Nazir 48: Including Mothers - Superfluous?

The rabbis continue to compare the similarities and differences between the nazirite and the Kohen Gadol, the high priest.  Both are permitted to become tamei, ritually impure, in order to do a met mitzvah, where they come across a dead body and bury it because no one else is available to complete the burial.  They find the prooftext for the Kohen Gadol's permission.  They search for the prooftext for the nazirite's allowance to become tamei for a met mitzvah.

One of the questions asked in today's Gemara is why "and for one's mother" is included in the text.  If a verse states that one may become tamei for one's father, isn't speaking of one's mother superfluous? This question is particularly interesting given that women are only sometimes included when mitzvot or restrictions are placed upon men.  In my reading, it is not at all obvious that mothers would be included when we learn about fathers.  

The rabbis deconstruct a number of verses piece by piece. One of their questions is whether or not the met mitzvah might refer to people or to animals, as well.  After all, nazirites are forbidden to be close to  a nefesh met, a dead soul (Numbers 6:6).  Animals could be included in this definition. The rabbis walk through a number of reasons that the nefesh met refers specifically to the body of a person.

The rabbis wonder about the distinct differences between halachot of nazirites, the Kohen Gadol, and common priests.  To be honest, I found much of today's reading somewhat tedious.  Perhaps it is just difficult for me to focus, or perhaps the topic is less than intriguing.  Probably the former, for every page of Talmud seems to hold fascinating intellectual arguments if not easy-to-find, enlightening spiritual meaning.