115. “Rabbi Shimon was afraid etc.” Rabbi Shimon was afraid and wept, saying: “O Lord, I have heard the report of You and am afraid” (Habakkuk 3:2). Habakkuk stated this verse when he saw his death and his revival by means of Elisha. Why is he called Habakkuk? Because it is stated: “At this season, when the time comes round, you shall embrace [ḥoveket] a son” (II Kings 4:16), for this Habakkuk was the son of the Shunammite. There were two embraces: One from his mother and one from Elisha, as it is written, “And he put his mouth upon his mouth [and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands; and he stretched himself upon him, and the flesh of the child warmed]” (II Kings 4:34).

Explanation: A question arises in this context: How is it possible that through his blessing the prophet Elisha extended to the Shunammite a seed that is not sustainable?¹ The explanation is that the prophet Elisha was greater than all the prophets apart from Moses (as stated in the Zohar, Parashat Beshallaḥ, 2). He merited the aspect of souls from the supernal Garden of Eden, [souls in which the aspect of] Ban was already in a state of complete purity and wholeness, as it will be in the future. Therefore, when [Elisha] pulled the son to [the Shunammite], he was not careful to tie him to the male world, for he told her: **“You shall embrace a son,”**² which represents the Nukba and he tied that embrace only to the side of Nukba. Since the Nukba, which is the Ban, is near the kelippot and the Sitra Aḥara, the Sitra Aḥara clung to him and he died.

footnotes: ¹ How could Elisha make the "error" of giving the Shunammite woman a child that would shortly die? ² The word “son” is the same letters as the holy name Ban

Thus, the cause of the death was the result of the prophet’s lofty, exalted state, since his own Ban was already cleansed of any grip of the Sitra Aḥara and death. This is why the prophet was surprised: “And the Lord hid it from me and did not tell me” (II Kings 4:27). In other words, he could not even contemplate that death could occur to [the child] as a result of [Elisha's] connection to the Ban alone. Consequently, [Elisha] had to return and revive him, and tie him to the higher world, in the mystical meaning of the resurrection of the dead, as will be explained here.

The mystical meaning of the embrace is that the essence of a child is the whiteness in it, ³ 31a) indicates that the man contributes "whiteness" to the fetus, while the woman contributes "redness. " As with all Kabbalah concepts, it alludes to the spiritual roots and not the physical fetus. which is from the father (Nidda 31a), which is the mystical meaning of Ḥokhma. Ḥokhma is called “whiteness,” as is known, and this is the mystical meaning of: “In wisdom [ḥokhma] You have made them all” (Psalms 104:24). However, [Ḥokhma] requires the enclothing of the [light of giving], since there cannot be Ḥokhma without clothing of the [light of giving]. Therefore, the redness of the mother is required, which is the mystical meaning of the partition that extends the [light of giving] to enclothe the Ḥokhma. By means of the embrace of Ḥokhma by the [light of giving], the child is drawn and sustained. This is the meaning of the statement: “For this was the son of the Shunammite,” that is, this embrace of Ḥokhma by the [light of giving], performed on the child, was all from his mother the Shunammite, that is, only from the side of Ban. ⁴ and Ban without the anchor in the male aspect.

footnotes: ³ This quote, from the Talmud (Nidda ⁴ This means to say, the reference to the child as "the son of the Shunammite" is hinting to the underlying cause of the death of the child. The "Shunammite" is the femaleness, the Nukba

It thus states: “There were two embraces: One from his mother and one from Elisha.” For when [Elisha] revived [the boy], [Elisha] drew down the whiteness and redness anew for him. Thus, Elisha made a second embrace for him, and as a result he had two embraces, one from his mother and one from Elisha.