Our Gemara on Amud Beis records a dispute between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel regarding if one can fulfill the mitzvah of Succah (properly) if his head and most of his body is in the Succah, but his table is in the house. Beis Shammai holds that the rabbis forbade this set up, as it could lead too easily to being drawn to eating in the house. (See Tosafos Yom Tov Mishna Succah 2:7 for a discussion of what Beis Shammai would hold if post facto he ate with such a setup, but still was careful to eat in the Succah. The simple presumption though is that the rabbis forbade it, but would not post facto disqualify his mitzvah.)

The Mishna (Succah 2:7) goes on to record a story within a story about this dispute: The House of Hillel offers a known story as a proof to their point: 

⁦In the case of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka and his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem it unfit, and Beit Hillel deem it fit. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: And wasn’t there an incident where the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoḥanan ben HaḤoranit and they found him such that he was sitting with his head and most of his body in the sukka and his table in the house, and they said nothing to him? Even Beit Shammai did not object. Beit Shammai said to them: Is there proof from there? That is not what happened; rather, they said to him: If you were accustomed to act in this manner, you have never fulfilled the mitzvah of sukkah in your life.

The Maharal (Nesivos Olam, Nesiv HaCa’as 1) brings this incident and discusses Shammai’s and Hillel’s approach in a remarkable way. 

The Gemara (Eruvin 13b) tells us the halakha is generally ruled in accordance with the House of Hillel because they were gentle, forbearing, studied the opinion of the House of Shammai in addition to their studies, and even mentioned the opinion of the House of Shammai first, out of respect. Maharal notes that even though the students of Shammai were considered intellectually superior (Yevamos 14a), they did not merit to arrive at the halakha. How could the less intellectually advanced students of Hillel arrive at the halakha over the students of Shammai? Maharal explains that halakha requires the ability of equanimity and forbearance, because halakha itself occupies the Golden Mean, the path of moderation. Indeed, he says, the Hebrew word halakha itself connotes a pathway, because when travelling along a path, we stay in the middle of the road and not at the extremes. The House of Shammai was intolerant and impatient. One of the citations Maharal offers to prove that the house of Shammai was intolerant was this Mishna in Succah. The Maharal seems to be saying that it was not patient or opportune for the elders of Shammai to rebuke Rabbi Yochanan, while they were paying a social visit. Or at least to rebuke in such a harsh manner stating, “If you were accustomed to act in this manner, you have never fulfilled the mitzvah of sukkah in your life!”. This especially makes sense according to the opinions that even the House of Shammai hold that post facto the mitzvah is still fulfilled (see Tosafos Berachos 11a). Thus, remarkably the Maharal is criticizing the House of Shammai for impatience and intolerance.

I’ll add one thought. When we have disagreements with the people we love, we should consider using the three-step methodology of the House of Hillel:

• A gentle and forbearing tone
• Make every effort to try to understand the other side‘s point of view
• When engaging in discussion, be open to the other side‘s point of view and try to understand it first.