Question:
In a synagogue, classroom, office, bus, or other public place, some people want the window open while others want it closed. Who has the right to decide?
Answer:
The answer depends on several factors including: a) the season, b) the level of heat and coldness, c) the opinion of majority of those present d) the adverse health effect on those present.
- During the summer, when the normal practice is to provide ventilation and cooling, those who wish to open the window or operate the air conditioning have the stronger claim, especially when they are the majority, and the minority cannot protest their choice. Those who are cold should take measures to warm themselves up such as switch rooms or wear a sweater.
- During the winter, when the normal practice is to keep warmth inside, those who wish to keep the window closed have the stronger claim especially when they are the majority, and the minority cannot protest their choice. Those who are hot should take measures to cool themselves off such as stepping outside or removing layers of clothing.
- During the spring and autumn, when there is no clear prevailing custom, neither side has a superior claim and the parties should reach a compromise. For example, one may partially open a window, open some windows and leave others closed, or otherwise find a mutually acceptable arrangement.
The underlying principle is that in a shared public space, each person has equal rights to normal usage. The basis of this discussion begins with the laws of neighbors in Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 155 Halacha 39, where it is established that one may object to activities that cause significant discomfort or harm. The Poskim derive from there that a person does not have unlimited rights even within his own property to engage in conduct that causes substantial disturbance to others, and certainly not in a public or jointly shared space. From here we can derive that a person can protest a discomfort that others are causing him, such as an open window in the winter.
However, what should be done when both sides have a legitimate claim of discomfort? In such a case, both sides wish to claim their rights based on the above Halacha. Thus, in such a case we must apply a different principle. Based on the ruling of the Chazon Ish, when both parties have equal rights to use the shared space, the deciding factor is the normal and accepted manner in which people use that place. Accordingly, we follow the common practice and customary usage for that season and location. Therefore, where common practice clearly favors one form of use, such as opening windows in the summer or keeping them closed in the winter, that practice governs, as feeling very hot or very cold is defined as a great discomfort, and hence they have the right to their claim in seasons of heat and cold, and one who feels discomfort at these times cannot protest.
If majority want window closed in summer and window open in winter:
However, an interesting question arises when a majority of the people present wish to act contrary to the normal usage of the season. For example, during the summer, most people present may prefer that the windows remain closed, or during the winter most people may prefer that the windows remain open. One might argue that the majority should always prevail and so indeed rules Rav Elyashiv and Rav Chaim Kanievsky. However, some Poskim suggest [independently, and in the name of the Chofetz Chaim, despite no documented source for his opinion] that even in such a case the minority may have the stronger claim, even if it consists of only a single person. So also rules the Dayan Rav M.M. Shperin and Rav Shmuel Salant. The reason is that his request conforms to the normal and accepted use of the premises for that season. During the summer, the ordinary and expected manner of use is ventilation and cooling, while during the winter the ordinary and expected manner of use is the preservation of warmth. Accordingly, one who requests the standard usage for that time of year may be viewed as exercising his ordinary rights, whereas those seeking to depart from the accepted seasonal norm bear the burden of justification. They bring support for this concept from the Mishnah in Peah which discusses the distribution of produce left for the poor. The Mishnah states that the normal rule is that the Peah remains in the field and the poor come and take it on a first-come, first-served basis. If the owner wishes instead to distribute it among them, the Mishnah rules that even if ninety-nine poor people agree to the distribution and only one insists that it remain available for everyone to take on their own, the single individual prevails. The reason is that he is demanding that the mitzvah be carried out in its proper and established manner. From here it is evident that the determining factor is not always the wishes of the majority, but rather adherence to the accepted and proper mode of conduct. Likewise, in our discussion, there is room to argue that the accepted seasonal usage may carry greater weight than the preference of the numerical majority.
The counterargument is that normal usage should not be determined solely by the season or the calendar. Rather, it should be determined by the actual conditions in the room. Thus, if during the winter the majority of those present feel uncomfortable with the windows closed, that indicates that the room is excessively warm or stuffy. In such a case, opening the window may itself become the normal and accepted manner of use. According to this approach, common practice is defined by the current reality experienced by the occupants and not merely by the time of year. Therefore, when the overwhelming majority find the existing conditions uncomfortable, their preference may establish what is considered the proper use of the room at that moment.
