Our Gemara on amud beis discusses the halacha regarding one who incites others to sin through idolatry. There appears to be a contradiction between two teachings. One teaching suggests that merely verbally accepting the inciter’s proposition—agreeing to worship—is already considered a sinful act of incitement. Another teaching, however, implies that liability for incitement only occurs once the sin of idol worship has actually been carried out.
The Gemara resolves this contradiction by distinguishing between someone who incites a group versus an individual. Here is where it gets interesting, as there is a dispute among the commentaries regarding the correct reading of the text. One interpretation holds that when inciting a group, mere verbal agreement is enough to incur liability, whereas inciting an individual requires follow-through with action. The other interpretation suggests the opposite: when a group is being incited, liability is only incurred when they actually act, while when an individual is incited, liability is incurred the moment he verbally agrees to worship.
Each interpretation reflects a different perspective on group dynamics and individual psychology. According to the first interpretation, the concern is mob psychology, where the energy of the group coalesces into a single collective will, making it difficult for individuals to object. The logic follows that once a group agrees to do something, dissenters within it will likely lack the courage to speak up.
The second interpretation presents an opposing view. Since individuals learn social norms from their peers and groups, the group dynamic serves to reflect and challenge ideas among its members. Thus, even if a group verbally commits to idol worship, some within it may resist and prevent the act from being carried out. In contrast, when an individual is incited and personally convinced, he is less likely to change course. Once committed, confirmation bias takes over, and he will seek justifications for his choice rather than reconsidering it.
This highlights a fascinating aspect of social psychology. Groups wield immense power in dictating norms and enforcing compliance through social pressure, often shaming individuals into conforming to written and unwritten rules. Those who stray too far may face ostracization, isolation, and even existential threats by losing the support of their community. This influence can be constructive—encouraging moral development and virtuous thinking through peer feedback—or it can be destructive, leading to mass hysteria that absolves individuals of personal responsibility.
This balance between individual conscience and societal norms is a powerful lesson. At times, one must have the courage to go against the tide, to dissent and stand firm. At other times, one must be humble enough to listen, absorb moral lessons, and recognize the wisdom of the collective.
Reflecting on the early months of COVID-19, we saw how these dynamics played out in real time. Hysteria led to the ostracization of those who questioned the prevailing medical consensus, including those skeptical of masking, social distancing, and the safety or efficacy of the vaccines. Many rabbonim and frum doctors, fearing for public health, produced videos harshly castigating those who did not strictly adhere to distancing measures or who hesitated to vaccinate, branding them “grandma killers.” More modern communities viewed the yeshivish or chassidish groups—who prioritized children’s well-being by maintaining schooling and religious life—as reckless and ignorant.
When fear and panic spiral out of control, even well-intentioned caution can lead to the unjust suppression of legitimate questions and concerns. We are now witnessing the long-term consequences of prolonged school closures, particularly in economically disadvantaged communities. While the upper class had access to private schooling and other educational resources, many public-school children—especially those from lower-income families—fell behind academically and socially. This educational gap remains unresolved, a tragic outcome of excessive caution overriding common sense. Similarly, many shuls remained closed for far too long, and even after reopening, children were often barred from attending for extended periods—disrupting an entire generation’s connection to tefillah b’tzibbur.
This is but one example. The real question is: When the next crisis arises, how will we discern whether it is a time to comply and subjugate our will for the greater good, or a time to dissent and speak out? May Hashem grant us the wisdom to choose rightly.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation 
If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.
Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families as well male sexual health. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com