to teach us by adding that this is its name "forever"?

And why did he not explain

(according to the plain sense of the language)

that the name that Adam called is by this, that he recognized the nature and quality of the thing,

in the language of the Radak "that is its name — that is its name fitting for it according to its nature",

or as it says in the Chizkuni "that is the name proper for it,

that his mind agreed with the mind of his Creator"¹⁷.

[And in greater depth, it is in the books the explanation "that is its name",

that the name which Adam called is his true and essential name,

and for example, an ox that is called by its name thus, on account of its root, which are the three letters shin-vav-resh in the Holy Language, and likewise all of them, and therefore Adam, who had extra wisdom and comprehended and knew the root and content of every species, was able to call them by the true name,

as the Maggid elaborated¹⁸],

And it can be said that Rashi's method is like the second way above,

that in the naming of the names there was an action by Adam to reveal these qualities,

and according to this Rashi explains "He gave it its name forever",

that Adam's action is a perpetual and eternal action in the thing called by this name¹⁹.

3.

And behold, the beginning of the matter in the Torah regarding the naming of the names is "And the Lord God formed from the ground every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living soul, that was its name",

and afterwards it continues regarding the actual naming of the names — "And the man called names, etc."

And seemingly from this that the verse begins with the matter "And formed Hashem G-d etc."

(Even though the account of the creation of the creatures was already stated before this in the portion),

one may bring a proof that the calling of the names is a thing that pertains to and affects the body of the creatures,

and therefore this was stated as a continuation of "And formed Hashem G-d etc." — the formation of the creatures — because the calling of their names constitutes the completion of their formation.

But behold Rashi already brought¹⁶

from "words of Aggadah"²⁰,

that "formation is an expression of subjugation and conquest<pg>3</pg>

like "when you besiege a city"&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

that they are subdued under his hand of a person",

and superficially so one must explain according to the opinion that the naming of the names is only for the benefit of man,

and as is also understood from what is said in Chizkuni,

as above,

that the name pertains to dominion over them&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;.

But nevertheless it is implied from the totality of the content of the parshah that the naming of the names was an action in the named — for the verses about naming of names were said within the parshah of making a helpmate opposite him

(the creation of Chavah),

from which it is implied that also the naming of names to the creatures pertains to the thing called by the name in the manner of the creation of Chavah which is the completion of her creation

(and of Adam).

[And even though the commentators&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;

the continuation of the verses,

that when the Holy One, blessed be He, said "I will make him a helpmate opposite him"&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;,

He brought before him every beast of the field etc. to call them names, meaning to contemplate and recognize their nature,

and after Adam saw and understood in them and in their names and saw that among the creations there is none fit to be a helpmate opposite him,

"And for Adam&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;

he did not find a helpmate opposite him",

then "He caused to fall&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;

Hashem Elokim etc. and He took one of his ribs etc. and Hashem Elokim built the rib etc. and He brought her to the man"&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

— behold

(In addition to this that it is perplexing in the very explanation,

for since it is revealed before Heaven that among the creations there is none who is fit to be a helpmate opposite him,

what reason did He bring all of them before Adam so that he would contemplate their nature etc.

(through calling names)

until he would come to recognition that there is no helpmate opposite him — behold)

Since all matters of the Torah are with utmost precision,

it stands to reason,

that this which is said regarding the naming of names within the portion of the creation of Chava is

(not only because through the naming of names it became clear to Adam HaRishon that there is none among them who would be a helpmate opposite him,

but)

mainly because there is in this a connection also in the content of their matter].

4.

And it seems to me that according to all opinions the naming of names of Adam HaRishon was an action that affected those who were called by name,

except that there are two ways in this,

as follows.

And with an introduction: In the creation of the world — two matters: 1)

The essence of creation by the Holy One, blessed be He, is in a manner that a thing came into being in and of itself,

so that it is not noticeable in it that its existence is from the Holy One, blessed be He.

2)

The purpose of creation is — "And He placed him in the Garden of Eden to work it and to guard it"²⁷,

that man, through his service, will affect the world and every thing in it, that it will be nullified to the Holy One, blessed be He

[And as Adam the first man did immediately when he was created — on the sixth day — that he demanded from all the creations that they accept upon themselves the kingship and dominion of the Creator, proclaiming "Come, let us bow down and kneel, let us bless before the Lord our Maker"²⁸],

until it reveals in it the truth of His existence,

in the language of the Rambam²⁹

that "all existences...

were not brought into existence except from the truth of His existence."

And based on this, it can be said that these are the two manners in the explanation of the content of the naming of the names by Adam the first man — whether it is the continuation and completion of the body of creation that is by<pg>4</pg>

the Holy One, blessed be He,

or that it is included in the purpose of creation and the action of man.

5.

Explanation of the matter:

From the aspect of the very creation of the Holy One, blessed be He,

there is no division in the creations into particular species but only a general division,

into general categories.

And as we find in the ten utterances with which the world was created&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

that only general categories were specified

[like: on the third day — “Let the earth sprout vegetation etc., fruit tree etc.”&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

; on the fifth day — “Let the waters swarm with swarming creatures etc., and fowl etc.”&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

; on the sixth day — “beast and creeping thing and beast of the earth”&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;]

— and not&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

names of particular species

(like among animals: ox,

donkey,

and the like).

And this is the content of the matter of the naming of names by Adam the first,

that through this&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

each and every species became distinct and separate in itself.

