And both answers are necessary — for if it had written "his father" and not "his mother," I would have thought specifically to his father he does not become impure because the relationship of his father is merely a presumption [of paternity], since most acts of intercourse follow the husband, but his mother, who certainly gave birth to him, I would say he becomes impure to her. Therefore, if it had written "his father" alone, I would have said that the extra "his father" comes to exclude "his mother" for this reason. And if it had written "his mother" without "his father," I would have thought specifically to his mother he does not become impure, for his seed does not go after her, as it is written "according to their families, according to their fathers' houses." And therefore, if it had written "his mother" and not "his father," I would have said that "his mother" is extra to exclude "his father," and [the verse] "to any dead person he shall not come" we would establish as referring to relatives from the extra [word] "dead," even though it is written without specification. For if "his father" had not been written explicitly, we would have established it only for maternal relatives, based on the reasoning that she certainly gave birth to him. And if "his father" had been written and not "his mother" explicitly, even though we expand [to include] relatives from "dead" which is extra, we would have established it only for paternal relatives, for the reason that the Talmud states: that his seed is traced after him. And if you ask: even if "his father" had been written and not "his mother," how could it enter your mind that he becomes impure to his mother? It should derive from a kal vachomer [a fortiori argument] from his father, the kal vachomer mentioned above: if in a situation where an ordinary priest becomes impure to his brother from his father, as we said above... And [the Tosafot] suggests it is a kal vachomer that can be refuted. The Maharam of Rothenburg explains: According to Rabbi Akiva, who derives from "dead person" regarding the Nazirite, and likewise from "to any dead person he shall not come" regarding the High Priest, that it refers to relatives, then it becomes a general rule [kelal] for all relatives. Therefore, when afterward it specifies one of the relatives — "his father" or "his mother" — I would have said: the general rule includes only what is in the specification — "his father" yes, "his mother" no, or vice versa, since there is reason to distinguish between them. And since this follows the principle of kelal u-prat [general rule and specification], where the general includes only what is in the specification, then even through kal vachomer his mother would not be derived from his father, just as with kelal u-prat elsewhere, where we do not expand beyond the specification, neither through kal vachomer nor through any other exegetical method, as I explained at the beginning of "Three Types" [earlier in Nazir 35a]. And if you ask: since it follows the principle of kelal u-prat, why do I need the reason given for "his father" based on presumption [of paternity], and likewise for "his mother" because her seed does not go after her? It should derive from this reason that the general includes only what is in the specification, as elsewhere. Furthermore, it is difficult: it implies here that from the writing of "his mother" we would know all relatives, such as his brother and sister — why not say forever that the general includes only what is in the specification? And the answer is: impurity prohibition is different, for the verse revealed regarding an ordinary priest that he becomes impure to close relatives but not to distant ones. Thus the matter depends on the reasoning of relationship. Therefore, one must give a reason for "his father" and "his mother" — what aspect of closeness is present in this one more than that one. And it also works out well that from "his father" and "his mother" we know "his brother" and "his sister," for there is no further reason to distinguish among relatives other than from these two reasons — from the father's side and from the mother's side, as explained in the necessity. And therefore, since it revealed "his father" and "his mother," the same applies to "his brother" and "his sister," and we should not say further that the general includes only what is in the specification. And you should know this is correct, for above in Rabbi Ishmael's statement, when he initially says "or is it not saying 'his father' except to exclude other distant [relatives]," the Tosafot above explained this follows from kelal u-prat reasoning and refuted it because it revealed regarding an ordinary priest that it is logical to become impure to close relatives more than to distant ones. We learn from this that regarding the prohibition of impurity, even when we apply kelal u-prat, we need reason and logic for the matter. And now it works out well that according to Rabbi Akiva, both "his father" and "his mother" must be written, and "his mother" does not come through kal vachomer from "his father," as I explained. And it is not comparable to Rabbi Ishmael, who derives "his mother" from "his father" through kal vachomer, for according to Rabbi Ishmael, the general rule of the Nazirite — "to any dead person he shall not come" — is not written regarding close relatives. And since it is written regarding distant relatives, you cannot apply kelal u-prat unless you say it comes to exclude distant relatives, and this you cannot say, as it says above, based on the kal vachomer from an ordinary priest. Therefore, we no longer apply kelal u-prat to exclude other close relatives, such as his mother, as according to Rabbi Akiva, for the general rule is not written regarding close relatives as it is according to Rabbi Akiva. And therefore "his mother" properly comes through kal vachomer from "his father." And in any case, we need the kal vachomer for the logical necessity, as I explained