Legalese Again

Sometimes you have to wonder if judges go back and read some of the stuff they write. Here's a federal judge reconciling the various subsections of a statute in Wisconsin Knife Works v. National Metal Crafters:

In any event, we are not suggesting that "waiver" means different things in (4) and (5); it means the same thing; but the effect of an attempted modification as a waiver under (4) depends in part on (2), which (4) (but not 5) qualifies.

Really? This is supposed to clarify things for me?