Вайикра 21:11 Мидраш: Sifra, Bamidbar Rabbah & Sifrei Bamidbar

4) (Vayikra 21:11) ("And to any dead body he shall not come. For his father and for his mother he shall not become tamei.") "And to any dead body he shall not come": R. Akiva said: Whence is it derived that a fourth of a log of blood issuing from two dead bodies (is tamei)? From "And to any dead (lit., "bodies, he shall not come" — two bodies and one amount (of blood [connoted by "dead body"]). "he shall not come" "he shall not come" and "he shall not become tamei": He is liable for (both) "he shall not come" (into the tent of the dead body) and "he shall not become tamei." This tells me only that the high-priest is liable for both. Whence is it derived that the same applies to an ordinary Cohein, (in respect to whom only "he shall not become tamei" is written [viz. Vayikra 21:1])? From gezeirah shavah (identity) of "he shall not become tamei" (here) and "he shall not become tamei" (there) — Just as with that written in respect to the high-priest there is liability for both "he shall not come" and for "he shall not become tamei," so with that written in respect to an ordinary Cohein. "For his father and for his mother he may not become tamei": (but) he does make himself tamei for a meth mitzvah (a dead body without anyone else to bury it).

“All the days of his abstinence to the Lord, he shall not approach a dead person” (Numbers 6:6).
“All the days of his abstinence to the Lord….” Come and see that anyone who sanctifies himself below, they sanctify him above. This one, because he abstains from wine and conducts himself with suffering in that he does not shave the hair of his head in order to protect himself from transgression, the Holy One blessed be He says: ‘He is considered before Me like a High Priest.’ Just as it is prohibited for a priest to become impure for all corpses, so it is prohibited for a nazirite to become impure for all corpses. Just as regarding the High Priest, it is written: “For the crown of the anointing oil of his God is on him” (Leviticus 21:12), so, by the nazirite it says: “For the crown of his God is on his head” (Numbers 6:7). Just as regarding the priest, it is written: “Aaron was set apart, to sanctify him as most holy” (I Chronicles 23:13), so, the nazirite is called holy, as it is stated: “All the days of his naziriteship he is holy to the Lord” (Numbers 6:8). Come and see how much the mitzvot adorn Israel. Does growing hair long not render a person repulsive, as he is unable to shampoo his hair? But because he grows it for the sake of Heaven, the verse characterizes it as a crown for his head. That is what is written: “For the crown of his God is on his head.”
“All the days of his abstinence...” – a nazirite whose days are completed¹¹⁰But who did not yet bring the sacrifice which terminates the naziriteship. is forbidden to drink, to shave, and to become impure due to dead people. If he shaved, drank wine, or became impure due to dead people, he incurs forty lashes. Regarding wine, from where is it derived that he is flogged? It is written: “All the days of his naziriteship [from anything that may be derived from the grapevine…he shall not eat]” (Numbers 6:4), rendering the days after completion like the days before completion. Regarding shaving, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “All the days of the vow of his naziriteship, [a razor shall not pass on his head]” (Numbers 6:5), to include the days after completion like the days before completion. Regarding impurity, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “All the days of his abstinence to the Lord, [he shall not approach a dead person],” rendering the days after completion like the days before completion.
Three categories are prohibited for the nazirite; impurity, shaving, and what is derived from the grapevine. Impurity, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “All the days of his abstinence to the Lord, [he shall not approach] a dead person.” Shaving, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “All the days of the vow of his naziriteship, a razor shall not pass on his head.” (Numbers 6:5) What is derived from the grapevine, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “All the days of his naziriteship, from anything that may be derived from the grapevine [he shall not eat]” (Numbers 6:4). There is a stringency in impurity and shaving, more than in what may be derived from the grapevine, as impurity and shaving voids the naziriteship and what emerges from the grapevine does not void. There is a stringency in what may be derived from the grapevine, more than in impurity and shaving, as what may be derived from the grapevine has no allowance at all, but shaving for a mitzva, e.g., a leper, as it is derived from the extraneous “his head”¹¹¹Leviticus 14:9. that is stated regarding the leper to include a nazirite leper, that he shaves. And there is an allowance to become impure for a met mitzva.¹¹²This is a corpse with no one to bury it. There is a stringency in impurity more than in shaving, as impurity voids everything and one is obligated to bring an offering for it, but shaving voids only thirty days and one is not obligated to bring an offering for it.
