[Heb-NACO] Jewish Liturgies

Tue Feb 7 16:08:53 EST 2012

Someone in our office suggested that we investigate what the Israeli librarians are doing about these rites.
MRS

From: heb-naco-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu [mailto:heb-naco-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu] On Behalf Of Taub, Aaron
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:21 AM
To: 'Heb-naco at lists.service.ohio-state.edu'
Subject: [Heb-NACO] Jewish Liturgies

Dear Heb-NACO Colleagues,

Please note the correspondence and minutes below.  Any feedback you can provide on this matter would be helpful.

Thanks,
Aaron T.

=======================================================================================================================
Minutes of a Meeting Regarding Jewish Liturgies, Library of Congress, 1/31/12

Present: Joan Biella, Nahid Gerstein, Roger Kohn, Aaron Kuperman, Henry Lefkowitz, and Aaron Taub

The group convened to discuss the questions raised by Ella Ruderman in an e-mail to Marlene Schiffman, both of Yeshiva University (1/24/12).  First, Ms. Ruderman questioned LC's use of the qualifier "Sephardic" for both both Nusah Sefarad and for Minhag Sefarad (i.e. Sefaradim/Adot ha-Mizrah).  She proposed using the qualifier "Sephardic" for Minhag Sefarad and the qualifier "Hasidic" for Nusah Sefarad.

LC practice has historically been based on the title page of the work and its overall presentation.  If the work used "Sefarad" or "Sefaradim," we did not distinguish between Nusah Sefarad used by Hasidim and Ashkenazim and the nusah/nushaot used by Jews from Portugal and Spain and the Middle East.  We've long known that Nusah Sefarad is not at all the same as "Mizrahi, Adot ha-Mizrah, etc."  However, we've also firmly believed that the cataloger cannot be expected to be a scholar of Jewish liturgy.  Furthermore, the distinction between the words "nusah" and "minhag" that is so clear to Ms. Ruderman has certainly not been clear to catalogers.  In fact, in various subject authority records (Judaism $x Komarno rite, Judaism $x Lelov rite, and Judaism $x Frankfurt rite), the terms "minhag" and "nusah" are both used as references (Minhag Lelov, Nusah Lelov, etc.) for the heading.

Also, many non-Hasidic communities use Nusah Sefarad so using "Hasidic" as a qualifier for Nusah Sefarad is misleading.  The group discussed the following possible solutions.

For Nusah Sefarad (used by Hasidim and other Ashkenazim), use the qualifier "Sefarad."  Discontinue use of "Sephardic" which is ambiguous.

For Nusah Sefaradim/Adot ha-Mizrah (communities [descended] from Portugal/Spain, use:

1. "Sefaradim va-Adot ha-Mizrah) with references from "Sefaradim" and "Adot ha-Mizrah" separately.

OR

2. Sefaradim with references from "Adot ha-Mizrah" and "Sefaradim va-Adot ha-Mizrah"

OR

3. Adot ha-Mizrah with references from "Sefaradim" and "Sefaradim va-Adot ha-Mizrah"

Typically, when the work in hand refers to liturgy from Spain/Middle East, the plural "Sefaradim" and NOT simply "Sefarad" is given on the chief source.   It was also noted that individuals from Spain and Portugal might object to their liturgy being grouped with Middle Eastern liturgies.  However, several participants were also concerned that there not be too many headings as this will unnecessarily complicate matters.  The group further recognized that within "Sefaradim va-Adot ha-Mizrah" there are numerous sub-groups already established: Aleppo, Yemen, etc.   Should those remain separate?

Another complicating factor is that Nusah Ari is arguably the same or extremely similar to Nusah Sefarad.  Currently, Nusah Ari is separately established.  Should the qualifier "Ari" be a reference to the new heading for Nusah Sefarad or kept separately??

A solution was proposed at the meeting to discontinue the practice of using qualifiers altogether, relying instead on the type of liturgical work (siddur, haggadah, mahzor, etc.).  The particulars, it was argued, could be brought out in the publication information and the subject information.  The question was then raised:  Is this solution too extreme?  Is this a disservice to our readers who rely on these distinctions particularly in an index mode?  Given that key words are not controlled, are these uniform title qualifiers still needed to collocate similar works?  Readers don't want to plow through thousands of siddurim or have to construct elaborate boolean searches when they are simply seeking a few Reconstructionist titles.   Also, we would still need to resolve the questions of labeling (Sefarad, Sephardic, Mizrahi etc.) in the subject headings even if we discontinue their usage in uniform titles.