[And as it is according to the halachah&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;,

that by calling it by name, he acquires the thing,

and this means that by this he removes and transfers it from another domain

(or from ownerless property)

to his domain,

and so it is in the giving of the names that by this they "remove" it from its connection

(the general)

to the general species so that it will be a particular thing].

And according to this,

the action of Adam the First in calling the names was to complete the creation itself,

that only then was each species finished in its characteristic that distinguishes it from other species

(that are in that same kind).

And we can explain the matter of the naming of names by Adam HaRishon at a deeper level — that this is part of his service of the human,

to bring about nullification in the creations:

Known are the words of our master the Alter Rebbe³⁷,

that all the creations in the world,

the names by which they are called in the Holy Tongue, they are the very letters of the speech of the Holy One, blessed be He, which bring into being and give life to this particular creation,

and the source of all the names is from the Ten Utterances in the Torah

(with which the world was created),

for even though all the names of the creations are not mentioned in the Ten Utterances,

they are derived from the Ten Utterances through combinations and substitutions and permutations of the letters — accordingly it is understood,

that the names of the creations are an intrinsic matter in them,

that immediately at the beginning of the coming into being of the creation it has its name which is its life-force.

And if so,

behold, the naming by Adam after their coming into being is a matter more elevated.

And one must say the explanation in this:

Even though every created being has within it a divine life-force that animates it,

and it is His name which is called upon it in the Holy Tongue

(whose source is from the Ten Utterances as above),

Nevertheless,

this life-force is not revealed in the created being,

and especially that the created beings do not feel the divine life-force within them and how their entire existence is only from the truth of His existence,

To the point that there is room for error that "Mine is the river, and I made myself"³⁸.

And this is the matter of "And the man called names, etc." — for calling indicates revelation³⁹

— that Adam the first called and revealed in every created being the divine life-force

(which is "His name"),

And through this he effected nullification in all the created beings^*39.

<pg>5</pg>

And more deeply it can be said: The life-force that is clothed in every created being is a contracted life-force,

This is the content of the matter of the progression of names from the Ten Utterances that are in the Torah through substitutions and permutations etc. — this is the contraction and descent of the life-force from level to level "until it can contract and be clothed and from it a particular created being can come into being"⁴⁰.

But,

through that Adam the first called them names,

behold he called and drew forth and revealed in every created being also the source and root of its name from the Ten Utterances,

above the measure that it descends and contracts to bring into being these particular created beings,

To the point of "

(from the mouth)

the mouth of the L-rd"⁴¹

itself,

"about which they said³⁰

And could not by one utterance be created,

it is the utterance that includes all the Ten Utterances and from it were drawn forth and divided the Ten particular Utterances"

(and as explained in Likkutei Torah⁴²).

6.

And it can be said that this is the foundation for the two opinions

(the above)

whether Adam named also the fish of the sea,

or only all the cattle and the beast of the field etc.:

According to the first manner

(as implied by the plain sense of the verses)

that the naming of the names by Adam was to define the particular nature of each creature,

namely the separation of their existence from their source — this is only regarding the creatures on dry land

(all the cattle and the fowl of the heavens and the beast of the field),

which from the beginning were created in such a manner that they are separated and distinct from their source; but not so&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;

the fish in the sea, which were not created to be an independent existence but are always covered and absorbed in the water,

and their entire existence is the water&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;

[And as emphasized in the law that everything in the sea is pure&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;,

since the essence of their existence is the water&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;

(to the extent that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;

anything that is a creation of the water does not interpose,

for the true essence of their existence is the water)]&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;

— there is no place for naming&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;

to separate them from their sou&lt;pg&gt;6&lt;/pg&gt;

High

(more than the separation that stems from their very creation),

for the content of their existence from the aspect of the creation by the Holy One, blessed be He⁵⁰

is not to be separate⁵¹.

And with this one can explain the depth of the intent of the words of the early authorities mentioned above⁵²

regarding the reason that Adam did not call names to the fish,

that it is impossible that they would come before the man because "their life is only in the water and when they go out of the water they die" — this is not an external reason and cause,

that it is impossible that they would be brought before Adam that he should call them names,

but rather this is in accordance with the content of the matter of names,

since the existence of the fish is inclusion in their source and not separation and going out beyond their source,

therefore there is no place for calling names to the fish.

But according to the inner explanation above, that the matter of naming is to complete the purpose of the creation of all created beings,

to call and draw into them the vitality from their source and root,

by which they will be included in "the utterance of G‑d"⁴¹

the source and root of their coming into being as above — this is in all created beings,

not only creatures on dry land,

which openly are separate from their source,

but also in the fish of the sea^*39,

for,

their existence as it is below is an existence of a created being,

but the truth of their existence is the water of the sea⁵³,

and the work of man is to effect in them nullification and inclusion in their source,

nullification to that which is above this.

And it can be said that this corresponds to the content of the creation and formation of Chava explained in this portion: In the externality of things

(the creation of)

Chava brought about a descent in Adam,

simply, to the sin of the Tree of Knowledge which caused a descent in Adam and in all of creation entirely; and on the other hand — the purpose of her creation was to effect an elevation in the creation as it is written⁵⁴

"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heavens and over every living thing that creeps upon the earth",

and by man fulfilling his mission in the world and filling the earth, this effects an elevation beyond measure in man himself.

(From sichos of Shabbos Parshas Bereishis 5737,

5746)