“He shall not approach [lo yavo] a dead person [nefesh met].” I hear that even dead animals [nafshot behema] are included, like the matter that is stated: “One who kills an animal [nefesh behema]” (Leviticus 24:18). The verse states: “For his father and for his mother […he shall not become impure]” (Numbers 6:7); regarding what matter is the verse speaking? It is regarding dead people. Rabbi Yishmael says: This is not necessary. It says lo yavo; it is regarding the dead who impurify through bia,¹¹³Entry under the same roof as the corpse. and these are dead people.
“For his father,” why is it stated? It is because it [the law] is broad regarding a common priest: “He shall not become impure from a dead person among his people” (Leviticus 21:1) and then it permits him regarding relatives: “Except for his relative [who is close to him: For his mother, for his father, for his son, for his daughter, for his brother]” (Leviticus 21:2); perhaps the same is true regarding the nazirite? The verse states: “For his father,” saying that he may not become impure for relatives.
“And for his mother,” why is it stated? It is because it says regarding the nazirite: “He shall not become impure for them upon their death” (Numbers 6:7). Rabbi says: Upon their deaths he may not become impure, but for their leprosy or for their ziva,¹¹⁴See Leviticus 15:1–15, 25–30. he may become impure. Regarding the High Priest, from where is it derived? The verse states: “And for his mother” (Leviticus 21:11), regarding the High Priest, which was unnnecesary for me, as it is already an a fortiori inference: If in an instance where a common priest may become impure for his paternal brother, the High Priest may not become impure for his father, in an instance where a common priest may not become impure for his maternal brother, it follows that the High Priest may not become impure from his mother. If you obtained this logically, why does the verse state: “And for his mother,” regarding the High Priest? It is here in order to derive and learn a verbal analogy from it. “His mother” is stated regarding the High Priest and “his mother” is stated regarding the nazirite. Just as “his mother” that is written regarding the nazirite [is regarding her death], but he may become impure for her leprosy or for her ziva, so, too, regarding “his mother” that is written regarding the High Priest, he may become impure for her leprosy of for her ziva.
“For his brother” (Numbers 6:7), why is it stated? For his brother he may not become impure, but he may become impure for a met mitzva. “And for his sister” (Numbers 6:7), why is it stated? One who was going to slaughter his Paschal lamb and to circumcise his son and he heard that a relative of his died, shall he, perhaps, become impure? You said: “He shall not become impure for them upon their death.” Shall he, perhaps, not become impure for a met mitzva? The verse states: “For his sister,” for his sister he does not become impure, but he becomes impure for a met mitzva. “For his brother” is stated to permit him to become impure for a met mitzva, which is only a prohibition: “He shall not become impure for them.” “And for his sister” is to permit him to become impure even in the place of the Paschal lamb and circumcision, for which one incurs liability for karet. But for his son and for his daughter are not stated, as minors cannot become nazirites.
Rabbi Akiva says: Nefesh, these are those who are unrelated. Met, these are those who are relatives. “For his father” he may not become impure, but he may become impure for a met mitzva. If “for his father” is stated, why is “and for his mother” stated? Had his father been stated and his mother had not been stated, I would have said: This is why he may not become impure for him, because he [his status as his father] is based on presumed status, but his mother, who certainly bore him, let him become impure for her. And had the All Merciful written "his mother," I would have said: It is for his mother that he may not, as her offspring are not attributed to her, but his father, because the verse said: “By their families, by their patrilineal houses” (Numbers 1:2); let us say that he may become impure for him. That is why “for his father” is stated. “For his brother” – that were he a High Priest and a nazirite, he may not become impure for his brother, but he may become impure for a met mitzva. “And for his sister” – that were he going to slaughter his Paschal lamb or to circumcise his son, he may not become impure for his sister, but he may become impure for a met mitzva.
“He shall not become impure for them upon their death,” but he stands there at the eulogy and at the line.¹¹⁵This is the line of those comforting the mourners. This is in contradistinction to the High Priest, who is not present at those occasions. Rabbi says: Upon their death” he does not become impure, but he becomes impure for their leprosy and for their ziva.
“For the crown of his God is on his head,” to relate what is the cause.

(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.