Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“Why is it so hard to find employment these days?”
1. People with job credentials that are in demand would disagree with you. In those areas, employers complain how hard it is to find qualified workers.
2. At the bottom of market place (for those with minimal job skills), the minimum wage and required employee benefits price many people out of the market (in other words, if you can’t produce $10/hour of extra profit for the company, they save money by not hiring you).
3.Everyone has trouble getting a “first” job unless they have solid training and credentials (okay, everyone whose family doesn’t own a company). Working part time, or as a sub, or as an unpaid intern, etc., are ways of starting off a resume and convincing empolyers you are capable of being an employee.
4. Why don’t you mention what sort of job you are looking for, where, and what your credentials are? The fact you mentioned that you were relying on connections suggest you may have a problem.
How could there be halav yisrael in Gan Eden? Adam ha-Rishon and Chava weren’t Jews , so the only milk they had was halav stam. No one had halav Yisrael before Sinai.
They raised the pay for nursing, and suggenly it attract more males.
They increase the job flexibility for many professions, and it attracts more females.
Companies that seek out women for coding jobs do so since they feel that’s an area where they can find employees. If a male feels he has been discriminated against, he can file a complaint. Given that most people in the industry are male, it might be hard for such a complaint to be taken seriously. As computer and engineering jobs are largely male, a company needing to find employees looks for new reservoirs of potential talent on the assumption that any males interested in the job have already applied.
There are some jobs that are inherently female, such as “wet nurses” (largley obsolete since most mothers will bottle feed if they can’t nurse a baby). Most of the rest are determined by economic factors and social factors. Even among goyim, many women greatly value job flexibility in order to also work as mothers (among frum workers, everyone values flexibility in order to keep Shabbos without getting fired).
Note that within the Jewish community, the outside rules don’t apply. There is a big demand for male nurses since many frum men don’t like strange women touching their bodies. Similarly, there a demand for female doctors by many frum women who don’t want men touching them. Also note that teaching is considered a respected, honored, and sought out profession by frum men, where among the goyim it is regarded as what you do for a living if you lack the skills for anything more productive.
1. If you daven in a small shul, it is unlikely there will be more than two people with the same yertzeit (unless the parent was killed in a mass casulty incident, though except for 9-11 there really haven’t been any since World War II). The bigger the shul, the more likely there are multiple people with yerzeits. Presumably you are a “regular” in the shul. If you are able/expected to make kiddush the Shabbos before, and to bring food on the day of the yertziet, that smooths things over.
2. There is no halacha you have to daven all tefilos in their entirely on a yertzeit. Sharing is customary. Obviously this is a problem if you follow the western European “yekke” minhag that only one person says kaddish at a time — due to many mass casulty incidents in the past, most Asheknazim adopted the minhag of everyone with a hi’yuv say kaddish together.
3. If you regularly learn, why would learning on the yerzeit be a problem. If you don’t regularly learn Torah, that is a much bigger problem.
But what if you are using Hexadecimal?
(actually, all of your examples would stay unchanged, but if you change the basic assumptions, what constitutes equality and inequality changes).
In terms of administration of justice, equality is a core value
In terms of socio-economic policy, Torah tends towards serious affirmative action (which by definition meets treating people unequally, e.g. give more to the poor than the rich).
In dealing with good and evil, Torah tilts very strong for the good and against the evil
If a product comes out in versions with and without a hecksher, one should be wary of buying the ones without a hecksher. The cost of assuring a production is kosher is fixed, so if the whole output is kosher, why don’t they say so. If only some are kosher, we should assume they did a special “kosher run” and changed something (e.g. using a kosher red dye rather than carmine made from crushed insects).
If cough drops are a food, their halachic status is different than if they are a medicine. For example, one rabbinate says the “Hall’s” is kosher only for sick people – suggesting it meets the standard for a medicine, but not for a food. At least in the northeastern United States, there are plenty of similar products available with a reputable hecksher – so why buy something without a hecksher and risk eating mamash bugs?
They began to become common during the end of the middle ages (or the early modern period depending on whom you ask). The region is that as populations started to grow, you needed double names to be distinct, especially since people seem to have a preference for a very limited number of names (in the gemara period, people used far more names).. According to one of the early bibliographies of sefarim, published in Amsterdam in the late 18th century, Ashkenazi custom was to call a person by the second name, and Sefardi custom was to call someone by the first, but these are generalizations.
