We continue with the theme we discussed previously—the order of the Dayenus.
As we noted, the Dayenus seem, for the most part, to follow a chronological sequence. We say: had Hashem done step one and not step two, Dayenu—it would have been sufficient. Then we move on to step two, and so on. The order does not appear to be based on importance, but rather on the sequence of events as they occurred.
However, the Rebbe raises another question where the order does not seem to align with the actual historical sequence.
The Haggadah says:
“Ilu harag et bekhoreihem, velo natan lanu et mamonam—Dayenu.”
“If Hashem had slain their firstborn but had not given us their wealth, it would have been enough.”
Then it continues:
“Ilu natan lanu et mamonam, velo kara lanu et hayam—Dayenu.”
“If He had given us their wealth but had not split the sea, it would have been enough.”
And then:
“Ilu kara lanu et hayam, velo he’eviranu betokho becharava—Dayenu.”
“If He had split the sea but had not led us through it on dry land, it would have been enough.”
Now, when we compare this to the actual sequence of events in the Torah, a difficulty emerges.
Before the Exodus, Hashem instructed Moshe Rabbeinu to tell the Jewish people to request from their Egyptian neighbors klei kesef, klei zahav, and clothing—silver, gold, and garments. As Rashi explains, part of the purpose of makat choshech, the plague of darkness, was to allow the Jewish people to enter Egyptian homes and see where these valuables were located. Later, when the Egyptians denied having such items, the Jews were able to say, “We saw it—it’s right there.”
This taking of wealth was already promised to Avraham Avinu in the covenant between the parts:
“Ve’acharei chen yeitzu b’rechush gadol”—afterward they will leave with great wealth.
So the Jewish people already received wealth—bizat Mitzrayim—before the plague of the firstborn.
After that came makat bekhorot, on the night of the 15th of Nissan. Then the Jewish people left Egypt and, seven days later, arrived at the Yam Suf. After the splitting of the sea, they received even more wealth—bizat hayam, which Chazal say was greater than what they took from Egypt. In fact, the Torah says “Vayasa Moshe”—Moshe had to pull them away, because they were so involved in collecting the spoils.
So now the question becomes very strong:
What “wealth” is the Haggadah referring to when it says:
“If He had slain their firstborn but not given us their wealth”?
If it refers to bizat Mitzrayim, that took place before makat bekhorot—so the order should be reversed. It should say: “If He had given us their wealth but not slain their firstborn.”
If it refers to bizat hayam, that took place after the splitting of the sea—so it should come after “kara lanu et hayam.”
Yet the Haggadah places “natan lanu et mamonam” in between the plague of the firstborn and the splitting of the sea—where, seemingly, no acquisition of wealth took place at all.
So what is the Haggadah referring to?
The Rebbe explains a beautiful insight.
The “wealth” mentioned here is indeed the wealth taken from Egypt—bizat Mitzrayim. However, at the time it was taken, it was still considered borrowed. The Jewish people had requested these items with the intention—at least formally—of returning them.
The decisive moment when this wealth truly became theirs was only after makat bekhorot.
Why? Because at that point, the Egyptians drove them out and made it clear that they should leave immediately and not return. There was no longer any expectation of repayment. At that moment, the ownership of the wealth became final and absolute—what the Rebbe refers to as “huchlat”, decisively established.
Until then, it still retained the status of borrowed property. After makat bekhorot, it became fully theirs.
This explains the precise wording of Dayenu. The sequence is exact:
First, Hashem struck the firstborn.
Then, as a result, the wealth became truly ours.
After that, Hashem split the sea.
Thus, the Haggadah is not describing when the wealth was physically taken, but when it became legally and definitively owned by the Jewish people.
This fits perfectly into the structure of Dayenu, which follows the meaningful progression of events—not just what happened, but when each stage reached its full completion.
One can also connect this idea conceptually to the teaching in the Gemara on the verse:
“Bechol levavcha, u’vechol nafshecha, u’vechol me’odecha.”
The Gemara explains that for some people, their money is even more precious than their lives. Therefore, the Torah emphasizes both. In a similar way, we see how the taking of wealth is treated as a significant and distinct stage in the redemption.
Once again, the Rebbe reveals how every detail in the Haggadah is exact, and how what appears at first glance to be out of order is, in fact, perfectly precise when understood more deeply.