Yerushalmi Sukkah 2:8 ירושלמי סוכה ב׳:ח׳

MISHNAH: If a person’s head and most of his body was in the sukkah but his table inside the house, the House of Shammai declare it disqualified but the House of Hillel qualified. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, it happened that the elders of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel went to visit Joḥanan from Hauran and found him with his head and most of his body in the sukkah but his table inside the house. The House of Shammai answered them, is this a proof? They said to him, if you are used to do this, you never in your life did fulfill the obligation of sukkah.

HALAKHAH: Not only his table, but even a place for his table⁹²It is implied by the Mishnah that the House of Shammai require a sukkah which accommodates most of a person’s body and a table. This does not imply that a table must actually be put into the sukkah; all that is needed is space for a table.. How much is a place for his table? A hand-breadth⁹³A hand-breadth square. It is one of the peculiarities of the idioms of both Talmudim that linear and volume measures are clearly named, but area measures (other than agricultural ones determined by the amount of seeds used for a unit) are subsumed under the names of the corresponding linear measures..

⁹⁴This paragraph, introductory to the discussion why practice in this case follows the Hose of Shammai, essentially is from Terumot5:4 (Notes 65–71). Mishnah Terumot5:1 states that impure heave which was mixed with other produce must be destroyed (burned) as long as the impure heave constitutes at least 1% of the total. If the amount of impure heave is < 1%, an amount equal to that of the impure heave can be removed from the total, “lifted”, with the impurity transferred to the lifted amount, and the remainder used for its original purpose. Mishnah 4 reports a dispute between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai about impure heave which fell into 100 times its volume of pure heave, where the House of Shammai forbid everything but the House of Hillel permit. At the conclusion of the argument, R. Eliezer holds that 1 part of 101 has to be lifted and burned, but the Sages say that the impure was lost in its minority, i. e., since everything is heave all 101 parts may be eaten by a Cohen as pure heave. Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded“; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi. We never find the House of (Hillel) [Shammai] conceding to the House of (Shammai) [Hillel] except in this matter. Rebbi Ḥunah in the name of Rav Abbaia: The Mishnah⁹⁵Mishnah Ṭevul Yom2:7. A Ṭevul Yom is a person who had been impure, is no longer impure after immersion in a miqweh, but is prevented from touching or consuming sancta until be becomes pure at the following nightfall (Lev.22:7). If in the period between his immersion and sundown he touches heave, it becomes unusable; this is classified as “impure in the third degree”. If the ṭevul yom touches a stream of heave fluid (wine or oil) poured from one vessel to the other, in the opinion of the Sadducees the entire fluid in both vessels becomes unusable (MMT lines 55–58). In rabbinic tradition, only the part touched by the ṭevul yom becomes unusable; the fluid cannot be used because unusable heave is contained in it, but it can be repaired by the usual lifting of one out of 101. says so. “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Idi said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated this before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so⁹⁶Mishnah Terumot5:4.: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned,” and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another that it should be lifted, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others agree with us. Rebbi Abun says, there is another answer⁹⁷Which the House of Hillel could have given to the House of Shammai, in addition to the argument presented in the Mishnah., following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure {heave}, which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure {heave} which is {prohibited} as positive commandment⁹⁸Which is classified as a misdemeanor, rather than a felony. for Cohanim.

From where did the House of Hillel merit that practice should be fixed following their words? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, because they quoted the words of the House of Shammai before their own words⁹⁹Babli Eruvin13b. Historically one has to note that no renowned scholar of the House of Shammai is known born after the destruction of the Temple.. Not only that, but if they were convinced by the words of the House of Shammai they changed their opinions. Rebbi Simon bar Zeved objected before Rebbi Ila: Or could we say that the Tanna saw that they were older and quoted them first? But did we not state, “it happened that the elders of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel went to visit Joḥanan from Hauran”? We could have said, our elders and your elders¹⁰⁰The formulation “elders of the House of Shammai and elders of the House of Hillel” is original, not a formulation of the editor of the Mishnah.. Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: Practice follows the House of Shammai¹⁰¹In the case of Mishnah 2:8. Babli 3a.. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: Since the House of Shammai dismissed the House of Hillel¹⁰²No answer from the House of Hillel is noted., this implies that practice follows their words.