Our Gemara on Amud Beis compares the chattas of the Kohen Gadol and the chattas of the congregation. Certain differences in how the ritual is described in the Torah imply messages about the nature of the sin and the status of the sinner:

“The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For what reason are the diaphragm and the two kidneys stated with regard to the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, and they are not explicitly stated with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin?

This can be explained by a parable: It can be compared to a flesh-and-blood king who grew angry with his beloved servant for his misdeeds, but spoke little of the servant’s offense due to his great affection for him. Likewise, as the Jewish people are beloved by God, the Torah does not describe their sin offering in detail.

And the school of Rabbi Yishmael further taught: For what reason is it stated, “Before the Curtain of the Sanctuary” (Vayikra 4:6), with regard to the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, and this is not stated with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin, where it merely states, “Before the Curtain” (Vayikra 4:17)?

This can be explained by a parable: It can be compared to a flesh-and-blood king against whom a province sinned. If a minority of that province sinned, his relationship with his entourage (pamalya) remains. But if the majority of the province sinned, his relationship with his entourage does not remain, and he no longer meets even those who remained devoted to him. Similarly, when the entire people sin, God no longer has the same relationship with them, and it is as though the place where the priest sprinkles the blood is no longer sacred.”

The above interpretation follows Rashi. The Maharsha notes a serious inconsistency. In the first clause, the congregation’s honor is held above that of the Kohen Gadol, since the Torah conceals part of their offering to spare their shame. Yet, in the second clause, the opposite seems true: the congregation is distanced, as the Torah omits the word “Sanctuary,” merely saying “the Curtain,” unlike by the Kohen Gadol’s offering.

The Maharsha therefore interprets that the first clause also conveys endearment toward the Kohen Gadol—that the Torah honors him by describing the offering in more explicit detail.

The Maris HaAyin defends Rashi’s approach, arguing there is no contradiction. The congregation may indeed be distanced collectively, thus the omission of “Sanctuary,” yet the concealment of the details of their offering remains an act of love—God’s wish to spare their humiliation.

The disagreement turns on whether affection and distance can coexist. The Maharsha sees this as a contradiction, while the Maris HaAyin, following Rashi, allows for emotional complexity: Hashem may express both kiruv and rechuk at once.

This nuanced view offers a deep psychological and moral lesson. In disciplinary relationships—between parent and child, teacher and student, or leader and follower—there are times when closeness must momentarily give way to boundary or consequence. Yet even as the discipline introduces distance, the underlying bond of love remains. Genuine affection sometimes expresses itself not by indulgence, but by protecting the other’s dignity even in correction.