Given that surnames (family names) are now used, and pioneered by the Jews in Eretz Yisrael, many people are using a wider variety of personal names, it will be interesting if the use of having multiple forenames (personal names) will continue.
If you were better read in history, both the the Jews and the goyim, you would realize that in the world is a lot less amoral, less wicked, less perverse, than it ever was before. Not to mention that the standards of living even of the poorest are well above what they were in the past. You should stop worrying yourself into a frenzy. Be happy. Do Mitsvos.
P.S. You seem to believe that learning Torah is done by Yidden because HaShem ordered to, even though we hate it. We like learning.It’s fun. Why do you think people look for heterim to learn during the times it is prohibited, or debate whether one can learn in shul during davening. Try it some time.
If you read the classic “How the other half lives” – it appears that 100 years ago there were a group of non-Jewish (primarily Irish) women who sole parnassah was working as domestics on Saturday to fill in for the Jewish domestics who didn’t work Shabbos, but worked the other six days. But that was over a century ago.
But wages and opportunities went up, and most Jews (and Irish) in America went into lines of work that pay much better. At the same time the minimum wage priced most domestics out of a job, and people switched to using tech rather than hiring domestics.
Trump may feel there is a big audience of nativists he can appeal to but within the Republican party, there are a lot more religious conservatives (who find his remarks offensive and look at “wetbacks” and see socially conservative, hard working, pious family oriented people), not to mention a lot of “Wall Street” (“country club”) Republicans who love Hispanic immigration in the hope it will lower wages. The “red meat” faction is nativist, racist and is ignoring the “tea party” issues of public finance and the role of the government
A big chunk of 21st century Republicanism are those who see the Republicans as the party of giving people the opportunity to advance themselves, as opposed to the Democrat’s who want to be the party that gives you a good welfare state and takes care of you regardless of whether you want to be taken care – and immigrants including illegal ones are in the “land of opportunity” rather than the “welfare state” side of things.
Trump has lots of money, but isn’t likely to get many votes. Though he does make the other candidates look better.
We have traditionally support leaders who are friendly to us. This seems to go back very far, noting how hazal speaks favorably of some Romans who were friendly to us, even though we know from other sources that their private lives were hardly indicative of meeting the requirements for Bnei Noach. Whether our historicans consider a leader to be “good” or “bad” is based on whether they were “good for the Jews” or “bad for the Jews” — not on their basis of their private lives, or even how well they did their jobs in areas that didn’t particularly affect us.
You do understand the main campus is in downtown Brooklyn?
MDG: To support your argument, you would need to favor banning adults who are incapable of childbearing from marrying (which would ban second marriage for many divorced and widowed). You would also have to find a way to reciminalize adultery/seduction which used to be crimes (albeit not very serious ones). However once marriage was redefined such that many childless people are allowed to marry, and that there are no criminal, or even civil, sanctions for lack of fidelity in marriage – the door was opened to gay marriage. In other words, the barn door was opened 50 to 100 years ago, if not more, and its too late worry about the queer horses having escaped.
Avi K:
1. Under the law at the time of the Revolution, the Canon law of the Church of England applied to all Christians (even if they were Catholics). Under the law of the time, divorce was an option only by act of parliament, and for all purposes, only if you happened to be the king. The common law definition of marriage was that marriage lasted until death. That was also the Protestant definition. Divorce came later.
2. Remember that “Common law marriage” meant you had a formal ceremony announcing you were married, with witnesses – it was allowed to address a shortage of priests since under Canon law a marriage had to be officiated by a priest (in England it was banned primarily to punish the Catholics by making their children into bastards who couldn’t inherit from the parents).
