Nazir 49a (מט.) — the Talmud in English

And

if

according to Rabbi Akiva

it is impossible to derive from reasoning that a nazirite who is a High Priest [may become impure to a met mitzva], rather:

not

whether he is merely a High Priest, or whether he is a

High Priest and

also

a nazirite, it follows from “

to his brother,”

which is stated with regard to a nazirite and is superfluous, as explained above.

And we challenge Rabbi Akiva: “

To his father and to his mother”

of the nazirite—

why do I need it?

That is to say: Why do I need both “to his father” and “to his mother” with regard to a nazirite in order to teach about a met mitzva?

The same difficulty applies to “to his father and to his mother” with regard to the High Priest, since only one of them is needed for Rabbi’s gzera shava!?

And we answer:

Both are necessary

both “to his father” and “to his mother,” both with regard to a nazirite and with regard to a High Priest:

Had the Torah written

only

“his father,”

I would have said: The reason he may not become impure to him is merely a presumption

that he is his father.

That is to say: If it had not explicitly been written that he is permitted to become impure to both his father and his mother, I would have said that “his father” was written in order to say that he specifically may not become impure to him, because he is not certainly his father: there is reason to suspect that his mother committed adultery. Although we presume that he is the son of her husband because “the majority of relations are with the husband,” this is not conclusive evidence —

but as for his mother, she certainly gave birth to him,

I would say:

Let him become impure to her.

And had the Torah written

only

“his mother,”

I would have said

that the Torah wrote “his mother” in order to teach: specifically,

he may not become impure to his mother,

since

her offspring does not follow her

with regard to tribal affiliation.

But as for his father, since the Master said

(Numbers 1:2): “

According to their families, by their fathers’ households,”

meaning that one whose father is from one tribe and whose mother is from another tribe is assigned to his father’s tribe,

I would say: Let him become impure to him

that is, I would say that he should become impure to him—

Therefore

the verse teaches us

that he becomes impure both to relatives on his father’s side and to relatives on his mother’s side.

The Gemara further explains the verse concerning the High Priest according to Rabbi Akiva: “

And he shall not enter upon any dead person,”

why do I need it?

How is this verse interpreted according to his position?