above. And if you ask: this works well regarding the Nazirite, but regarding the High Priest, the general rule applies to close relatives even according to Rabbi Ishmael, as he said above "to any dead person he shall not come" — [does it refer] to close relatives or only to distant ones? I would derive it through kal vachomer from an ordinary priest. And if so, we should apply kelal u-prat? And it seems [correct] that since regarding the Nazirite we cannot apply kelal u-prat, and "his mother" comes through kal vachomer from "his father" as I explained, then regarding the High Priest it is likewise, for we derive one from the other through the gezeirah shavah [verbal analogy] of "his mother." Furthermore, one can explain that perhaps it is not considered a general rule, since the fact that we established that [verse] of the High Priest regarding close relatives is not from the force of the verse itself of the High Priest, but rather from the ordinary priest through "or is it not" [logic], as I explained above. And it is not comparable to Rabbi Akiva, for Rabbi Akiva establishes the verse for its own reason, from the force of the verse itself. Therefore, it is considered a complete general rule. And [further] examination is needed, for Rabbi Akiva expounds "expanded and reduced" [ribah u-mi'et] in the third chapter of Shevuot (26a). And the answer is that even with "expanded and reduced," we nevertheless exclude one thing, and kal vachomer or another method is ineffective to include. And therefore, if "his father" had been written, we would exclude "his mother," and it would not come through kal vachomer, and nothing further. All this is the language of the Maharam of Rothenburg. And if you ask: since "his father" and "his mother" are necessary for themselves, then from where would the meit mitzvah [unattended corpse] come for the Nazirite? And also, the gezeirah shavah would not be extra for the High Priest, since they are necessarily required. And the answer is: necessarily they are extra for meit mitzvah for the Nazirite and for the gezeirah shavah for the High Priest, for otherwise the verse should be silent about both of them. For Rabbi Akiva derives from the extra [word] "dead" [to include] close relatives, both for the Nazirite and for the High Priest. And necessarily, the verse speaks at length about all close relatives and does not distinguish between "his father" and "his mother" by any logic — why were both of them written at all? Rather, for the Nazirite to include meit mitzvah, and for the High Priest for the gezeirah shavah. However, if only one had been written — "his father" or "his mother" — then I would have said that even though the verse speaks at length, nevertheless I would have said that therefore one was written to exclude the other and to remove it from [being considered] lengthly speech, as I explained. And if you ask: do we need to state the necessities according to Rabbi Akiva between "his mother" and "his father"? On the contrary, let us say there is no logic to distinguish between them, and both "his father" and "his mother" are extra, both for the Nazirite and for the High Priest, and we will expound "his father" for meit mitzvah and "his mother" for the gezeirah shavah in both of them. And even though the Baraita mentions both in Rabbi Akiva's statement — "his father" and "his mother" — both for meit mitzvah, what of it? Nevertheless, let us say it is not precise, rather only from "his father" alone it is derived. For so too we say above regarding Rabbi Ishmael that even though the Baraita mentioned "his father" and "his mother" regarding meit mitzvah, nevertheless we conclude that neither "his father" nor "his mother" come for meit mitzvah, rather "his father" for itself and "his mother" for the gezeirah shavah, and meit mitzvah we derive from "his brother," as we say above. So apparently it is not precise; likewise here too, let us say it is not precise, rather only from "his father" alone it is derived. And the answer is: it is not comparable, for certainly according to Rabbi Ishmael, he did not mention for the derivation of meit mitzvah except "his mother," for "his father" was necessary for itself for close relatives, as we said above. Therefore, even though in conclusion meit mitzvah we derive from "his brother" and not from "his mother," nevertheless it was proper to mention "his mother" regarding meit mitzvah, because if "his brother" had not been written, we would have expounded and established "his mother" for meit mitzvah and not for the gezeirah shavah, for we always have to establish first for meit mitzvah, which is similar to [the prohibition] itself, more than a gezeirah shavah to derive elsewhere. Therefore, "his mother," which was written first, we would establish for the derivation of meit mitzvah if "his brother" had not been written afterward. However, in conclusion, since we can derive meit mitzvah from "his brother," we establish "his mother" for the gezeirah shavah. But here, in Rabbi Akiva's statement, since we derive close relatives from "to any," as we said above, we do not need "his father" and "his mother" at all for themselves. Therefore, necessarily, what the Baraita mentioned regarding meit mitzvah — "his father" and "his mother" — for both are extra, as I explained, [means] both were taken for meit mitzvah. For if "his father" [were] for meit mitzvah and "his mother" for the gezeirah shavah, why mention "his mother" at all regarding meit mitzvah? For since "his father" is written first in the verse, and the first verse we should establish for meit mitzvah, as I explained, if so, here we cannot say as with Rabbi Ishmael. Rather, we learn from this that specifically both were mentioned for meit mitzvah, and they are necessarily necessary, as concluded at the end. All this is the language of the Maharam of Rothenburg. [The Tosafot] raises a question: in our sugya, [the Gemara] expounds according to Rabbi Akiva "his father" and "his mother" of