This is a response to the meta call for contradictions. I got plenty of these that nobody else notices.
And a man or woman that will have an affliction in him, in the head or in the beard. And the priest saw the affliction, and here it appears deeper than the skin, and within it is fine yellow hair, and the priest made him defiled. It is a scall, it is the leprosy of the head or beard.
And if the priest will see the scall affliction, and here its appears to be not deeper tham the skin, and there is no black hair within it, and the priest enclosed the scall afflicted seven days.
And the priest saw the affliction on the seventh day, and here the scall has not spread, and there will not be yellow hair in it, and the scall does not appear deeper than the skin, and he will shave, and the affliction he will not shave. And the priest will enclose the scall seven days, a second time. And the priest saw the scall on the seventh day. And here, the scall has not spread in the skin, and its appears to be not deeper than the skin, and the priest purificed him, and he washed his clothes, and was purified—Leviticus 13:29-34 (Wikisource)
This passage is distinguishing a less-severe scall from a more severe scall. The distinction is that the more severe scall has yellow hair, so presumably, the less severe scall has no yellow hair. But here the law regarding who should not be defiled defines the less severe scall as that which does not have black hair within it.
This is an obvious contradiction with the rest of the text.
Why does it say black hair where the context demands yellow hair?