Chapter 20 of Sefer Melachim A opens a new episode: the wars of Aram against Israel in the days of Achav. This chapter, along with those that follow, deals with the events of Achav's reign. Considerable portions of Sefer Melachim are devoted to him, because he was a very dominant king who did many deeds, and Eliyahu the prophet and other prophets were sent to him. For this reason his history is recounted in such great detail.
וּבֶן־הֲדַד מֶלֶךְ־אֲרָם קָבַץ אֶת־כׇּל־חֵילוֹ וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁנַיִם מֶלֶךְ אִתּוֹ וְסוּס וָרָכֶב וַיַּעַל וַיָּצַר עַל־שֹׁמְרוֹן וַיִּלָּחֶם בָּהּ׃ - And Ben Hadad king of Aram gathered all his army together, and thirty two kings with him, and horses and chariots, and he went up and besieged Shomron and fought against it.
Ben Hadad king of Aram gathers his army to come and wage war against Israel, and he is not content with that: he gathers with him another thirty two kings. With such an enormous force he goes up and lays siege to Shomron.
וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים אֶל־אַחְאָב מֶלֶךְ־יִשְׂרָאֵל הָעִירָה׃ וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ כֹּה אָמַר בֶּן־הֲדַד כַּסְפְּךָ וּזְהָבְךָ לִי־הוּא וְנָשֶׁיךָ וּבָנֶיךָ הַטּוֹבִים לִי־הֵם׃ - And he sent messengers to Achav king of Israel, into the city. And he said to him: So says Ben Hadad, Your silver and your gold are mine, and your wives and your good children are mine.
Before the explanation let us note the great difficulty in this passage: the matter of the double message. At first Ben Hadad sends and says "Your silver and your gold are mine, and your wives and your good children are mine," and Achav agrees. Then he sends again and says "For I sent to you saying, Your silver and your gold and your wives and your children you shall give me" - but he already said this in the first message! What is new in the second? And immediately afterward Achav answers that to the first he is willing but to the second he is not willing. What was the first, what was the second, and what is the difference between them? And also: what is "all that is pleasant in your eyes" mentioned in the second message?
Let us proceed as usual with the Malbim, and afterward we will also see the words of Chazal. The phrase "Your silver and your gold are mine" can be understood in two ways. One meaning: they are my possession. You are my servant, and as my servant everything you have belongs to me. In practical terms this means: you pay me tribute. This was a very common thing in ancient times, a nation subordinate to another nation pays it tribute and is considered subject to it. And why would it do so? Not out of goodwill, but out of fear: lest I break out against you in war and take your entire land. It was worthwhile for the king to bow his head, to pay tribute to the rival king and say: everything I have belongs to you.
And a second meaning: this is not speaking of general subjugation, but rather a practical demand. "Your silver and your gold are mine" - my lord, begin to collect the silver and gold in your kingdom and transfer it to me. "Your wives and your good children are mine" - take your wives and your good children and give them to me in actual fact.
The second meaning is more plausible. For if his intention was that you are subject to my authority and are my servants, is it only the silver and gold that belong to Aram? Everything belongs to Aram. And why did he specify precisely "your wives and your good children" - are only the good ones his, while the bad and the inferior ones are not? Everything is his. Rather it implies that he means to say: my lord, I want you to bring them to me in actual fact, your silver, your gold, your wives and your children.
וַיַּעַן מֶלֶךְ־יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר כִּדְבָרְךָ אֲדֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ לְךָ אֲנִי וְכׇל־אֲשֶׁר־לִי׃ - And the king of Israel answered and said: According to your word, my lord the king, I am yours, and all that I have.
Achav understood it according to the first explanation: I am your servant, and everything I have belongs to you. It is true and correct, you are right in all your words. And note the emphasis "and all that I have" - not only my silver and gold, but also the other things; not only my good wives and children, but also those that are not pleasing in your eyes. Everything is yours. For if I am your servant, whatever a servant acquires his master acquires, and consequently everything is yours.
