Answer

What about, “Now I know that you are God-fearing, since you have not withheld your son, your only one, from Me”? Not to mention the words of the Sages about the Binding of Isaac. In my opinion, these are completely baseless interpretations. The speculations about why Isaac did not return with him, and why the Holy One did not reveal Himself afterward, can be explained in a million ways. There is not the slightest shred of evidence there for anything.

—————————–

Questioner:

One more question regarding what the Rabbi said in his lecture about the Binding of Isaac. In the screenshot I took, there is a section from a lecture I’m preparing that is based on what the Rabbi said, and the question the Rabbi raised appears there: why put our forefather Abraham through the whole test of the Binding of Isaac at all, if the lesson is “Do not raise your hand against the boy”? After that the Rabbi offers answers, but before all the answers—why does the question even exist? After all, it says explicitly, “And God tested Abraham”—meaning that all of this was a test of Abraham’s wholehearted faith. That cancels out the question. And perhaps also rules out Rabbi Kook’s understanding that the main lesson is “Do not raise your hand…” I would appreciate it if the Rabbi would answer.

—————————————

Rabbi:
If a test is meant to examine what Abraham is worth—then you are right. But the Holy One knows that even without conducting a test. Therefore it is more reasonable to interpret that the test was for the sake of the one being tested. The lesson of “Do not raise your hand against the boy” is the lesson that Abraham learned. True, one could also interpret that the test was meant to temper and strengthen him, and not necessarily to teach him something. So I agree that the difficulty is not all that strong, but the interpretation is still correct.