Midrasz do Kapłańska 13:44

1) (Vayikra 13:44) ("He is a leprous man; he is unclean. The Cohein shall declare him unclean, unclean; in his head is his plague.") "man": This tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive a woman and a minor for inclusion? From "leprous": both man, woman, and minor. If so, why is it written "man"? In respect to what is stated below (Vayikra 13:45). A man lets his hair grow long and rends his garments, and not a woman.

2) "The Cohein shall declare him unclean": We are hereby taught that his uncleanliness must be declared by a Cohein (If not, he is not tamei.) This tells me only of this (afflicted one) alone. Whence do I derive (for inclusion of "declaration") the other afflicted ones? From (the redundant) "The Cohein shall declare him unclean, unclean."

3) Or: Just as this one (karachath or gabachath) is distinct in that his plague-spot is in his head, so I include (for "declaration") nethakim (of the previous verses), where the plague-spot is in one's head. Whence do I derive (for inclusion of "declaration") the other afflicted ones? From (the redundant) "He is unclean; the Cohein shall declare him unclean, unclean."