וַיָּשֻׁבוּ הַמַּלְאָכִים וַיֹּאמְרוּ כֹּה־אָמַר בֶּן־הֲדַד לֵאמֹר כִּי־שָׁלַחְתִּי אֵלֶיךָ לֵאמֹר כַּסְפְּךָ וּזְהָבְךָ וְנָשֶׁיךָ וּבָנֶיךָ לִי תִתֵּן׃ - And the messengers returned and said: Thus says Ben Hadad, saying: I sent to you, saying, Your silver and your gold and your wives and your children you shall give to me.
You did not understand, Achav. The intent is the second interpretation. Not that they are mine, for that is obvious, and for that I would not have needed to send messengers. My intent was "you shall give to me": start packing and shipping. I want them with me. That was the demand.
כִּי אִם־כָּעֵת מָחָר אֶשְׁלַח אֶת־עֲבָדַי אֵלֶיךָ וְחִפְּשׂוּ אֶת־בֵּיתְךָ וְאֵת בָּתֵּי עֲבָדֶיךָ וְהָיָה כׇּל־מַחְמַד עֵינֶיךָ יָשִׂימוּ בְיָדָם וְלָקָחוּ׃ - But by this time tomorrow I will send my servants to you, and they will search your house and the houses of your servants, and it shall be that everything precious in your eyes they will place in their hands and take away.
Here he adds pressure and a threat: it is better for you to send it yourself, for if I have to send my servants, you will lose in two ways. First, "they will search your house and the houses of your servants": until now he had said nothing about the servants' houses, and now he informs him that his men will search there too, and nothing will remain. Second, "and everything precious in your eyes": they will not settle for silver and gold alone, but will take every desirable thing in your house. Perhaps you have special and valuable items that are not silver and gold. Right now I am not asking for them, but if my servants come, know that they will take everything precious in your eyes. In short: mafia tactics. You had better give it willingly, so that we do not come and take it by force.
וַיִּקְרָא מֶלֶךְ־יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכׇל־זִקְנֵי הָאָרֶץ וַיֹּאמֶר דְּעוּ־נָא וּרְאוּ כִּי רָעָה זֶה מְבַקֵּשׁ כִּי־שָׁלַח אֵלַי לְנָשַׁי וּלְבָנַי וּלְכַסְפִּי וְלִזְהָבִי וְלֹא מָנַעְתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ׃ - And the king of Israel called for all the elders of the land and said: Know now and see that this man seeks harm, for he sent to me for my wives and my children and my silver and my gold, and I did not withhold from him.
The accepted practice in those days was that if a nation was besieged and the besieged nation raised a white flag of surrender, this meant: we are your servants and we pay you tribute. And if you do not surrender, we enter and take everything. What does the one who surrenders gain? He remains in his place, the king stays on his throne, his silver and gold remain with him, and he is only subjugated and pays tribute. Whereas the warring king gains that he takes everything. Now this man wants to take through peaceful means what is taken through war. This is "he seeks harm." And Achav says: after all, "I did not withhold from him" - I was willing to be his servant, with the people of my house, with my silver and my gold. If so, why does he send to actually take my wives and my children?
וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו כׇּל־הַזְּקֵנִים וְכׇל־הָעָם אַל־תִּשְׁמַע וְלוֹא תֹאבֶה׃ - And all the elders and all the people said to him: Do not listen and do not consent.
What is the doubling of "do not listen and do not consent"? "Do not listen" - to what he said, "you shall give to me," do not listen. "And do not consent" - even to what you already accepted upon yourself in your heart, to be his servant, do not consent to that either. Rather, outwardly say to him "absolutely," but in your heart resolve to throw off his yoke. That is: do not agree to surrender to him.
וַיֹּאמֶר לְמַלְאֲכֵי בֶן־הֲדַד אִמְרוּ לַאדֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־שָׁלַחְתָּ אֶל־עַבְדְּךָ בָרִאשֹׁנָה אֶעֱשֶׂה וְהַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲשׂוֹת וַיֵּלְכוּ הַמַּלְאָכִים וַיְשִׁבֻהוּ דָּבָר׃ - And he said to Ben Hadad's messengers: Tell my lord the king, all that you sent to your servant at first I will do, but this thing I cannot do. And the messengers went and brought him back word.
"At first" - what I understood from your words in the first message, that we would be servants to my lord, that I will do. "But this thing" - to actually give them to you - I cannot do. Under no circumstances. And the messengers go and bring word back to Ben Hadad.
Chazal see an additional point here, and so brings the Radak, and so it is in the Gemara: everything he demanded the first time he demanded the second time. If so, what was added the second time? That the second time he said to him, "and it shall be that all that is desirable to your eyes they shall place in their hand and take." And what is "the desire of your eyes"? Chazal say: silver and gold, wives and children are all objects of desire. But what is "all that is desirable to your eyes"? Something that is desire out of desire - there are desirable things, and there is one thing that is more desirable than all, something that everyone desires. And what is it? This is the Torah, "more desirable than gold and fine gold." When the king of Israel heard this, he said: this matter is not mine, it belongs to the elders. Such a thing, concerning the Torah, is no longer my responsibility - the Torah was handed to the sages, to the elders, and they are the ones who must decide. Therefore immediately "and the king of Israel called for all the elders of the land," and they told him do not consent and do not listen to him. And when he listened to the counsel of the elders, immediately "and the king of Israel went out and struck the horse and the chariot" - since he listened to their counsel, he was victorious in battle.
The Radak says: it is impossible to explain that the "desire" he requested is the desire of Achav himself. For Achav worshipped idolatry, and perhaps the intent is the god of the Tzidonim, the Ba'al he served. On this the Radak says that this cannot be, for it is written "and all the elders and all the people said to him do not listen and do not consent" - and if so it comes out that all the elders and all the people are telling him: do not give up your idolatry! Is this possible? For there were seven thousand knees that had not bowed to the Ba'al, and a considerable part of the nation would have gladly given it up. Therefore you are forced to say that "the desire of your eyes" is the Sefer Torah.
And Chazal say: why did Achav merit a reign of twenty two years - one of the kings who ruled for the longest periods? Because he honored the Torah, which is written in twenty two. Some say words and some say letters. According to those who say words: if you count the words in verse 9, from "and he said to the messengers of Ben Hadad" until "and the messengers went and brought him back word" - there are twenty two words there. In truth, whoever counts will find twenty three, but "Ben Hadad" is counted as one word. Since he honored the Torah with twenty two words, he merited a reign of twenty two years. And according to those who say letters: since he honored the Torah that was written with the twenty two letters of the alphabet, he merited a reign of twenty two years.
If "the desire of your eyes" is the Sefer Torah, one must understand: what business does Ben Hadad, king of Aram, have with a Sefer Torah? And if he desired it so much, let him make himself a copy - let him take a scribe to write him his own Sefer Torah! What is the meaning of the demand "give me the Sefer Torah"?
The Malbim explains: the king is commanded not to increase for himself wives, and not to increase for himself horses, and not to increase for himself silver and gold, and he was further commanded to write for himself this copy of the Torah and it shall be with him. The king had a small Sefer Torah that was bound to him and attached to him wherever he went. A person of Israel is commanded to write for himself a Sefer Torah, but he is not commanded that it be attached to him; the king is commanded that it be attached to him. And why? Because the trials of the king are difficult: everything is placed in his hand, in his hand is power and rule, and in one moment he can decree a person's fate to life or to death. So that he may withstand these trials it is said to him: let the Sefer Torah always be attached to you, and through this you will always remember that there is someone above you, and that you are subordinate to the holy Torah.
And now, the Malbim says: Ben Hadad demanded from him his wives and his silver and gold - those very things that he increased unlawfully, and therefore it is fitting that they be taken from him. And he said to him: if you refuse and do not give me them, I will take from you also the book that you do not keep, the Torah that you do not fulfill. For Achav indeed used to go about with a Sefer Torah even though he did not keep it, since this was among the customs of royalty - just as the king goes about with a crown, so the king of Israel goes about with a Sefer Torah attached to him. Therefore the meaning of the threat "I will take from you the Sefer Torah" is not that he desires the book, but rather: I will take from you the kingship. The Sefer Torah attached to the king is one of the signs and trappings of royalty, and taking it means bringing him down from his throne and from his rank of kingship.