The legalization of divorce, and the decriminalization of non-marital intimacy was really the radical change that largely guaranteed the future problems we now observe. Allowing men and women to do whatever they feel like, without legal consequences,brings up the question of why have any such rules.
zahavasdad: The constitution didn’t address racial intermarriage and up to that point in American law, it was governed by the religious law of the parties, and under canon law, there was no problem with interracial marriage. Some states passed statutes banning interracial marriage, but its hard to say what the people in the constitutional convention felt. Many felt it was not appropriate for the government to dabble in marriage law. It does seem many felt that slavery should be abolished, and indeed, most Americans at the time, based on the language of the Declaration of Independence or “Sommerset’s case” (in 1772 holding slavery incompatible with the English common law) believed that slavery was already illegal or that the states were required to unwind slavery in an orderly way.
simcha613: When the constitution was written, the government didn’t allow anyone to marry – it was still governed by religious law (Jews by halacha, Christians by the Canon law of the established church – meaning Jews could divorce easily and Christians were married for life). They were just then taking the canon law of the Church of England and requiring everyone to marry according to that one law. At that time, it was a crime to have “relations” outside of marriage (thus the phrase “making it legal” as a way of saying one is getting married), and when they changed that law, they seriously undermined marriage law. Subsequent to the constitution being adopted, they also made it possible to divorce easily and gave the children of unmarried parents rights (in 1789, such a child was considered an orphan with neither a mother nor a father).
I strongly disapprove of legalizing gay marriage, but you run into a lot of problems by asking what was intended in 1789.
1. If you are willing to allow normal marriages where the couple doesn’t intend to have children, or is incapable of having children, you lose one of the principal secular arguments against gay marriage. While there have been cultures where child-free marriages were banned (which would probably mean the woman has to get pregnant before the wedding), no modern western culture treats it that way (halacha certainly doesn’t). Once you have redefined marriage as an expression of “couplehood” rather than an economic framework for raising children, the secular objection to “gay marriage” disappears.
2. Same-sex couples do sometimes raise children, and indeed, some children are raised by other than their natural parents for a variety of reasons. One probably should allow parental rights to such couples (whether or not the couple is “involved” with each other). At present, only marriage does that.
3. Based on halacha, the objection to “gay marriage” is really an objection to male homosexuality, which is a religious based objection. Marriage is just a legal and economic framework. There really isn’t a secular reason to prefer one form of perversion (e.g. non-marital sexual intimacy) over another.
CharlieHall: All Christians are polytheists except for the “unitarians” who insist they aren’t really Christians. “Trinity” means “three”. And in any event who cares what the goyim believe? What matters is what they do and how they act, and in particular, how they act towards us. And it appears the Democrats are gearing up to demonize all religious groups that don’t accept gay marriage and that homosexuality is normal – which is a very good reason to be a Republican and consider relocating to “red” states.
If you think the goyim were a bunch of chaste tsadikim until recently, you are quite mistaken. It’s not like this is the first time they gone “off the derekh” (for a Ben Noach) – they’ve been off for a long time. Even when they had moral laws, they tended to ignore them.
Our laws prohibit us from dealing with their courts, and the recent developments might help be creating broader support for allowing people to sign pre-maritial contracts (a kesubah is, BTW, a pre-maritial contact) agreeing to binding arbitration. Now, a considerable part of the country will be annoyed with the government’s domestic relations laws, and will be seeking alternatives.
We might be happier moving away from our hopelessly lost secular cousins. The growth of Yiddishkeit in “red” states is to be encouraged.
1. All law schools in the New York area are left-wing. If you want one that isn’t plan to go to a law school in a “red” state.
2. All law schools are quite willing to accomodate religious minorities in such matters as making up work missed due to yuntuf.
3. CUNY law school is not elite, meaning if you want to try to get into “big law” you are better off at NYU or Columbia (but it is still a risk bet). A non-elite law school is a real long shot for getting into “big law”. If you aren’t interested in the elite well paid firms, meaning you are aiming for being a “neighborhood”, keeping your costs lower and avoiding student loans is a high priority (and a law school in the area you want to practice is an advantage).
4. If you think law school is a meal ticket, you are probably too dumb to get into a good law school
Joseph:
The concern of OU, and many others, is that the Gay Rights groups will move to ban religious groups that don’t accept the doctrine of gay marriage, i.e. no tax exemption for shuls and yeshivos, not recognizing frum marriages, and perhaps banning members of those religions from public life and professional licenses. It is there position that opposition to homosexuality is similar to racism, and needs to be surpressed. You will note how in the Episcopal Church, the left wing groups are seizing churches from the congregations that built them. They are actively supporting persecution of anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
The OU is trying to make a point without being too provocative. In part since we are used to being a persecuted minority, there is no “hiddush”, but for Christians with no experience in being persecuted for their faith, this is a radically new environment they are facing.
to coffee addict:
If they have to drop the other religious based prohibitions, then marriage is transformed into a domestic partnership that is more permanent than being a roommate, but fundamentally different than traditional marriage (which is America was based on the canon law of the Church of England)
More likely they would sharply reduce or eliminate benefits based on being married – but what about those benefits that serve to protect a woman is bears and raises children in reliance on the husband? Will the new environment encourage private marriage contracts to provide what was previously imposed by statute?
