Ttdfjt

There's a famous story in I Kings 3:16-28 about Shlomo Hamelech.

Two women who had just given birth around the same time appeared before him; one baby had died and one was alive and the women were arguing about who's baby was the live one.

Shlomo proposed to cut the baby in half and give half to each woman, to which they responded:

(I Kings 3:26)

Woman A:

וַתֹּ֣אמֶר ׀ בִּ֣י אֲדֹנִ֗י תְּנוּ־לָהּ֙ אֶת־הַיָּל֣וּד הַחַ֔י וְהָמֵ֖ת אַל־תְּמִיתֻ֑הוּ

“Please, my lord,” she cried, “give her the live child; only don’t kill it!”

Woman B:

וְזֹ֣את אֹמֶ֗רֶת גַּם־לִ֥י גַם־לָ֛ךְ לֹ֥א יִהְיֶ֖ה גְּזֹֽרוּ

The other insisted, “It shall be neither yours nor mine; cut it in two!”

The story concludes with Shlomo revealing that Woman A was proven to be the mother since she'd rather have her child taken away and live than die.

Question

Was Woman B a dimwit? Did she not know that Shlomo's suggestion would result in a dead child?

related: cut baby in half in halacha

I generally understood the story based on the Malbim: obviously, everyone involved (including "Woman B," as you call her) knew that King Solomon's suggestion would result in the death of the child. After all, the second woman says גם לי גם לך לא יהיה - neither of us would end up with a child.

Instead, the question was what do each of these woman really want out of this trial? Woman A (the child's mother) is obviously most interested in keeping her baby, but King Solomon recognized that the other woman was motivated by a desire to even the scales: she was upset by the fact that her child had died while her companion's child was alive. As they say in English, "misery loves company," or in Hebrew, צרת רבים חצי נחמה. The woman who was not the baby's mother wouldn't actually have said out loud that she wanted her friend's baby to die, and so Solomon had devised this "test" in order to get her to express what she was really after.

Here's the commentary of the Malbim to I Kings 3:22, who shows that the wording of each of the two women tipped off King Solomon to the solution:

ותאמר האשה האחרת לא כי בני החי ובנך המת וזאת אומרת לא כי בנך המת ובני החי, ספר הכתוב כי בדברם, אמרה הנתבעת בלשון בני החי ובנך המת
והתובעת אמרה בהפך בנך המת ובני החי, וכלל בלשון שהאדם יקדים תמיד מה
שהוא העקר ויאחר את הטפל ולפ''ז הסברא נותנת שהאשה שדקדקה להקדים בלשונה
בני החי קודם עקר מגמתה שיהיה החי בנה, והמקדמת בלשונה בנך המת עקר מגמתה שיהיה המת בן חברתה, לא שיהיה החי בנה, ומזה כבר היה יכול
להבין ולהכריע מי אמו

"The other woman said, 'no rather it is my son who is alive and your
son who is dead,' and this one says 'no rather it is your son who is
dead and my son who is alive."

Scripture tells how regarding their words, by one claimant using the
language of "my son is alive and your son is dead," and the
other claimant saying [in] the reverse [order], "your son is dead
and my son is alive." There is a rule in man's language that he
will always give precedent to what is primary and make later what is
secondary, and therefore it is reasonable that the woman who was
careful to give precedence in her words to my son is alive-her
main objective is that her son be alive, and the [other woman] who
gave precedence to your son is dead- her main objective was to
say that the dead son was her companion's, but not that her son was
the live one. And from this [Solomon] was already able to understand
and discern who is his mother

Thus, once it was clear to Solomon that the second woman was more interested in making sure that her fellow was the one subject to having a dead child, he was able to exploit that fact by showing that she would be fine with such a verdict - even at the expense of a child's life.

