hbb@hou5a.UUCP (H.B.Braude) (11/19/84)
[The 1st attempt at posting this didn't work.]
There is a halacha that I was told in the name of the Mishna
Brurah, obligating one to close a window in a room where someone
in that room feels uncomfortable due to the cold outside air.
This ruling would apply even if there was only one person who
was bothered by the cold weather among several people. In
fact, according to this halacha, if the other people would
feel bothered by the window being closed (they're too hot,) the
window would still have to be closed.
My question is whether the same logic would apply to something
called "Onaat Devarim" - a prohibition against saying something
to someone that will make that person feel bad. If a person would
be categorized as being over-sensitive (by comparison to other
people in the society who would not be offended were similar
comments made to them,) would one be required to control one's
tongue to conform to the social norm or to that of the particular
individual? (The connection is that the person the Mishna Brurah
discusses is physically sensitive, while in the other case the
person is emotionally sensitive.)
By the way, the giving of "Musar" (moral instruction?) would not
constitute "Onaat Devarim" even were the recipient to
dislike the criticism, due to the special statement in the Torah
of "hochayach tocheeyach et amitecha" (obligating each person to
instruct his/her fellow if/when they err.)
Thanks for any insight you can offer.
--
Harlan B. Braude
{most "backbone" sites}!hou5a!hbbdave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (11/22/84)
In article <626@hou5a.UUCP> hbb@hou5a.UUCP (H.B.Braude) writes: || There is a halacha that I was told in the name of the Mishna || Brurah, obligating one to close a window in a room where someone || in that room feels uncomfortable due to the cold outside air. || This ruling would apply even if there was only one person who || was bothered by the cold weather among several people. In || fact, according to this halacha, if the other people would || feel bothered by the window being closed (they're too hot,) the || window would still have to be closed. || Harlan goes on to ask about whether an analogy can be drawn from this to emotional sensitivity. It seems to me that it's hard to draw such an analogy, because in the first example there are people who are sensitive to the heat, and their problems are being disregarded. It looks to me as though the quoted halacha is really making a statement about the relative danger of "too cold" vs. "too hot"; that is, it's more important to protect someone from feeling too cold than it is to alleviate someone who is too hot. Not unreasonable from a medical point of view, I presume. Dave Sherman Toronto -- { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!dave
mark@uf-csv.UUCP (mark fishman [fac]) (12/04/84)
<this blank left intentionally spaced out>
Posit two people in the room, with differential tolerances for cold dictating
the following outcome: If the window is closed, A will be hot, and B will be
constrained to rise to open the window. If the window is, on the other hand,
open, then B will be cold, and A will be constrained to rise to close the
window. What ensues is obvious, and *very* tiring. Sounds to me like an
indirect recursive call. I think the halacha is buggy.
<chilly, but confused>
Mark Fishman
U. of Fla. / CIS
!akgua!uf-csv!mark
"How to keep an idiot busy for life...see other side..."