Health Concerns of one party
Some Poskim rule that if one side is claiming an actual health concern, such as sensitivity to cold, illness, breathing difficulties, or another genuine medical condition, then that person’s claim should be given precedence over a mere counterclaim for comfort purposes, if he cannot go to another area. Another example mentioned by the Dayan Rav M.M. Shperin is roommates arguing over a window. If one roommate cannot sleep because the room is too hot, while the others are still warm enough to sleep comfortably under their blankets, the window should be opened even during the winter. The inability to sleep is a much more significant health concern than merely being less comfortable. Since the others can still sleep normally while the first individual cannot, the latter’s claim is considered stronger and takes precedence. However, when both parties are healthy and the disagreement is merely over comfort and preference, then the ruling follows the normal manner in which people use such places, as stated above.
Conclusion:
In general, the halacha follows the normal and accepted use of the room, taking into account the season, the actual conditions, and the needs of those present. When both sides have valid claims, common practice and reasonable compromise play a central role. However, where a genuine health concern exists, many Poskim give precedence to the person whose health or ability to function is adversely affected.
Practical Summary Table
| Case | Ruling |
| Summer: Majority want window open | Open the window. |
| Summer: Minority wants window closed due to ordinary discomfort | Minority generally yields to normal summer usage. |
| Winter: Majority want window closed | Close the window. |
| Winter: Minority wants window open due to ordinary discomfort | Minority generally yields to normal winter usage. |
| Spring or Autumn: Both sides have equal claims | Reach a compromise. |
| One side has a genuine health concern | Health concern generally takes precedence. |
| One roommate cannot sleep due to heat while others can sleep comfortably | Open the window, as inability to sleep is a stronger concern. |
| Majority wishes to act contrary to normal seasonal practice | Subject to dispute among the Poskim. |
| View of Rav Elyashiv and Rav Chaim Kanievsky | The majority may establish the room’s normal usage. |
| View attributed to Rav Shperin, Rav Shmuel Salant, and others | The accepted seasonal usage may prevail even against a majority. |
| Room is unusually hot in winter or unusually cold in summer | Some argue that actual conditions, rather than the calendar, determine normal usage. |
| Whenever both sides have valid arguments | One should strive for compromise and avoid conflict. |
Rule of Thumb: Follow the normal seasonal usage, unless there is a stronger health claim or unusual circumstances that change what is considered normal for that room at that time.
Source:
Mishneh Peiah 4:1-2 [Even a Yachid can make a claim against the Tzibur if that is the accepted practice]; Michaber C.M. 155:39; Bava Basra 22b; Rambam Shecheinim 11:5; Michaber O.C. 276:5 [cold can lead to illness]; M”B 540:19; Chazon ish Bava Basra 12:11 [may follow normal usage of neighbors even if great discomfort is caused]; Shevet Halevi 9:298 [depends on summer and level of heat]; Baruch Omer [Shraga] 34 [that is based on Michaber ibid]; Shut Mayanei Hatorah 2:10 [we follow the seasons even against majority]; Shut Rivivos Efraim 4:219 [follow majority unless individual will get sick] ; Sheal Beni 2:58 p. 577 in name of Chofetz Chaim to follow the season even against majority and that so ruled Rav Menachem Mendel Shperin to always follow the season and the level of heat or coldness in the room, for winter follow 13 degrees Celsius to close window and 15 to open window; Ashrei Haish C.M. 20 [always follow majority]; Mishpitei Torah 1:89; Shut Harav Haroshi [Mordechai Eliyahu] p. 317 [follow season]; Ohel Yaakov Piskei Horah 1:306 in name of Rav Zilbeshtrom to always follow season; Halichos Bein Adam Lechaveiro 17:16; Shaareiy Emuna of Rav Chaim Kanievsky Peiah 4:1 in name of Rav Shmuel Salant to always follow the accepted season even against majority, although he concludes to follow majority always;