Nazir 49a — the Talmud in English

And

if

for Rabbi Akiva

it cannot be learned from reasoning that a nazir who is a High Priest—rather:

whether

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

Priest and he is

also

a nazir, it follows from “

to his brother,”

which is stated regarding a nazir and is superfluous, as was explained above.

And we raise an objection against Rabbi Akiva: “

to his father and to his mother”

of the nazir —

why do I need it?

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

And likewise, the difficulty applies to “to his father and to his mother” regarding the High Priest, for only one of them is needed for Rabbi’s gezera shava!?

And we answer:

They are necessary

both “to his father” and “to his mother,” both regarding the nazir and regarding the High Priest:

For if the Torah had written

only “

his father,”

I would have said: This is the reason that he does not become impure to him: because it is merely a presumption

that he is his father.

That is to say: Had it not been explicitly 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 specifically to him he does not become impure, because he is not certainly his father, for there is concern that perhaps his mother committed adultery. And although we attribute him to his father because “most intercourse is after the husband,” this is not a proven matter — but his mother, whom she certainly bore him

[she is certainly the one who bore him], I would say: Let him become impure to her.

I would say:

Let him become impure to her.

And had the Torah written

only

And if the Merciful One had written

only “

his mother,”

I would have said that the Torah wrote “his mother” in order to teach: specifically,

he must not become impure to his mother,

because her offspring does not follow after her

[because the offspring does not follow after her] with regard to the tribal lineage.

But his father, since the Master said

[in Numbers 1:2]: “

according to their families, according to their fathers’ households,”

to say: One whose father is from one tribe and whose mother is from another tribe is counted with his father’s tribe,

I would say: Let him become impure to him

[I would say that he should become impure to him] —

Therefore

the verse teaches us

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

And the Gemara further explains the verse regarding the High Priest according to Rabbi Akiva: “

And he shall not come upon any dead persons,”

why do I need it?

How is the verse explained according to his position?