Continuing the response to the meta call for contradiction.
Here is Leviticus 13:55 in context:
And he burned the cloth or the warp or the woof, of wool or of linen, or any of the leather implements which will have the affliction within it, because it is a hurrying leprosy, it will be burned in fire. And if the priest will see that here the affliction did not spread in the cloth or in the warp or woof, or in any of the implements of leather. And the priest commanded, and they washed that which has the affliction in it, and they enclosed it seven days again. And the priest saw after the affliction had been washed, and here the affliction did not alter in his eyes, and the affliction did not spread, it is defiled, you will burn it in fire. It is a Pchetheth, in his bald-spot or in his receding forehead. And if the priest saw, and here the affliction is faded after it has been washed, and he ripped it out of the cloth or from the leather or from the warp or from the woof.
The thing is talking about leather and cloth implements, and various kinds of growths on them. But then, in the middle of verse 55, we here the assertion that "it is a Pchetheth, in his bald-spot or in his receding forehead", which is only relevant in a context many paragraphs removed.
What the heck? What is the it that is the Pchetheth in his bald-spot or receding forehead? The "it" doesn't have any interpretable referent that is not self-contradictory.