There are many types of materials that are considered to be Judaica - PDF document

There are many types of materials that are considered to be Judaica or Hebraica, that are also of interest to law libraries. At the Library of Congress, almost all of these will be treated as law materials, and cataloged according the norms applicable to legal materials. I always get the book if it classes in K and is in Hebrew, and will probably get the book if it is written in any other language, at least for Germanic and Romance languages. 1

Many materials that LC classes in K are of interest to non-legal scholars. Trials are a good example. Works on the legal status of Jews in a country go to K rather than DS. Halachic literature, as librarians say, often go to KBM rather than BM. 2

The descriptive elements may increasing vary since RDA defers to catalogers' judement, which mean's supervisor's judgement, and law and Judaica at LC have different supervisors. 3

If its responsa or Bible or Talmudic or Rambam – we care about subject (though in some cases a very specific number can keep it out of my hands0. WE CATALOG MATERIALS FROM EVERY LEGAL SYSTEM THAT EVER EXISTED AND TRY TO TREAT THEM ALL FAIRLY. VALUE JUDGEMENTS ARE MADE BY SCHOLARS, NOT CATALOGERS, AT LEAST IN OUR SECTION. I HAVE TWO EXAMPLES OF HOW the MY GETTING BOOKS AFFECTS, OR AS MOST OF YOU WOULD SAY, SCREWS UP THE CATALOGING. 4

One definition: what the Law Library wants, is what they get In practice, this is the governing principle, even though it isn’t much help for catalogers. Remember that the purpose of Law Cataloging at LC is to provide the Law Library of Congress with the materials it needs, and remember that the reason we are employed is because we are working for an organization that makes all laws. However this doesn’t really answer the question, what is law? However the K schedules were developed with substantial involvement of the Law Library and the legal profession, and largely reflect what they consider to be needed to support American legal scholarship. 5

I sort of like the the “big guy with a stick” definition – if you break the law someone in authority will coerce you to obey, and everyone will see this as being lawful, even if they aren’t happy about it. If a private citizen tries coercing you to do something, even if totally justified, the private citizen will be denounced as a criminal and subject to arrest. Social rules whose violation leads to lesser sanctions such as being regarded as a jerk by everyone you meet, and where the coercion involved even if seen as justified is also seen as unlawful, are not “legal” rules – meaning the books on them don’t class in K. This definition doesn’t work so well with societies where the “rule of law” isn’t clearly established, or if it is unclear who is the lawful government, or with legal systems with sanctions that involve coercion that is non ‐ economic or non ‐ physical, such as shunning or excommunication or exile. 6

7

Even if a book is only partially about litigation and ends up in a non ‐ law number, it would be nice if the “trial heading” was included as a not ‐ first heading. IF the bulk of the book is about any sort of proceeding to resolve a legal question, that is a “trial” and it classes in K. While in the United States and Britain a “trial” is typically a public proceeding in a court room, in the countries whose traditions are based on Roman law, and even in most situation in the US in non ‐ criminal cases, litigation typically involves lawyers exchanging mountains of paperwork, with nothing remotely resembling courtroom drama. 8

This is tricky. If a book emanating from a religious community is clearly on a subject that would be legal, legal meaning class K, and the treatment is otherwise “legal” meaning rule based, attempting to define a code of how to act as opposed to discussing the theology or philosophy of the subject, it classes in K. Whether it classes with the law of the country or in KB with a “theocratic” legal system, is not your problem. If a subject is one that the legal system usually does not deal with, such as religious rituals, it should normally class in B. However in Jewish, Islamic and Canon law traditions, many “rituals” matters are dealt with through integrated codes, and it is still unclear how to split specific matters up. If you don’t usually deal with these materials, refer them either to the Law section, or to a Section that routinely deals with religion (for example, the IJ team for Jewish materials). Remember that the KB schedule is new and is still under development. 9

10

11

In LCSH, Biblical law, meaning law in the bible, is a UF pointing to Jewish law. I’m not sure this is a good idea, but that’s the rule. This means that a very wide range of materials class in Jewish law, including law in the Biblical period, the Talmudic period, and the customary Jewish law that developed over the millennia and is still a factor in some modern situations. 12

This is taken from the LCSH authority record. 13

I am NOT defending how we separate Mishpat Ivri from the rest of Halacha. It is a distinction alien to Judaica scholars and reflects the world view of American legal scholars, who are the primary constituency for LC. Remember LC is owned by a body whose constituitional responsibility is to make all laws – so what interests them in their lawmaking capacity, is what we consider to be law. The same distinction, or if you prefer to say, distortion, applies to Islamic law, and in fact the KBM schedules are designed to use almost the same numbers as the KBP schedule for Islamic law – in order to facilitate comparative studie 14

This is taken from the LCSH authority record. The definition of Mishpat Ivri does NOT reflect a Jewish traditional definition – it’s basically, those aspects of Jewish law of interest to western legal scholarship. 15

16

17

Torat ha ‐ Melekh, in which is discussed the matters of the mitsva to select a king, and the mitsvos of a king, and other law and matters of respect for the king and his crown 18

Probably should have classed in KBM2129 19

20

21

Since its build from a table, we can’t customize headings at this time. Reflecting the views of the American government, Jerusalem has its own numbers elsewhere, as do the West Bank and Gaza. 22

The fact that the legal systems of, Israel, India, Australia, England and the United States are quite different is irrelevant for classification purposes, since they use schedules based on a common law model. 23

24

This is the alternative for Taanach for a library that wants Taanach with Jewish law. Those numbers would work as BM numbers if anyone wants to use them as such. 25

LC also did an alternative that arranges responsa by date. 26

The logic of using the Islamic law KBP with Roman is that most Arab countries use codes derived from French law. Facilitation of comparing Jewish and Islamic law was a major factor. 27

Subject in the table for civil law countries 28

Same area in KBM 29

And also in KBP 30

This is an area of great confusion from what I can see in bib records 31

Aspect of a topic goes with the topic 32

33

I would be shocked if Rabbi Richard Address wouldn’t be surprised to be told he wrote a law book, but the substance of the text resulted in it ending up in K. This happens at lot, and I check with colleague, either within LC or by checking how others cataloged the book to try to make sure the “religion” headings are represented. It would be nice if when religion catalogers put a book in B, in spite of it having a lot of legal content, if they consulted with their law catalogers to include headings for the legal aspects of the book. Also note that the fact that the author is a Reform rabbi, and the book was published by the national Reform organization is totally irrelveants from a law classification perspective. 34

35

This book was classed as a commentary on the work by R. Yosef Karo, with a topical subject heading for Jewish law. However it is hiddushim, meaning new insights on the subjects, and while it covers the same subject matter as the Shulhan Arukh, it doesn't discuss the text of either R. Karo's work, nor the Tur's work. It is the author's original thoughts, that's what hiddushim means, on the subjects covered in Hoshen Mishpat. If the work is a commentary on something, the first subject heading will be 6xx heading for the work being commented on, and that will determine the class. IF it is an original work, even if one whose subject matter is defined by the Tur’s arrangements of the law, the first subject heading will be the 650 for the subject. 36

I added LCSH to Hoshen Mishpat. Even ha ‐ Ezer is the equivalent of “Domestic relations”. A heading for Orah Hayyim would be a good idea, but its not my area. 37