Malta Daika in the 16th century took the trouble to write to her and read.

In Kiddushin 4: Above, the rabbi says that in principle the Torah does not write a law that comes out in the rabbi, and if it does write it, it means that it came to teach something else. Then the rabbi comes to say how this fits in with the rule that you fulfilled in the rabbi, and you wrote it down, “Read,” meaning who said that it came to teach something else? Maybe it’s the same law, but you bothered to write it down in the Torah. Then the rabbi replies that this rule is said when we don’t have one excuse, but if there is another excuse, such as another law to learn, then we do learn it.
 
It amazes me, we have before us lines of intellectual indirection. You are aware that the excuse “because the Torah said in the 15th chapter, the Torah bothered to write it” is not a valid excuse (otherwise it could have been excused even when it was possible to learn another law), and you still use it in places where you do not see what other law could be learned! This is a complete mess. Why not be honest and simply say “the Torah came to teach something but I don’t know what”, and instead present a baseless answer that says it wrote the 15th chapter this way!!?