Midrasz do Kapłańska 14:3

5) (Vayikra 14:3) ("And the Cohein shall go outside the camp, and the Cohein shall see, and, behold, if the plague-spot of leprosy is healed from the leper,") "And the Cohein shall go out … and the Cohein shall see": What is the intent of this (i.e., Why not simply "and he shall see?) — Because it is written "And the Cohein shall go out, I might think that only a Cohein who was in the encampment (could go outside to cleanse the leper), but if he were at sea or in rivers or in deserts, whence would I know (that he is also qualified to do so)? From and the Cohein (i.e., a different Cohein) shall (i.e., may) see." If so, why is it written "And the Cohein shall go out"? (To teach us that only) a Cohein who may enter the encampment (i.e., a Cohein who is not a leper himself) may cleanse a leper, but a leper may not cleanse a leper.

6) "and, behold, it is healed": if the plague-spot (itself) is healed (even if the white hair still remains). "plague-spot": (even) if the white hair has gone (and the plague-spot remains). "leprosy": (even) if the michyah has gone. This tells me only of all of them (i.e., all of the white hair, all of the michyah). Whence do I derive (that he is healed) even if part of the white hair (has gone), even part of the michyah? From "from (the leper"), ("from" connoting "part of"). "the leper": to include one in whose entire body it has blossomed, as requiring birds.

7) But does this not follow a fortiori? (Why, then, is a verse required?) viz. If one who was healed, with no signs of tumah remaining with him — (If he) requires birds, then one who was healed, with signs of tumah (complete blossoming) remaining with him — how much more so should he require birds! — (No,) this is refuted by one who was quarantined for two weeks, who was healed, the signs of tumah (i.e., the original plague-spot for which he was quarantined) remaining with him (but merely not spreading), and his not requiring birds.