The notion that this is "the Jewish answer" is so funny, because 1. no it isn't, and 2. in the text, God explicitly praises and rewards Abraham for being willing to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22:16-18). In the text, it's a test of loyalty that Abraham explicitly passed.
More to the point, though, the academic view, which, if it's not a consensus, is at least very widely held, is that in the oldest version of the story, Abraham did sacrifice Isaac, and the story we have in Genesis today is a later reworking after child sacrifice became unacceptable. The smoking gun here is mainly that when Abraham returns to his servants afterwards, in Gen 22:19, there is no mention of Isaac returning with him, even though when they were going up the mountain it is consistently said that they both went.
(This is, incidentally, also the view of a number of medieval rabbinical commentators, including the Yalqut Reubeni, which has Isaac recuperating in Heaven for three years after being stabbed and then returning to Earth.)
I personally think it's more likely the whole episode was written to explain why Abraham had a firstborn son who went on to live and do things instead of being sacrificed as was expected of Israelites at the time.
There are a number of passages that indicate the sacrifice of firstborns was a thing you had to do, including Exodus 22:29-30:
מְלֵאָתְךָ וְדִמְעֲךָ לֹא תְאַחֵר בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּתֶּן־לִּי׃
məlēʔātəkā wədīmʕăkā lōʔ təʔaḥēr bəkôr bānekā titten-llî.
You shall not delay to make offerings from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me.
כֵּן־תַּעֲשֶׂה לְשֹׁרְךָ לְצֹאנֶךָ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים יִהְיֶה עִם־אִמּוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי תִּתְּנוֹ־לִי׃
kēn-taʕăśe ləšōrəkā ləṣōʔnekā šibʕat yāmîm yīhəye ʕīm-ʔīmmô bayyôm haššəmînî tīttənô-lî.
You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.
(I include verse 30 to show that this is indeed about sacrifice and not, like, priestly service, unless you want to believe oxen and sheep can be priests.)
This is part of the Covenant Code, which is generally regarded as the earliest prescriptive/legislative text in the Bible.
People eventually stopped loving child sacrifice, though, and you get mechanisms for getting out of it pretty quickly, by redeeming your firstborn instead (i.e. by making some substitute sacrifice; Exo 13:15 et al.) and/or by counting the religious service of the Levites as balancing it out (either altogether or one for one with any excess firstborns still having to be redeemed; Num 3, 8).
Jeremiah has God saying that the practice of child sacrifice that existed among the Israelites is actually something he did not command (Jer 7:31), but that also confirms that child sacrifice is something that did happen at least as far as the author of Jeremiah believed, and Ezekiel, who explains the commandment to sacrifice firstborn as deliberately cruel punishment on God's part ("in order that I might horrify them, so that they might know that I am the Lord"; Eze 20:23-26), also presupposes that this was a thing that happened. By extension, the fact that it didn't happen with Abraham's firstborn is then something that would need addressing, and the binding of Isaac is just that: Abraham actually was going to sacrifice Isaac as per normal, but God intervened.
And FWIW, child sacrifice really wasn't that unusual in the region (the Phoenicians seem to have done it until quite late), and in a time when infant mortality was extremely high anyway, if you believe in gods that can be appealed to through sacrifice, it makes sense that you might sacrifice the first one in order to secure the divine intervention that will enable the subsequent ones to survive. This logic also seems to be present in what God says to Abraham afterwards (Gen 22:16-17):
וַיֹּאמֶר בִּי נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי נְאֻם־יְהוָה כִּי יַעַן אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ אֶת־בִּנְךָ אֶת־יְחִידֶךָ׃
wayyōʔmer bî nišbaʕtî nəʔūm-YHWH kî yaʕan ʔăšer ʕāśîtā ʔet-haddābār hazze wəlōʔ ḥāśaktā ʔet-bīnəkā ʔet-yəḥîdekā.
By myself I have sworn, says the Lord: Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son,
כִּי־בָרֵךְ אֲבָרֶכְךָ וְהַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת־זַרְעֲךָ כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם וְכַחוֹל אֲשֶׁר עַל־שְׂפַת הַיָּם
kî-bārēk ʔăbārekəkā wəharbā ʔarbe ʔet-zarʕăkā kəkôkəbê haššāmayīm wəkaḥôl ʔăšer ʕal-śəpat hayyām [...]
I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. [...]
You sacrificed/were willing to sacrifice your firstborn, therefore your subsequent offspring will be plentiful and live. The fact that this logic is laid out here like this with no mention of Isaac surviving is also part of the reason so many people think the sacrifice did actually happen in the oldest version of the story.
But regardless of which of these views is right—Abraham did sacrifice Isaac and the story was changed when child sacrifice became distasteful, or the story exists to explain why Abraham did not sacrifice Isaac when he should have—I think the more important point is probably that you shouldn't to try to find spiritual guidance or moral prescriptions in stories that were written in social contexts that are wildly alien to yours for reasons you don't know anything about.
