kumArila bhaTTa talks about such passages in his shlokavartika 5.15.63:
The idea common among ordinary people (that the Veda mentions of creation as proceeding from Prajapati) is a mistaken one, caused by certain valedictory passages (praising up certain injunctions). Because when a passage is not duly considered and interpreted together with the passages that proceed and follow it, it is bound to give rise to a misconception.
In short, mImAMsA believes that the creation stories are metaphorical praises of the Vedic injunctions, and should be understood only in the context of these injunctions. This book also talks about how mImAMsA interprets passages that talk about a creation of the universe.
The Mimamsaka, again, dismisses such claims with more than a touch of
cynicism, for he considers the passages to be unreliable. Rather, these are to be
interpreted metaphorically because they fall under the category of arthavadas or
auxiliary statements, whose explicit purport is to eulogize and praise the central
theme of the primary ritual text (vidhis). But there is another reason why they
might be thought to be unreliable—as we shall mention shortly. But it seems odd
that a Mimamsaka would declare the Veda to be unreliable. If the Veda is
untrustworthy, one might then ask, how could the Mim4msa sustain the claim
that the Veda is infallible? The following response, which by any standard would
seem to be pretentious, is made: ‘*. . . because even though He may not have
created the world, He might speak of having done so, in order to show off His
great power." [shlokavartika 5.15.60]
-Bilimoria, P. (2013). Hindu Doubts About God: Towards a Mimamsa Deconstruction. Philosophy of Religion: Indian Philosophy, 493