In her e-mail, Ms. Ruderman also raised the question of establishing the nushaot for individual Hasidic groups (Bobov, Zanz, Skvira, etc.).  One person suggested that that practice be abolished altogether in favor of the more general qualifer "Hasidic."  However, in cases where only the dynasty was mentioned, is it possible to expect all catalogers to recognize this as a Hasidic dynasty and therefore apply the qualifier "Hasidic"?  Also, the works themselves go out of their way to specify the nusah of their dynasty.  Obviously, the differences, while perhaps "minute" or even non-existent in terms of the liturgy, are important enough for the publishers.  Why should the cataloger go to a broader level?  And if we discontinue the practice of qualifying individual Hasidic sub-groups, will we also discontinue individual Sephardi/Mizrahi sub-groups (Aleppo, etc.)?

The discussion, while quite spirited, produced no consensus on an immediate solution.  All agreed, however, that wider discussion was needed.  The e-mail exchange and the minutes, once reviewed by the group, will be forwarded to the AJL Cataloging Committee, Heb-NACO, colleagues at the National Library of Israel, and others for feedback.

Meeting minutes taken by Aaron Taub, 1/31/12

*************************************************************************************************************************

-----Original Message-----

From: Marlene Schiffman [mailto:schiffma at yu.edu]<mailto:[mailto:schiffma at yu.edu]>

Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 4:45 PM

To: Taub, Aaron

Subject: FW: Liturgies

Dear Aaron:

Ella, who is cataloging these materials, has made the following observations. Perhaps you could address these.

Thanks,

MRS

-----Original Message-----

From: Ella Ruderman

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:35 PM

To: Marlene Schiffman

Subject: RE: Liturgies

Marlene,

Thanks for forwarding this to me.

Now I am really confused. If they use Kinot (Sephardic) for Nusah Sefarad, what would they use for Minhag Sefarad? And not just for Kinot, but in general?

Moreover, when a particular group of Hasidim is mentioned, LC has established some uniform titles where the name of the group becomes the qualifier (e.g. Siddur (Komarno) - ARN 2955905 or Mahzor (Bobov). \p Sukkot - ARN 3743056).

It would be nice to have a clear and consistent across-the board policy that would differentiate between the following.

Minhag Sefarad - as a general rite for Sefardim and Mizrahi Jews

      Individual (local) Sephardic and Mizrahi rites (like Baghdadi, Syrian etc.)

Nusah Sefarad - as a general Hasidic rite

      Individual Hasidic rites, e.g. Ari, Bobov, Komarno etc.

The following system would accomplish that:

Using Siddur (Sephardic) or Mahzor (Sephardic), etc. - for general Minhag Sefarad

           Siddur (Yemen),  or Mahzor (Aleppo), etc. - for individual versions of Minhag Sefarad

          Siddur (Hasidic) - for Nusah Sefarad in general

          Siddur (Bobov), or Mahzor (Skvira) etc. - for individual Hasidic groups.

But that's just my opinion.

Ella

-----Original Message-----

From: Marlene Schiffman [mailto:schiffma at yu.edu]<mailto:[mailto:schiffma at yu.edu]>

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:05 AM

To: Ella Ruderman

Subject: FW: Liturgies

-----Original Message-----

From: Taub, Aaron [mailto:atau at loc.gov]<mailto:[mailto:atau at loc.gov]>

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 10:46 AM

To: Marlene Schiffman

Cc: Biella, Joan; Gerstein, Nahid; Lefkowitz, Henry; 'Kearney'

Subject: RE: Liturgies

Dear Marlene,

I see that Kinot (Sephardic) is already established (see NAR nr 91043472).  We have used this for Kinot that are Nusah Sefarad.  Is a particular Hasidic group mentioned on your work in hand?  We have tended to use Hasidic as a qualifier when a particular group or Hasidism in general is mentioned.

It would be good to establish Mahzor (Hasidic) and then in, another authority record, Mahzor (Hasidic). $p [Holiday].  The reference in the latter record would be the actual title of the particular Mahzor in hand and the 670 should clearly state the justification of the nusah.

I hope this helps.

Best wishes,

Aaron

________________________________________

From: Marlene Schiffman [schiffma at yu.edu]

Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 6:41 PM

To: Biella, Joan

Subject: Liturgies

We are cataloging Kinot, the complete Tisha Be'Av service. nusah Sephard.

Can we use:

Siddur (Hasidic). $p Ninth of Av.

Can we also do:

Mahzor (Hasidic). $p [holiday]?

Thanks,

MRS

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/heb-naco/attachments/20120207/693c800a/attachment.html>