[Heb-NACO] Jewish Liturgies

[Yossi Galron]

There are several NLI librarians on this list

Yossi


Joseph (Yossi) Galron-Goldschlaeger
Head, Hebraica & Jewish Studies  Library
355A Thompson Memorial Library
The Ohio State University Libraries
1858 Neil Ave. Mall
Columbus, Ohio 43210 USA
E-Mail: galron.1 at osu.edu  or jgalron at gmail.com
Tel.: (614) 292-3362,  Fax: (614)292-1918
URL:  http://library.osu.edu/about/departments/jewish-studies/
Lexicon of Modern Hebrew Literature:
http://hebrewlit.notlong.com



On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Marlene Schiffman <schiffma at yu.edu> wrote:

>  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] ****
>
> 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] ****
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:05 AM****
>
> To: Ella Ruderman****
>
> Subject: FW: Liturgies****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> -----Original Message-----****
>
> From: Taub, Aaron [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****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> Heb-naco mailing list
> Heb-naco at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
> https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/heb-naco/attachments/20120207/55606e03/attachment.html>