James Watts (Ritual and Rhetoric, 87-88) calls attention to the repetitions of Leviticus 4-5, especially of the basic roots, cht (sin, sin offering) and ‘shm (guilt, trespass offering):

“the refrain ‘sin that he sinned . . . as sin’ appears eight times (4:3, 14, 23–24, 28, 5:6, 7, 10, 13). The most exaggerated use of redundancy for rhetorical impact appears later in Leviticus 5, where verse 19 consists of only five words and uses the root ‘sm three times: ’asham hu ashom asham lYHWH ‘It is guilt – guiltily he became guilty before YHWH.’”

Further, “Repetitions of the roots cht and ‘shm in these chapters also introduce variations on the formulas that seem to play intentionally on their multiple meanings and blur distinctions between them. ‘Sin that he sinned’ in 4:3, 14, 28 (twice), 5:6, 10, 13, becomes ‘his guilt that he sinned’ in 5:7 and even the odd ‘his offering . . . that he sinned’ in 5:11. Atonement (kipper) is achieved simply for persons . . . in 4:20, becomes also ‘for’ and ‘from his sin’ . . . in 4:26 and 5:6, ‘from his sin that he sinned’ in 5:10, ‘for the sin that he sinned’ in 5:13, ‘for what he sinned’ in 5:16, and finally ‘for the one of all the things that he did by which he became guilty of it’ in 5:26 [LXX 6:7].”

Why? Watts offers this rhetorical explanation: “Wordplays on emotionally laden terms like ‘sin’ and ‘guilt’ convey a sense of urgency: these offerings are necessary, essential! The patterns in which Leviticus 4–5 deploys this vocabulary reinforce an impression of urgency: refrains using these terms appear with increasing frequency toward the end of Leviticus 4 and into Leviticus 5, and slight variations on the formulas increase along with their frequency. Add to that the shift in the preponderance of the vocabulary from ‘sin’ to ‘guilt,’ that is, from the act to its consequences, and the chapters appear to be carefully crafted to convince their hearers and readers of the urgent necessity of fulfilling their ritual stipulations” (91).

Watts takes this rhetorical emphasis as necessary because the hattat and asham are innovative offerings. The new kids on the Levitical block need this kind of reinforcement (92). He explains the innovation by reference to the increasingly legal role that the temple and capital were taking at the time the book was being written: “The Torah emphasizes drastic consequences if divine laws are not obeyed. Therefore disobedience requires quasi-legal ritual rectification” (95).

I find this implausible. Watts is correct that these forms of offering were innovative, but in the context of the Pentateuch, the thing that requires the innovation is Yahweh’s presence in holy space within the people of Israel. Once He moves into the neighborhood, Israel is in danger, and that danger of defilement has to be kept at bay through these house-cleaning offerings.

True as it may be, the notion that repetition is done for “emphasis” is trite. If there is indeed “wordplay,” it’s got to be doing something more than emphasizing. There must be something more than emphasis in the fact that the one who commits hattat brings a hattat for the hattat that he hatas. The fact that the “solution” to sin bears the same name as the sin itself points, perhaps, to the radical deficiency of the Levitical system, pointed out by the writer to the Hebrews: In these hattat offerings there is a continuous reminder of the hattat committed; it covers and cleanses but doesn’t remove sin. For that something other than hattat must remove hattat.