In the midst of a rebellion, a soldier stands before his commanding officer and firmly rejects a financial reward to strike down the king's rebellious son. The soldier makes it clear that his loyalty to the king's explicit orders outweighs any monetary temptation. His refusal is absolute. He declares that even if a thousand pieces of silver were weighed out and placed directly into his hands at that very moment, he would still not harm the young man [מצודת ציון, שטיינזלץ, מלבי״ם, מצודת דוד, רד״ק]. This highlights a total rejection of the commander's offer, emphasizing that he would not commit the act for a massive fortune, let alone the small sum originally proposed [רד״ק].
The soldier's unwavering stance is rooted in two main factors. First is the young man's royal status, and second is the public nature of the king's command, which was heard by the entire army [מלבי״ם]. The primary approach among commentators is that the king's order was a sweeping warning to all the troops. It established that whoever happened to capture the king's son was obligated to protect him and treat him gently [רש״י, מצודת דוד]. It served as a strict directive to ensure that no fighter would dare to harm or mistreat the young man in any way [רד״ק, רלב״ג].
A deeper layer of the soldier's refusal involves the legal principles regarding a pursuer [חומת אנך]. Jewish law dictates that if a person pursuing another to kill them can be stopped by merely injuring one of their limbs, it is forbidden to kill them. While there is a debate over whether this strict rule applies during the chaos of war, the king's specific command settled the matter. He made it clear that despite the ongoing battle, the soldiers were required to neutralize his son only by injuring a limb, avoiding a fatal blow.
The soldier understands that if he were to kill the king's son, he could not use the fog of war as an excuse for failing to be precise, since the king had explicitly demanded such care. Moreover, the soldier points out that the commander himself would be unable to defend him before the king. This is because the commander had previously killed a rival general, arguing that the general should have saved himself by merely injuring the commander's brother rather than killing him, even though they were in the middle of a war. Recognizing this precedent, the soldier concludes that he would have absolutely no justification or defense for delivering a fatal blow, leading to his resolute refusal.