the Nazirite — both for meit mitzvah. But in the chapter "One Who Immersed That Day" in Zevachim (100a), [the Gemara] expounds according to Rabbi Akiva "his father" alone for meit mitzvah, and "his mother" [for the law that] if he was an ordinary priest and a Nazirite, he too becomes impure for meit mitzvah; [or] if he was a High Priest and a Nazirite, he too becomes impure for meit mitzvah. What is the difference? Furthermore, it is difficult: how can [the Gemara] expound simply two derivations from "his father" and "his mother"? For "his father" and "his mother" are necessary, as it says here, and if so, only one derivation can be expounded from them, as I explained above. However, in the tosefta of the sugya in the chapter "One Who Immersed That Day," it disagrees with this one here and does not hold the necessity here. Therefore, "his father" and "his mother" come for two derivations. And if you ask: why doesn't our sugya also require a verse for "an ordinary priest and a Nazirite," as there? And the answer is: the logic [is] that since an ordinary priest becomes impure to close relatives, the addition [lit: fattening] of an ordinary priest in the verse regarding "his holiness is eternal holiness" together with the Nazirite does not require a verse. For since regarding his own impurity he is lenient compared to the Nazirite — but a High Priest, who also does not become impure to close relatives, that one certainly I would have thought the addition of his "his holiness is eternal holiness" [means he] should not become impure to meit mitzvah, and therefore the verse of the Nazirite regarding "his brother" was necessary for a High Priest who is a Nazirite. And the sugya there holds that even for the addition of an ordinary priest and a Nazirite, an extra verse is required. However, it is difficult: since there, in the chapter "One Who Immersed That Day," it does not hold the necessity of "his father" and "his mother," then why do I need "his father" and "his mother" of the High Priest? Granted, regarding the Nazirite, all [the derivations] are explained there, as we explained. But regarding the High Priest, it is difficult — [one verse] would suffice for the gezeirah shavah! And we cannot say that the sugya there expounds regarding the High Priest from "his father" meit mitzvah and "his mother" for the gezeirah shavah, for we know meit mitzvah for the High Priest from "his brother" of the Nazirite, as the Talmud says: what [difference is there] to me [between] a High Priest alone [and] a High Priest and Nazirite? Therefore, it appears that there too in the chapter "One Who Immersed That Day," it holds the necessity regarding the High Priest. However, it holds that since both were revealed to us regarding the High Priest that there is no distinction between this one and that one, between father and mother, rather it is merely a revelation of the matter, and the Nazirite derives from it, therefore [the Gemara] expounds both regarding the Nazirite simply. However, one must say that the sugya here disagrees, for it requires both also regarding the Nazirite. Therefore, it does not expound from "his mother" [the law of] "an ordinary priest and a Nazirite," as there. Furthermore, one can also reconcile even this one here, that it holds like that one in "One Who Immersed That Day," for it is difficult to divide the sugya of our Gemara from that one in the chapter "One Who Immersed That Day," for both are [according to] Rabbi Akiva, and there is no logic to say they are two Tannaim according to Rabbi Akiva, since the Talmud did not say so explicitly. And even though our sugya makes a necessity from "his father" and "his mother," and there [the Gemara] expounds two [derivations] from "his father" and "his mother," let us say that from the verse of the High Priest it makes the necessity and to reveal the matter to the Nazirite simply. And from now on, even regarding the Nazirite they are equal, and both were made extra for us regarding the Nazirite for the derivation, as it expounds there. And if you ask: if so, why does [the Gemara] here expound from "his father" and "his mother" of the Nazirite — both for meit mitzvah — according to Rabbi Akiva? One would suffice! And the answer is: yes indeed, here too let us say "his father" alone for meit mitzvah and "his mother" for [the law of] "an ordinary priest and a Nazirite," as it expounds there. However, [the Gemara] did not bother to explain all the derivations here because it relies on the sugya there in the chapter "One Who Immersed That Day." And such is the way of the Talmud, that it abbreviates in one place and elaborates in another place. And if you ask: if so, why did [the Gemara] mention here according to Rabbi Akiva the derivation of "High Priest and Nazirite," as we expound shortly, [and] also relies on the sugya there, just as it relies on the derivation of "ordinary priest and Nazirite" that we expound from "his mother," which [the Gemara] did not bring here that derivation? And one can say: this is because it needed to bring the derivation of "High Priest and Nazirite" from "his brother," and to say: why do I need "High Priest and Nazirite," etc., in order to free up that "his father" and "his mother" of the High Priest for the gezeirah shavah. And [the fact] that both were written, "his father" and "his mother," this is because of the necessity between them. And also from it we raise a question to Rabbi Ishmael: "High Priest and Nazirite" on it. And "his sister" also [the Gemara] explains according to Rabbi Akiva that it is written after "his brother" — since [the Gemara] began to expound "his brother," as I explained, it must complete the verse to its end. Alternatively, because according to Rabbi Akiva, "his sister" was more necessary than according to Rabbi Ishmael, because Rabbi Akiva holds [the principle] "what [difference is there] to me [between] one prohibition [and multiple]," etc. All this is the language of the Maharam of Rothenburg.
