Midrash sur Les Nombres 6:7

(Bamidbar 6:6) "All the days of his Naziritism to the L-rd, upon the soul of a dead one he shall not come." Scripture now leaves the subject of shaving and comes to speak of tumah. "upon the soul … he shall not come": I might think that even beasts are herein subsumed, as in (Vayikra 24:18) "One who strikes the soul of a beast, etc."; it is, therefore, written: "upon the soul of a dead one he shall not come," Scripture referring to a human being. R. Yishmael says: This (proof) is not needed, for it is written "he shall not come." Scripture is speaking of a (dead) soul that confers tumah by entry (into his tent, [i.e., the soul of a man, and not that of a beast]). (6:7) "For his father and his mother … he shall not become tamei" — but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah (one who has no one to bury him). Why need this be stated? It is understood a fortiori, viz.: If the high-priest, whose holiness is permanent, becomes tamei for a meth-mitzvah, how much more so, a Nazirite, whose holiness is temporary! — No, this may be true of a high-priest, who does not bring an offering for his uncleanliness — wherefore he becomes tamei for a meth-mitzvah, as opposed to a Nazirite, who does bring an offering for his uncleanliness — wherefore he should not become tamei for a meth-mitzvah! It must, therefore, be written "For his father and his mother he shall not become tamei" — but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. — But perhaps the intent of the verse is: "For his father and his mother … he shall not become tamei," but he does become for other dead! — Would you say such a thing? If an ordinary Cohein, who does become tamei for his kin, may not become tamei for other dead, how much more so a Nazirite, who may not become tamei for his kin! What, then, is the intent of "For his father and his mother … he shall not become tamei? He does not become tamei for his father and his mother, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. — But even without this verse, I can derive it by reasoning, viz.: There is a general rule for a high-priest (Vayikra 21:11: "And upon all souls of the dead he shall not come"), and there is a general rule for a Nazirite ("Upon the soul of a dead one he shall not come.") Just as with the general rule for the high-priest, he may not become tamei for kin, so with the general rule for the Nazirite, he may not become tamei for kin. You derive it from the high-priest, but I can derive it from an ordinary priest, viz.: There is a general rule for an ordinary priest and there is a general rule for a Nazirite. Just as with the general rule for the ordinary priest he does become tamei for kin, so, with the general rule for the Nazirite, he should become tamei for kin. It must, therefore, be written "For his father and his mother; for his brother and for his sister, he shall not become tamei, etc." R. Akiva says (on Vayikra 21:11): "souls" — these are the distant (i.e., non-kin); "the dead" — these are kin; "for his (the high-priest's) father and his mother" — For his father and his mother he does not become tamei, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. (Bamidbar 6:7) "for his brother": If he were a high-priest or a Nazirite, he may not become tamei, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. "and for his sister": What is the intent of this? If one (an ordinary Cohein) were going to slaughter his Paschal lamb or to circumcise his son, and he hears that one of his kin had died, I might think that he should become tamei for them; it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "he shall not become tamei." I might think that he should (also) not become tamei for a meth-mitzvah; it is, therefore, written "and for his sister" — He does not become tamei for his sister, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. But (a verse) is not needed for his (young) son and daughter; for minors cannot become Nazirites. "he shall not become tamei for them in their death": In their death he does not become tamei for them, but he does become tamei for them in their leprous or zivah (genital discharge) state. This tells me only of a Nazirite. Whence do I derive (the same for) a high-priest? It is written in respect to a high-priest (Vayikra 21:11) "for his mother (he shall not) become tamei." This is superfluous, for I can derive it a fortiori, viz.: If in an instance where an ordinary Cohein may become tamei for his father's brother, a high-priest may not become tamei for his father, then in an instance where an ordinary Cohein may not become tamei for his father's brother, how much more so may a high-priest not become tamei for his father! If I can derive it, then, a fortiori, why is the verse "for his mother, etc." needed in respect to a high-priest? It is "extra," to the end of formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: It is written "his mother" here (in respect to a high-priest), and it is written "his mother" elsewhere (in respect to a Nazirite). Just as there he does become tamei (for them) in their leprous or zivah state, so, here. Variantly: "He shall not become tamei for them in their death": In their death he may not become tamei for them, but he may stand at their eulogy and in the mourner's row. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "for the crown of his G-d is on his head": whether or not he has hair. These are the words of R. Yonathan.