I'm looking at Leviticus 27:9-10, and it contains two commandments that are seemingly contradictory. Here's the text:
And if it be a beast, whereof men bring an offering unto the LORD, all that any man giveth of such unto the LORD shall be holy.
He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; and if he shall at all change beast for beast, then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy.
Here appears two seemingly contradictory commandments: not to substitute an animal for the animal set apart for sacrifice, but also to consecrate the substituted animal. Is there a traditional explanation for this seeming contradiction?
Looking at Maimonides' famous 613 commandments list, he also sees two commandments present in the passage, and indeed interprets them in such a way that seems like the two commandments are at odds with one another:
-440. Not to substitute another beast for one set apart for sacrifice. -441. The new animal, in addition to the substituted one, retains consecration.
Is there a traditional interpretation of this verse outside of Maimonides' above? Alternately, is there an explanation by the sages regarding this passage?
It seems the most harmonious way to interpret this would be "The first commandment is to refrain from substitution. The second commandment is, if you failed the first commandment, at least make both holy." Are there other explanations?