As Pesach approaches, I would like to briefly share a short but meaningful insight from the Rebbe on the Haggadah, specifically on the section of Dayenu.
We are all familiar with the Dayenus—each step expressing gratitude to Hashem, saying that even if He had done only that stage, it would have been sufficient. As we go through the list, it seems that the structure follows a chronological order. First Hashem did this, then He did that—step by step, following the sequence of events as they occurred. It does not appear to be arranged based on importance, but rather on the order in which things happened.
However, upon closer examination, there are certain parts of Dayenu that do not seem to align with the actual sequence described in the pesukim. The Rebbe discusses several such examples, but we will focus on one point.
The Haggadah says:
“Ilu asah be’eloheihem, velo harag et bechoreihem—Dayenu.”
“If Hashem had executed judgment against their gods but had not slain their firstborn—it would have been enough.”
From this wording, it sounds as though first Hashem punished their gods, and only afterward did He strike the firstborn. That is the order presented in Dayenu.
But when we look at the pesukim, both in Hashem’s warning to Moshe and in the actual narrative, the order appears reversed.
When Hashem tells Moshe what will happen, the pasuk says:
“Ve’hikeiti kol bechor b’Eretz Mitzrayim”—I will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt—
and only afterward:
“U’vechol elohei Mitzrayim e’eseh shefatim”—and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.
Similarly, when the events actually occur, the Torah first describes the striking of the firstborn, and afterward refers to the animals. Chazal explain, as brought in the Mechilta and Tanchuma, that the animals were objects of Egyptian idol worship. Thus, the striking of the animals was itself a judgment against their gods.
So it seems clear from the pesukim that first Hashem struck the firstborn, and only afterward He punished their gods. If so, why does Dayenu present it in the opposite order?
One might suggest that Dayenu is not strictly chronological, but rather follows the order in which the Jewish people perceived the events. However, this explanation does not fully resolve the issue, because both aspects—the striking of the firstborn and the destruction of the idols—were visible in some form.
The Rebbe therefore offers a deeper explanation.
The Rebbe explains that the true order of events is indeed the way it appears in Dayenu: first Hashem struck their gods, and only afterward the firstborn. The reason the pesukim present it differently is because they are not describing the sequence of events, but rather the cause and necessity behind them.
Why was it necessary to punish the Egyptian gods? Because if Hashem had only struck the Egyptians, they might have attributed their suffering to their own deities. They would claim that their gods were responsible for the punishment.
Therefore, Hashem had to first demonstrate the powerlessness of those gods by striking them. Only then could the Egyptians recognize that it was Hashem alone who was bringing the punishment.
In this sense, the Torah is explaining causality: Hashem struck the firstborn, and therefore it was necessary to execute judgment upon their gods, so that the Egyptians would not misattribute the events.
But in terms of what actually had to occur first—what needed to happen in reality—the destruction of their gods had to precede the death of the firstborn. Otherwise, even at the moment of their downfall, they would still attribute events to their idols.
Thus, the Haggadah reflects the true sequence of events, while the pesukim are describing the underlying reason and necessity.
This insight not only resolves the apparent contradiction, but also gives us a deeper appreciation of how precisely the Haggadah is structured, and how carefully every word reflects the inner truth of what took place.
The Rebbe continues with additional examples where the order seems inconsistent, and similarly reveals how each reflects a deeper dimension beyond the simple reading.