After the akeda - the Binding of Isaac – we are told: “Abraham then returned to his servants, and they departed together for Beer Sheba; and Abraham stayed in Beer Sheba” (Genesis 22:19). The verse appears to hide more than it reveals.

In his commentary on the verse, Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) writes: “Abraham then returned, and Isaac is not mentioned because he is in his care. And anyone who says that Abraham slaughtered him and left him, and then he was resurrected, says the opposite of what is written. Ibn Ezra is troubled by the apparent absence of Isaac from the verse, but as he explains elsewhere (Exodus 10:6), such usage can be found in parashat Bo, where we read: “With that he turned and left Pharaoh's presence”, when it is clear from the context that the singular term “he” refers to both Moses and Aaron. But Ibn Ezra’s answer is not problem free in view of the fact that in relating Abraham and Isaacs ascent to the mountain, the Bible twice states “and the two walked off together”, which seems only to emphasize Isaac’s later absence.

Rabbeinu Bahya b. Asher (c. 1250-1340) adds to the dilemma in his comments on the burial of Sarah:

And it would further appear to me that the Bible should have said: “and Abraham and Isaac came to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her”, since surely it was proper for Isaac to mourn his sainted mother and to weep for her, inasmuch as his obligation is much greater than Abraham’s, and moreover she loved him greatly as she bore him miraculously, and her life was bound up in his life.

In other words, Isaac’s name is also absent from the account of Sarah’s burial, which is particularly strange. If we accept Ibn Ezra’a explanation for the absence of Isaac’s name after the akeda when Abraham was the protagonist, here Isaac, as Sarah’s son, should be the one mentioned as Sarah’s primary mourner. R. Bahya suggests that perhaps because Sarah’s death closely followed the akeda, the information was withheld from Isaac. On that basis he continues:

For this reason the Bible does not mention Isaac at all in regard to her death or her burial. Furthermore, we do not encounter him from the time of his binding on the altar, for after Abraham and Isaac came to Mount Moriah, it says upon the return: “Abraham then returned to his servants” (Genesis 22:19), when it should say “And they returned to the servants”, but Isaac’s return is not mentioned. It is possible that he remained there on Mount Moriah for three years, until he reached the age of forty and married Rebecca. Therefore his return is not mentioned until the servant brought Rebecca to him, and then the Bible mentions him, saying (Genesis 24:62): “Isaac had just come back from the vicinity of Beer-lahai-roi” (R. Bahya on Genesis 23:2).

In addition to all of these difficulties, we are faced with the question of why the verse notes Abraham’s return to Beer Sheba. One possible explanation, which only adds to the problematic picture, is supplied by Rashi in his commentary on the verse “And Sarah died at Kiriath Arba, now Hebron, in the land of Canaan; and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her” (Genesis 23:2). Rashi writes: “And Abraham came – from Beer Sheba”. In other words, just as R. Bahya is of the opinion that the verse indicates that Isaac did not return to his mother after the akeda, Rashi takes the view that the verse suggests that Abraham, too, did not return home to his wife after the akeda.

1. Nahmanides provides (1194-1270) an alternative explanation for the narrative. According to Nahmanides, Abraham set off for the akeda from Beer Sheba, and that is where he returned. He finds support for this in the fact that the Hebron is quite close to Jerusalem (Mount Moriah according to tradition), whereas the distance from Beer Sheba to Jerusalem would justify a three-day journey. Later, Abraham and Sarah moved to Hebron, where she died. Thus Ramban rejects the view that Abraham went to live in Beer Sheba while his wife remained in Hebron. Is this a reasonable  explanation of the events? Does it adequately answer the questions raised by R. Bahya?

2. As R. Bahya points out, Isaac’s return is not mentioned, and he is absent from the narrative until Rebecca is brought to him in Bee-lahai-roi. . Bahya suggests that Isaac remained on Mount Moriah for three years, until he reached the age of forty (according to traditional calculation, he was thirty seven at the time of the akeda), at which time – it would appear – he moved to Beer-lahai-roi. Why? Would it not be more reasonable to assume that the text is suggesting that Isaac went to Beer-lahai-roi immediately after the akeda? Does the phrase “Abraham then returned to his servants”, the absence of Isaac’s name at Sarah’s burial, and his later appearance at Beer-lahai-roi force us to conclude that Isaac did not return from the akeda together with Abraham, but rather lived apart from his parents afterwards?

3. The place Beer-lahai-roi is first mentioned in Genesis 16:14 in regard to Hagar. The place is mentioned again in Genesis 25:14 as the place to which Isaac returns after he and Ishmael buried Abraham. Are we to infer from this that after the akeda Isaac went to live with Hagar and Ishmael? Why would the Bible wish to suggest this possibility?