גמרא שבת י”ב א’:
תניא חנניא אומר חייב אדם למשמש בבגדו ערב שבת עם חשכה אמר רב יוסף הלכתא רבתי לשבת.
ואין המדובר במוקצה, כמ”ש רש”י שם וכן תוספות לעיל י”א א’.
רש”י:
למשמש בבגדו, שלא יהא כרוך בשום דבר, פן יוציאנו.
הלכתא רבתי, דבר גדול יש כאן להפרישו מאיסור שבת.
Among the general public:
Among our beloved subscribers:
Enjoy, and bring along a friend!
A friend of mine is currently working for a hand-matzah bakery (yes, already!). He told me when the Health Ministry came knocking, they had to close the windows, for reasons of supposed food safety. Then, when the Israeli Fire Department inspectors arrived to ensure fire safety, they had to open the windows…
At least they don’t arrive together at once!
Speaking of conflicting diktats, see this list of instructive examples.
Here’s Wikipedia’s introduction:
ʿAsabiyya or asabiyyah (Arabic: عصبيّة) is a concept of social solidarity with an emphasis on unity, group consciousness and sense of shared purpose, and social cohesion,[1] originally in a context of “tribalism” and “clanism“. It was familiar in the pre-Islamic era but became popularized in Ibn Khaldun‘s Muqaddimah where it is described as the fundamental bond of human society and the basic motive force of history, pure only in its nomadic form. ʿAsabiyya is neither necessarily nomadic nor based on blood relations; rather, it resembles the philosophy of classical republicanism. In the modern period, it is generally analogous to solidarity. However, it is often negatively associated because it can sometimes suggest loyalty to one’s group regardless of circumstances, or partisanship.[2] Ibn Khaldun also argued that ʿasabiyya is cyclical and directly related to the rise and fall of civilizations: it is most strong at the start of civilization, declines as the civilization advances, and then another, more compelling ʿasabiyyah eventually takes its place to help establish a different civilization.
…
Ibn Khaldun argues that each dynasty (or civilization) has within itself the seeds of its own downfall. He explains that ruling houses tend to emerge on the peripheries of great empires and use the much stronger ʿasabiyya present in those areas to their advantage, in order to bring about a change in leadership. This implies that the new rulers are at first considered “barbarians” by comparison to the old ones. As they establish themselves at the center of their empire, they become increasingly lax, less coordinated, disciplined and watchful, and more concerned with maintaining their new power and lifestyle. The ʿasabiyya, dissolves into factionalism and individualism, diminishing their capacity as a political unit. Thus, conditions are created wherein a new dynasty can emerge at the periphery of their control, grow strong, and effect a change in leadership, beginning the cycle anew.
See the rest here on Wikipedia…