Every meal-offering of a Kohen is to be entirely offered up, it shall not be eaten. (6:16)
Our verse states that, unlike the minchah (meal-offering) of a non-Kohen where a kemitzah is offered on the mizbeyach and the rest is consumed by the Kohen, the minchah of a Kohen is offered on the mizbeyach in its entirety. The Rambam in the Moreh Nevuchim suggests that the reason for this law is that if the Kohen’s minchah was treated like a regular minchah – with just a small amount being offered on the mizbeyach and the rest being eaten by the Kohen – it would appear as if he hadn’t offered a korban at all! Hence, the Torah says that the entire minchah must be offered on the mizbeyach.
The Tur, who cites this explanation of the Rambam in his commentary on the Chumash, raises a question from the laws of a bird that is brought as a chatas (sin-offering). Unlike an animal that is brought as an offering, where certain parts of the animal are offered on the mizbeyach, when it comes to a bird chatas-offering, only the blood is sprinkled on the mizbeyach while the rest of the bird is consumed by the Kohen! According to the Rambam, why is there no parallel concern when a Kohen brings a bird as a chatas, i.e., that it appears as if the bird has not been offered as a korban. After all, only its blood has been offered on the mizbeyach, something which is forbidden for the Kohen to consume anyway!
In response to the Tur’s question, the Meshech Chochmah refers us to the explanation of the Ibn Ezra regarding a curious phenomenon within korbanos. When it comes to animals, an olah (burnt offering) and chatas can be offered independently of each other. However, when a person brings a bird as a chatas-offering, it is always accompanied by a second bird as an olah-offering. The Ibn Ezra explains that since no part of the bird chatas is offered on the mizbeyach, another bird is brought as an olah, which serves the function of the sacrificial parts of the chatas. In other words, according to the Ibn Ezra, the two birds together form one complete korban, with one bird being consumed by the mizbeyach and the other by the Kohen.
Understandably, if the Rambam subscribes to this approach, then the question of the Tur presents no difficulty. It is only with regards to a minchah, where just a kemitzah is offered on the mizbeyach, that there is a concern that it looks as if the Kohen has not actually brought a korban. However, when it comes to a bird chatas, there is no such concern, as he has also offered up a second bird in its entirety on the mizbeyach as part of this korban!