CT Lawyer who wrote ‘Jews, Women, Blacks and non-property owners were not allowed the vote in the past. Goyische prayer was forced upon Jewish children in public schools. The Court has interpreted the Constitution to right these injustices.”
Not true. Pertaining to voting rights. The Supreme Court never objected to limiting the right to vote. Jews were given the right to vote by statute. The same for non-property owners. Blacks were given the vote by constitutional amendment (though some states had allowed at least some Blacks to vote previously – by statute).
P.S. Given the unspoken fact in allowing same sex marriage was the rejection of the common law definiton derived from canon law, that probably will lead to banning the prohibtion on marrying cousins (which is largely ignored and easy to evade since many states don’t have such a rule) and the legalization of polygamy (also to those asking about cousin marriages – what does “inbreeding” have to do with anyting since two males can’t produce a child, if equal protection would require treating hetereosexual couples the same – the “have mina” of the decision is that marriage no longer has anything to do with having children).
1. The laws against marrying a first cousin, as well as polygamy, probably are unconstituitonal as they are both based on canon law. How legalization of polygamy will affect us is open to debate , but many hold that the halachic ban doesn’t apply in countries in which polygamy is legal.
2. While we have never followed the goyim’s laws in such matters, many of the Christians who lack a canon law tradition (e.g. Baptists, Mormons, and most fundamentalist Christians) always held by the government law in marriage matters, and will be forced to create their own legal rules, and will seek to have American return to a system a personal law (common in much of Africa and the MIddle East, but abolished in America and England roughly 200 years ago).
3. The dubious practices of the goyim aren’t really our problem. Its not like they were especially know for their chaste behaviors previously. The real change to marriage law came a century ago when they decriminalized non-marital intimate relations, which had previously been illegal.
Jews don’t hold by American law in such matters – so it doesn’t affect us. By halacha, our law, one is no more allowed to marry a person of the same gender than is one allowed to marry a non-Jews (BTW, Anglo-American law has allowed Jews to marry goyim since the late 1700s).
By decriminalizing various of forms of non-marital intimacy, the goyim did a lot more violence to the concept of marriage than in allowing people who by definition are incapable of bearing children to marry. And those changes occured in the early 20th century, or earlier.
The only danger is that as marriage is increasingly defined a a couple, rather than a couple with children including a usually dependent spouse, the many laws that benefits families will no longer be justifiable (e.g. the tax break for families with one spouse earning much less than the other, which also works as a penalty for spouses with equal incomes).
Every state is different. Even when in theory a single law applies nationally, there are often different “flavors” of how it is applied. Things can even vary with a state (compare the de facto jurisdiction of the New York Supreme Court in the five boros compared to upstate – each county has differnt minhagim).
The local public library probably has such information. Just ask them.
No one ever thought that yarmulkes were particularly Jewish until the goyim stopped wearing them. Same goes for fedoras (which are coming back in style among goyim, so maybe the frum crowd will have to switch to some other type of hat, e.g. homburgs). Remember that the fedora is originally a work hat, popular among cowboys, American military in the 19th century, etc., though we made it into a formal dress hat (among the goyim it was always what you wore when not fully dressed up).
1. Assuming you are an adult, and no fraud is intended (e.g., changing your name from “Moshe” to “Mosheh” in order to show your support for the offical romanization scheme (which no one uses, but this is for sake of argument) – and you are in the United States (other countries have different and more restrictive rules), then:
2. In many states it is legal to just start using the new name, but you can also get a court order as well. Each state is different. Just using the name may be “bedievad” legal, but a court order will avoid complications when applying for a passport, social security, etc. You probably can get accurate information from the local public library or a local law library.
1, They lost.
2. The ONLY issue in the war was slavery. They offered to stay in the union if the constitution was amended to protect slavery. When facing certain defeat they were offered the opportunity to surrender, reenter the union (with everything forgiven) if only they would agree to abolish slavery – the turned down the offer. States rights wasn’t an issue (in fact it was the northern states who were screaming “states rights” which they were using to declare any Black found in their territory to be free in accordance with the state law that all persons are free – a law based on English common law). Also, most southerners favored the union and more southerners wore blue rather than grey (though admitedly the pro-sucession did have a majority of soutern whites – if they had one man one vote they would have been no civil war).
3. Just as we object to the Nazi flag, as do almost all patriotic Americans, the objections by African Americans, and a a great many patriotic Americans of other ethnic groups, to the former rebel banner is quite justified.
The “holiday” has a clearly secular origin (unlike Thanksgiving). Not problematic from a halachic perspective.
zahavasdad: There were enough Jews that whether to give Jews full rights was a hot political issue. If the Jacksonians did not prevail, meaning that franchise was restricted to Christians, and Jews continued to be banned from holding office, it is unlikely there would have been massive immigration to the United States.
Also, with the democratization (small “d’) of the Jacksonian, the extension of franchise would have not taken place. Consider that if only rich people could vote, would have extending the franchise to blacks, women, etc., have been such a priority. The movement towards universal suffrage would have stopped.
Jackson’s theft of Indian lands was disgraceful (and wildly popular with the voters). Grant was okay (the one anti-semitic incident may not have been his fault), but he tolerated amazing corruption (e.g. cornering markets), and while he tried to protect Blacks and Indians he was totally incompetent. What Jack Lew picked on Hamilton is beyond me.
Jackson had a very good record on supporting civil rights for Jews – it was the Jacksonian era when the last legal restrictions on our civil rights were removed (e.g. the famous “Jew Bill” in Maryland giving Jews political rights). Jacksonians ended property requirements for voting and extended full rights to all whites – which was a big deal back then. He was anti-Wall Street (which should appeal to both the Tea Party and the “Occupy” crowd).
Grant is probably an even better candidate to be taken off the currency. While he was very popular at the time, history sees him as excessivly incompetent as president.
Why pick on Hamilton? That’s a good question.
On the other hand, discussion the virtues of Hamilton, Jackson and Grant in terms of who should be on American currency – that’s interesting (Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and Franklin seem to be less controversial)
“responsible” implies legal responsibility, such as if the cows were to hire a lawyer and sue the human race for mass murder?
Perhaps the administrators of the passenger pigeon’s estate could sue for wrongful extinction?
1. Hamilton was also an elitest who felt that typical citizen couldn’t be trusted with full political rights, and government was best left in the hands of the educated upper class.
2. Jackson was a great advocate of allowing all men (as then defined, excluding most non-whites) to particpiate in government. The Jacksonian era was the era that led to Jews gaining full civil rights and allowing the “common man” (again, limited to whites) to have full political rights. Had the Jacksonian movement failed, its unlikely the US would have gone on to granting full civil rights to non-whites. Instead you would have ended up with an upper-class led oligarchy rather than a democracy.
3. Whether a centralized banking system controlled by a Wall Street elite is a good idea (Hamilton thought so, so does the current elite in America), or a bad idea (as Jackson believed, as do all the people who think the “Great recession” was caused by evil bankers), is still a hot topic.
4. Grant on the $50 is also debateable, as we was notoriously incompetent (if well intended).
The question would have arise in the past, and didn’t come up.
1. The $1 coin has had a woman on it for a while. Also many coins in the past have had a female representing “liberty” on them.
2. British money (including Canadian and Australian) money has had a woman on for over the last 60 years, and also had a woman for most of the 19th century.
Re: Involuntary homeschooling
I suggest determining who is the posek (or poskim) of the people running the school. One can make an argument that by halacha the Jewish child is entitled to a Jewish education, and that one can ask a Beis Din to order the school (which in practice means appealing to the gedolim who serve as the poskim of the principle/board/etc.).
Involuntary home schooling is a shanda.
While it may be necessary to home school in the case of a child’s illness or if one lives in a community that doesn’t have a school – it is an outrage if someone can’t get into a frum school. Unless someone wants to homeschool, they shouldn’t be forced to do so, and are very unlikely to be successful.
coffee addict: If the last Lubavitcher Rebbe was a zionist, why did he live in Brooklyn? Why did he struggle to build up Jewish communities in golus? Why did he not encourage his talmidim to serve in the army (the most he did was tell those in Eretz Yisrael who weren’t learning full time to allow themselves to be conscripted – a zionist would have told the ones in golus and in yeshivos to volunteer)?
There are very few zionist rebbes. If a rebbe was a zionist, he would demand the right to serve in the IDF. If fact virtually no one from a “rebbe” family, of any group, serves in the IDF. Some, such as the Lubavitcher (back when there was a Lubavitcher Rebbe, the last one died a generation ago), actively encouraged Jewish communities to continue in golus, sending people to build up communities inthe weirdest of places, thereby offering a credible alternative to zionism.
You can find summaries of the legal requirements online(which do not include having a teaching license – if that were the law then all the private schools in New York would be in trouble for using unlicensed teachers since under “equal protection” they can’t demand something of home schoolers that they don’t demand of the elite private schools, not to mention the hasidic yeshivos). I suggest the website of the Home School Legal Defense Association. While New York has a reputation for disliking home schoolers, if one doesn’t try to rub it in their face one probably won’t have problems. Other options include establishing a “school” which is de facto what many home schooling “groups” evolve into. — There are many organizations that can help with the legal aspects, though only a few Jewish-oriented ones (Limudei kodesh can be a big problem, especially for home schooling boys, since virtually no women can teach gemara meaning you need a largely unemployed husband to teach the boys).
It isn’t their job to deal with mislabelled or deceptive products. That is typically dealt with by federal, state, and local governments.
It might be be an issue if they were including unlisted ingredients, but questions such as understating the amount of “filler” and implying a product is primarily the “good stuff” and not filler, is not a kashrus agency.
Some of the smaller local hecksherim, that are supervising products for local consumption only, might be more inclined to deal with non-kashrus issue (e.g. the city’s rabbi noticing the the city’s only bakery is using large amounts of “kosher” sawdust to dilute the bread).
They should be in any public library (but they may only have the more common exams, and older editions which may, or may not, still be current)
The study guides are cheap, so it might be worth buying one. They are often available used.
Check the website to make sure the exams haven’t changed recently.
Unless you know you being counted on for a minyan there is no requirement to go to a wedding (except of course for the hasan and kalah, they have to come). Why do you believe there is a halacha you have to go to any and all weddings you are invited to?
1. Remember you have to buy the board games first.
2. You will have to be constantly spending money on upkeep (replacing lost pieces).
3. If a game goes out of style, you are stuck with unsellable inventory.
4. Many board games are available on Ebay (and equivalent markets) at deep discounts. There is a good chance your “rental” price would be similar to the “used” price.
1. Women own property and pay taxes. In the past that wasn’t always the case. Women used to be less educated then men, but that is no longer the case (probably a function of the fact most women now live to old age – most women died of complications from child birth).
2. Regardless of what we may feel, women can vote in almost all countries. In the first election held in Eretz Yisrael the hareidi women refused to vote. Had they vote, the hareidim probably would have been the largest block, and the history of Eretz Yisrael might not have veered off in the direction of the war the radical zionists were aiming for.
3. One of course could agrue that voting should be limited to the gedolei Torah, and that Baal ha-battim should be excluded (not to mention non-frum Jews and goyim), but that hardly works in a modern democratic (small “d”) age. And in Israel, many hilonim believe hareidim shouldn’t be allowed to vote, but that’s a different matter.
If you plan on having the career in Israel, a professional degree in Israel is highly preferable. It is often hard to transfer credentials between countries and all your professional connections will be derived from where you went to school.
One can make an argument that we are not real, and the world we inhabit is not real, and we are similar to the “fake” world in the movie the Matrix, or the characters in a “holodrama” in the later versions of Star Trek. And while we characters in the World of Sheker think the world is real, the more clever ones know it isn’t, and what matters is what is happening in the World of Emes, which however, in entangled with the fake world (meaning things we do in the unreal world, have implications in the real world).
However since you claim to be a bird-brain, one can’t discuss this is greater detail.
In many language, adjectives can and sometimes usually preceed the noun they refer to. “Third” is the adjective. What is pronounced as “Shalosh Seudos” is Yiddish, even though the words are of Hebrew derivation. While this sounds weird to a Hebrew speaker who anticipates Semitic syntax (with the noun prceeding the adjective), it sounds quite reasonable to native speakers of Yiddish and English. (whose adjectives come first).
This is an interesting linguistic topic with no deep halachic or phiosophical meaning.