As would be expected, you're not the first to face this problem. In the 1990's it was common practice to use the generic term "Genizah",<http://aleph.nli.org.il/F?func=direct&local_base=nnl01&doc_number=1899843> even without quotation marks in reference to the European binding fragments<http://aleph.nli.org.il/F?func=direct&local_base=nnl01&doc_number=1783890> . One can surmise that there was an element of hucksterism involved, in order to promote the impact of the "new Genizah". In the Complete Israeli Talmud, up to Yevamot<http://aleph.nli.org.il/F?func=direct&local_base=nnl01&doc_number=958899>, the lemma allotted to European fragments was "gimmel" but numbered after the Cairo Genizah fragments , to differentiate. Starting with Gittin<http://aleph.nli.org.il/F?func=direct&local_base=nnl01&doc_number=1978343> (2000), editor R. Ephraim Rottman, was convinced by Simha Emanuel that a more significant differentiation should be employed, so they assigned the lemma "kaf"= for Krichot- bindings. Of course this lemma was not definitive. Some European fragments are not necessarily extracted from secondary use as bindings, and some<http://aleph.nli.org.il/F?func=direct&local_base=nnl01&doc_number=2498817> Cairo fragments have undergone secondary usage in bindings. The only definition that classifies fragments is that they are fragments- remnants of what were once manuscripts. