When confronted about a stolen well of water, the local king mounts a comprehensive defense to clear his name of any wrongdoing. He outlines the various ways a ruler gathers intelligence, proving that no shred of information regarding the crime had reached him. In doing so, he implicitly admits that the well rightfully belongs to Abraham [ביאור שטיינזלץ].
The king does not deny that the theft occurred. Instead, he distances himself from direct responsibility. The primary approach among commentators is that he clarifies he did not order anyone to seize the well [מלבי"ם, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Some suggest that even if he became aware that his servants were involved, he did not know exactly which individuals were guilty; had he suspected anyone specific, he would have dismissed them from his household [ספורנו, ביאור יש"ר]. Alternatively, it is possible that strangers committed the crime and falsely claimed they were acting on the king's behalf [העמק דבר]. Another perspective posits that the king was generally aware of the theft but simply lacked the specific identities of the culprits [אור החיים].
Shifting the focus, the king places some of the responsibility back on Abraham. A ruler is expected to correct injustices only when the victim comes forward to complain [ספורנו, ביאור יש"ר, מלבי"ם]. Because Abraham remained silent and did not demand a trial, the king cannot be blamed for failing to act. Had a complaint been filed, a thorough investigation would have followed [רד"ק, העמק דבר]. Beyond the legal implications, this silence is viewed as a relational failure. Instead of acting as a close friend and sharing his grievance, Abraham harbored quiet resentment [צרור המור]. Furthermore, because Abraham did not show the king the respect of approaching him directly, the king felt no obligation to initiate his own investigation [אור החיים].
Finally, the defense addresses how news travels. A person learns of an event through personal observation, a direct report, or general rumors [צרור המור]. Since the king lacked personal knowledge and received no direct report from Abraham, the only remaining avenue was public hearsay. While a king will often act upon a widespread rumor of injustice, he insists that not even a whisper of the event reached his ears until that very day [ספורנו, ביאור יש"ר, מלבי"ם]. Offering a different angle, one commentator suggests that this final defense is actually an internal conversation among the royal officials. In this view, the king turns to his army commander, Phicol, questioning why he was not informed, to which the commander replies that he too remained completely unaware until that moment [העמק דבר].