The Meiri asks and answers this question in Yevamos 17b:

והוא הענין שנאמר בהגדה על אותן שתים נשים זונות שבאו לדין לפני שלמה שהרי כשצוה שלמה לגזור את הילד החי והשיבה האחת תנו לה את הילוד החי והמת אל תמיתוהו היה ראוי לאחרת להשיב את שלי היא נותנת לי וכשאמרה גם לי גם לך גו' סכלות היה ופתיות שלה ומה היה מכיר שלמה בדבר זה ומה תועלת היה רואה לה בדבריה אלא ששתי נשים אלו כלה וחמותה היו ומתו בעליהן בלא בנים אחרים אלא אלו השנים ומת ילד זה של הכלה וכל שמת תוך שלשים נדון כנפל והרי היא זקוקה ליבום וכשמצאה עצמה צריכה להמתין לאותו ולד של חמותה ותתעגן י"ג שנים החליפה חי במת כדי לומר שבנה הוא ותפטר משני צדדין שהרי תאמר שיש לה בן ואין לה יבם וכשאמר שלמה גזרו את הילד החי שמחה מפני שנוח היה לה בכך כדי לינשא בהיתר והרגיש שלמה בענין זה והשאירו לחמותה

The two women were mother-in-law and daughter-in-law and their husbands had died before having any other children other than these two. The daughter-in-law's son had died within 30 days of being born, which would be considered a Nefel and would not exempt her from Yibum. Therefore the daughter-in-law would have to wait until the mother-in-law's child (her husband's new barely contemporary brother) to reach 13 years old in order to do Yibum or Chalitza, and she would remain an Agunah until then, unable to get married. Instead, she switched her child with her mother-in-law's child, this way she could be exempt from Yibum by having a surviving child (and no Yavam). When Shlomo said to cut the baby in half, the daughter-in-law approved of this because it would still allow her to get remarried as there would be no Yavam.

Here is a diagram which may help clarify:

She was calling the king's bluff.

My understanding of the story goes against the universal one, but fits with the text and answers your question and a lot of others --

The first woman to speak (the one holding the live child) was trying to be demonstrative of how motherly she was, expecting to be allowed to keep the child, even though she was saying that she would let the other one take the baby.

The second women felt trapped. She can't say "yes, I will take the baby", because the first one will be allowed to keep the baby for being more "motherly". Obviously she can't now say, "no, you keep the baby". So she passes the play back to Shlomo. He never meant to kill the child, and neither did she.

גם לי גם לך לא יהיה - I will not take the child, and neither will you - I will not play along with your fake offer for me to take the child, and I do not accept that you should be given the child for it.

Shlomo actually gave the baby to this woman, and not to the one who was willing to let the other take the baby. The first was a show off, the second was authentic.

There is a vague pronoun reference when the king says, "Give her the child". Though it is always understood to be referring to the first one, grammatically it should refer to the last one who spoke, i.e. the one who was not willing to give up her child to the other.

This obviously quite shocked all who were present, who "stood in awe of the king; for they saw that he possessed divine wisdom to execute justice."

The reason should be understood as the following:

Being creatures of dual, competing interests, there exists in some persons, such as myself, the ability for or a manifestation of a vindictive spirit, or attitude, under certain circumstances. It is related to envy/covetousness, and jealously (in the negative sense).

In the case of envy, when we observe something that is not ours that we want, we wish we could have it. If we can't, we may even wish the other did not have it, in order to relieve ourselves of having to even compare with the fact that they have something we don't have, but want. Under severe stain, it is the same spirit as "If I can't have it, nobody can!" It's just plain wrong, misinformed, and ought to be weeded out of us by either a) good parenting, or b) ourselves when recognized.

For jealously, we either
a) have something that we hold dear, or
b) we believe that someone has something that "should be ours" through a rationalization of having been wronged, and therefore "deserving" of the object that we believe ought to be ours. This is closely related to envy. However in this state of mind we cannot recognize it as envy, because we "believe" that the object "should" be ours.

The woman who agreed to cut the baby in half was in these states. She was the very unfortunate recipient of having lost a child, coupled with not having the self-awareness (which often comes through good parenting or divine gift, but which may also come secondary to these by individual recognition) to see or understand that her state was a terrible one, bitter and terrible enough to agree to the destruction of another life out of co-morbid envy and jealousy gone wild. Solomon had the wisdom to know that such an individual should not be either "the" parent, or a parent at all.

I have been fortunate enough to see the existence of these states in myself, only perhaps not as closely tied to the life and death of another individual, the honor for which ought to go to my parents.