וַיִּשְׁלַח אֵלָיו בֶּן־הֲדַד וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה־יַעֲשׂוּן לִי אֱלֹהִים וְכֹה יוֹסִפוּ אִם־יִשְׂפֹּק עֲפַר שֹׁמְרוֹן לִשְׁעָלִים לְכׇל־הָעָם אֲשֶׁר בְּרַגְלָי׃ - And Ben Hadad sent to him and said: so may the gods do to me and so may they add, if the dust of Shomron will suffice for handfuls for all the people who are at my feet.
Achav's harsh words did not find favor in the eyes of Ben Hadad, and he sends him a severe threat. "So may the gods do to me and so may they add" is an expression that appears many times in Tanach, and its meaning is: let the worst happen to me if I do not do such and such. And why does he not specify? Because in their times they were very careful about "a covenant is made with the lips," and they would not utter anything bad about themselves. And there are many proofs of this in Tanach, that even gentiles were careful about this. As the Egyptians said "and fight against us and go up from the land" - who will go up from the land? They meant: fight against us and drive us out from here, and even so they did not say "and we will go up from the land," so as not to say anything negative about themselves. So too here: woe unto me what Hashem will do to me if I do not fulfill what I promise.
And what are "she'alim"? Steps, like "even a step," and like "in the path of the vineyards" - a place where one steps between the vineyards. And his intent is: the dust that will cling to the shoes of my soldiers will not suffice. That is, my soldiers will go out to fight against you, and merely the dust that each one of them carries on his shoes - and there will already be no dust left for you. And all the more so that you will have no forces and army to fight against me. Even the dust we will take, and nothing will remain.
Some explain that "she'alim" means a fist, as in "Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand" - who has measured the world's water in his hand. According to this: if each of our soldiers takes a little dust in his palm from Shomron, your dust will run out. "For all the people who follow me" - each one will take a handful, and your dust will be gone.
וַיַּעַן מֶלֶךְ־יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר דַּבְּרוּ אַל־יִתְהַלֵּל חֹגֵר כִּמְפַתֵּחַ׃ - And the king of Israel answered and said: Tell him, let not him who girds himself boast like him who ungirds.
"Dabru" (tell) can be understood in two ways. One: tell Ben Hadad not to boast in this way. The other: one can speak a great deal, meaning, you can talk plenty of words, but you are still not the one who "ungirds." "Choger" (one who girds) is the man who straps on his weapons of war to go out to battle, and "mefate'ach" (one who ungirds) is the victor of the battle, who is already unstrapping his weapons, taking off his shields and swords. You are only girding yourself, only entering the battle, and let not him who girds boast like him who ungirds.
The Malbim explains why the one who girds should not boast: a man who girds his sword for battle plans out every possible strategy in order to win, and takes into account also the possibility that he might lose, and so he builds the most successful tactics and strategy. In contrast, one who boasts at the moment of girding as though he has already finished does not bother to plan; he is certain he will win the battle "in a stroll." And this is already one cause of his downfall: you did not plan the battle properly, because you were sure of an easy victory. And a second reason: the moment you have absolute confidence that you will win the battle, the opposing side fights to its last breath. It knows this is do or die, and so it fights with all its strength and gives up its life. Consequently, when you come with such absolute confidence, the people facing you will fight with self sacrifice, and your chances of winning are smaller. Therefore let not him who girds boast like him who ungirds: victory is not yet in your hands, and it is too early to boast.
וַיְהִי כִּשְׁמֹעַ אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה וְהוּא שֹׁתֶה הוּא וְהַמְּלָכִים בַּסֻּכּוֹת וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־עֲבָדָיו שִׂימוּ וַיָּשִׂימוּ עַל־הָעִיר׃ - And it came to pass, when he heard this message, as he was drinking, he and the kings in the booths, that he said to his servants: Set yourselves. And they set themselves against the city.
At the moment he heard this message he was sitting and drinking, he and the kings who had come to help him, those thirty two kings we saw in verse 1. This sitting teaches of the great absolute confidence they had: sitting and drinking in booths, with no need to go out and not even to organize the army. "And he said to his servants, Set yourselves" - the servants are the ordinary soldiers, the privates, and to them he commands to lay siege to the city. He sends them to do the work, while he and the kings remain drinking in the booths. "And they set themselves against the city" - they prepare the weapons of war in order to break into the city.
