In his A New Look at Atonement in Leviticus, James A. Greenberg addresses the ḥaṭṭā’t offering:
How do anointing with oil and the ḥaṭṭā’t
offering consecrate the altar? Here, it seems that the normal process of
applying oil consecrates (Holiness School: Exod 40:9-15; Priestly Torah: Exod
30:22-33) and in this special case of the ḥaṭṭā’t, the binding of the
altar with the anointed priest also consecrates the altar. It is possible that,
by binding Aaron and his sons to the altar via the ḥaṭṭā’t blood,
following Exod 30:29, Aaron is considered to have the same nature as a holy
object (he is anointed with the other holy objects; Lev 8:10-12; Exod 29:37),
and thus, the altar, which is not holy, is made holy by Aaron. (James A.
Greenberg, A New Look at Atonement in Leviticus: The Meaning and Purpose of
Kipper Revisited [Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 23; University
Park, Pa.: Eisenbrauns, 2019], 85)
Commenting on an interesting textual variant (focusing on singular/plural
instances of Hebrew סמך smk), we read the following:
This is a special case of the ḥaṭṭā’t
that is driven by the status of the altar and Aaron. In this context, Aaron,
while having holy oil on him, is considered a holy object and thus may transfer
his holiness to the altar; cf. Exo 29:37; Lev 10:7. In Lev 8:14, the verb smk
‘lean, lay, rest, support’ is singular even though the subject of the verb is
plural, Aaron and his sons. With the exception of Lev 8 and Exod 29, in all Biblical
Hebrew instances, when this verb is plural the subject is plural (Lev 4:15;
24;14; Num 8:10; 12; 2 Chr 29:23; 32:8; Isa 48:2). In Lev 8, the other
instances of smk are plural, with Aaron and his sons as the subject
(i.e., 8:18 for the burnt offering, and 8:22 for the ordination offering).
Thus, the author seems to think intentionally of Aaron and his sins as a single
entity, supporting this study’s contention that it is Aaron’s holiness that
changes the status of the altar along with the anointing act. The LXX and the
Samaritan Pentateuch differ from the MT and renders all instances of smk in
Lev 8 in the singular form. Perhaps this was an attempt by each tradition to
harmonize all instances of smk with 8;14. However, it is possible that
the LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch wish to represent Aaron and his sons as one
entity in all the Lev 8 rituals. For Exod 29, the text versions are inconsistent.
The MT renders smk as singular in 29:10, plural in 29:15, and singular in
29:19. The Samaritan Pentateuch renders smk as singular in all instances
and this is harmonized with Lev 8. This inconsistency with Exod 29 leads
Milgrom to find no discernible pattern to explain why smk is rendered a singular
in some cases and plural in others (Leviticus 1-16, 520). However, the
MT of Lev 8 is seems to highlight the unity of Aaron and his sons in the context
of the ḥaṭṭā’t and consecration. (Ibid., 85 n. 132)