וְהִנֵּה נָבִיא אֶחָד נִגַּשׁ אֶל־אַחְאָב מֶלֶךְ־יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה אָמַר יְהֹוָה הֲרָאִיתָ אֵת כׇּל־הֶהָמוֹן הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה הִנְנִי נֹתְנוֹ בְיָדְךָ הַיּוֹם וְיָדַעְתָּ כִּי־אֲנִי יְהֹוָה׃ - And behold, a certain prophet drew near to Achav king of Israel and said: Thus says Hashem, Have you seen all this great multitude? Behold, I will give it into your hand this day, and you shall know that I am Hashem.
Chazal say that this prophet was Michayhu ben Yimla. Seemingly the phrase "Have you seen all this great multitude?" is superfluous: does Achav need to be told that he sees it? It would have been enough to say straight away "Behold, I will give it into your hand this day, and you shall know that I am Hashem."
The Malbim explains: the prophet came to say to him - do you see this multitude? There is no possibility that you could defeat it by natural means, for they are so vast a multitude, skilled and trained in war, and it is entirely impossible to defeat them. And only afterward: "Behold, I will give it into your hand this day." And why was it important to emphasize this? Because as long as a person thinks he has some chance, he does not rely on Hashem and does not await His salvation. Therefore he told him: understand that there is no chance at all, such a great multitude that there is no possibility of standing against it, and only after you have understood that there is no chance, will it be clear to you that if you won, it is because I gave it into your hand.
וַיֹּאמֶר אַחְאָב בְּמִי וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה־אָמַר יְהֹוָה בְּנַעֲרֵי שָׂרֵי הַמְּדִינוֹת וַיֹּאמֶר מִי־יֶאְסֹר הַמִּלְחָמָה וַיֹּאמֶר אָתָּה׃ - And Achav said: By whom? And he said: Thus says Hashem, By the young men of the princes of the provinces. Then he said: Who shall begin the battle? And he said: You.
"With whom" - who are those who will go out to battle. And the answer: with the young men of the officers of the provinces. And who are they? The Radak explains that it was the custom of kings to raise in their courts the sons of the officers, in order to teach them wisdom and the tactics of kingship, so that in the future they could fill their parents' places and administer the kingdom properly. So too we find with Nevuchadnetzar, who took Daniel and his companions so that they would stand before him and be his advisors, and from a young age accustomed them to the tactics of kingship and the study of the wisdoms accepted in those days.
And a further explanation: they are the ones called elsewhere "bnei hataarovot," not from the term for mixing but from the term for a pledge (eravon). The king would take the sons of his officers and appointees as a pledge with him. For an officer or an appointee over a city has a place, has soldiers, and has a walled city, and he might decide to rebel against the king and demand autonomy. Therefore, from the outset, the children of all the officers were kept with the king, and the moment one of them would try to do something - your son is with me. These are the "bnei hataarovot," and they are the young men of the officers of the provinces, and "provinces" refers to the districts into which the land was divided. In simple terms: there is no need for great warriors and men trained in war; the young men of the officers of the provinces are enough to wage the battle.
"Who shall order the battle" - who will be the commander, the chief of staff. And seemingly, what is the question, for surely it is clear that the king is the one! Rather, Achav understood that there was a miracle here, and for a miracle one seemingly needs a person worthy of a miracle. And Achav knew well that he was not among those worthy of a miracle: he was an idol worshiper, and there was not a furrow in the Land of Israel in which he had not set up an idol for idol worship. Therefore he asked who would order the battle, and the prophet answered him: you. You will go at the head of the battle.
וַיִּפְקֹד אֶת־נַעֲרֵי שָׂרֵי הַמְּדִינוֹת וַיִּהְיוּ מָאתַיִם שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וְאַחֲרֵיהֶם פָּקַד אֶת־כׇּל־הָעָם כׇּל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שִׁבְעַת אֲלָפִים׃ - And he mustered the young men of the officers of the provinces, and they were two hundred and thirty two, and after them he mustered all the people, all the children of Israel, seven thousand.
And were seven thousand the entire number of the people of Shomron? Rashi says: seven thousand - I say that they are those about whom it is stated "all the knees that did not bow to the Baal," exactly seven thousand. Those he takes to war. For if the Holy One, blessed be He, performs a miracle, the warriors need to be decent and worthy men.
וַיֵּצְאוּ בַּצׇּהֳרָיִם וּבֶן־הֲדַד שֹׁתֶה שִׁכּוֹר בַּסֻּכּוֹת הוּא וְהַמְּלָכִים שְׁלֹשִׁים־וּשְׁנַיִם מֶלֶךְ עֹזֵר אֹתוֹ׃ - And they went out at noon, and Ben Hadad was drinking himself drunk in the booths, he and the thirty two kings who were helping him.
"Drinking himself drunk" - as if he could not drink by himself and they needed to help him drink. "Helping him": those kings who came to help him in the battle saw that he was not going out, and said: why should we sweat? If he is sitting and drinking, we too will sit and drink. Even though they had come with the aim of helping, since they saw that he was not going out to order the battle, they too did not want to go out.
וַיֵּצְאוּ נַעֲרֵי שָׂרֵי הַמְּדִינוֹת בָּרִאשֹׁנָה וַיִּשְׁלַח בֶּן־הֲדַד וַיַּגִּידוּ לוֹ לֵאמֹר אֲנָשִׁים יָצְאוּ מִשֹּׁמְרוֹן׃ - And the young men of the officers of the provinces went out first, and Ben Hadad sent, and they told him, saying: men have come out from Shomron.
The young men of the officers of the provinces, two hundred and thirty two, go out first. Ben Hadad sends scouts to see what is happening on the other side, and they report: "men have come out from Shomron" - not "an army," but men, meaning a group that was still regarded as isolated individuals, and whose intention too was unclear.
וַיֹּאמֶר אִם־לְשָׁלוֹם יָצָאוּ תִּפְשׂוּם חַיִּים וְאִם לְמִלְחָמָה יָצָאוּ חַיִּים תִּפְשׂוּם׃ - And he said: if they have come out for peace, take them alive, and if they have come out for war, alive take them.
The pasuk is difficult. The easiest thing would be to say that both halves mean the same, but on the other hand we see there is a change: in the first "take them alive" and in the second "alive take them." Had he used the same wording in both, there would be room to say there is no difference. And indeed the Radak, the Ralbag, the Metzudat David and other commentators explain that it is the same thing, only that he varied the wording for elegance of expression - for when a person writes an article or a letter or a book, he does not repeat the same words but varies them, and so we find many times with David HaMelech that he varied words within a pasuk. It is the way of the Radak to say that the doubling of a matter with different words is for elegance of expression. But the Malbim, as is known, always explains what the doubling means and why this word was chosen and not another, giving meaning to each and every thing. According to the Radak and his school, in any case, both expressions come to say: capture them alive in any case, and do not kill them.
One explanation is that of the Metzudat David in his second interpretation: "alive" from the language of alacrity, like "the son of a living man" - meaning with alacrity, like "the son of a valiant man." And according to this he told them: if you see them coming out in peace, meaning to surrender themselves into captivity - and how will you recognize this? That you see them coming out sluggishly, with slack hands, for a captive does not run toward captivity but walks bent over - then it is not fitting and proper to strike them, and therefore capture them with alacrity even before they manage to say "we have come to surrender." For if they say explicitly that they came to surrender, it is proper to spare them; but if I have not yet heard from their mouths any language of surrender, and with alacrity I captured them, I can say that I took them in battle, and then I may do with them as I see fit. In contrast, "if they come out for war alive" - if you see them coming out with alacrity, it is a sign they came for war, and then merely "capture them," there is no need to hurry, for it is clear they came for battle, and as such you are permitted to do with them as you wish.
A further explanation is that of the Malbim. It is the way of the Malbim, in many places, that when there is a doubling one must examine what the first word in the sentence is - it is the more important one, and the emphasis is upon it. And so we find in the judgment of Shlomo: the first woman said "my son is the living one and your son is the dead one," and the second said "no, for your son is the dead one and my son is the living one." And from where did Shlomo know who was in the right? From the fact that one put first "your son is the dead one" - she did not care that her son was alive, she cared that her fellow's son was dead; whereas the other put first "my son is the living one" - she did not care about her fellow's son, she cared that her son should live. And from this he knew who was telling the truth.
And according to this the Malbim explains: "if they come out for war, alive capture them" - the emphasis is on the word "alive," for when they come out for war, what a person is supposed to do to one who comes to fight him is to kill him; and the novelty here is to capture him alive. Therefore he put "alive" first. Whereas "if they come out for peace, capture them alive" - the emphasis is on "capture them," for one who comes out for peace is normally not captured but released, and the novelty is that even though they came out for peace, you should capture them. Each of them puts first the essential matter and the novelty within it.
And there is yet another explanation, that of Rabbenu Bachya, which likewise follows the approach that the first word is the important one. "Capture them alive" - capture them and leave them alive, meaning do not kill them. But "the life capture from them" - take from them the life, the vitality within them, meaning kill them. In short: if they come out for peace, capture them and leave them alive; and if they come out for war, take the life from them.
וְאֵלֶּה יָצְאוּ מִן־הָעִיר נַעֲרֵי שָׂרֵי הַמְּדִינוֹת וְהַחַיִל אֲשֶׁר אַחֲרֵיהֶם׃ - And these went out from the city, the young men of the officers of the provinces, and the army that was behind them.
While the men of Aram are organizing themselves around the question of whether to capture alive or to take life, the young men of the officers of the provinces go out, and the army behind them is the backup in the rear.
וַיַּכּוּ אִישׁ אִישׁוֹ וַיָּנֻסוּ אֲרָם וַיִּרְדְּפֵם יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּמָּלֵט בֶּן־הֲדַד מֶלֶךְ אֲרָם עַל־סוּס וּפָרָשִׁים׃ - And each man struck his man, and Aram fled, and Israel pursued them, and Ben Hadad king of Aram escaped on a horse with horsemen.
"And each man struck his man" - each one struck the man opposite him. And then suddenly another seven thousand men appear, and the Arameans did not expect such a surprise. The fleeing ones reach Ben Hadad, who is sitting in Sukkot - he did not even have a bunker, only a booth - and he understands that the situation is dire, and immediately mounts a horse and flees, a horse and with him two horsemen.
וַיֵּצֵא מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּךְ אֶת־הַסּוּס וְאֶת־הָרָכֶב וְהִכָּה בַאֲרָם מַכָּה גְדוֹלָה׃ - And the king of Israel went out and struck the horse and the chariot, and struck Aram a great blow.
After the king of Israel saw that the first blow was dealt by the young men of the officers of the provinces as the navi had said, and after them the seven thousand, he now goes out with all the people in order to finish the work. Once there is already deliverance, and when he sees that the matter is succeeding, he brings all the people.
And what is the meaning of "he struck the horse and the chariot"? The chariot is a kind of carriage behind the horse, upon which the fighter stood, as we see in ancient drawings of warriors standing on the chariot. The goal was not to strike the chariot itself, for what point is there in striking wood and metal? Rather they would strike the horse, and once the horse fell, the chariot fell as well, along with the rider upon it, and then they would strike the riders.
Ben Hadad marches against Shomron with an enormous multitude and thirty two kings, and demands of Achav in two missions: in the first, an acknowledgment of subjugation, and in the second, the actual surrender of the silver, the gold, the wives and the children, with a threat to take "all that is precious in your eyes," which Chazal expounded as referring to the Sefer Torah, while according to the Malbim it is a threat to take the symbol of kingship and the crown. On the advice of the elders and the people, Achav refuses, and replies "let not one who girds himself boast like one who unstraps" - that one must not boast of a victory not yet in hand. And while Ben Hadad and the kings sit drunk in the booths out of sheer overconfidence, a prophet is sent and reveals to Achav that precisely because there is no chance by natural means, he will know that the victory is from Hashem. Through the young men of the officers of the provinces and through the seven thousand who did not bow to the Baal, with Achav at their head, Aram is shattered in a great defeat. From here comes the twofold lesson: pride and excessive self confidence are themselves the cause of downfall, while the recognition of helplessness is a gateway to salvation, and it was the heeding of the advice of the elders and the honoring of the Torah that established for the king his kingship and his victory.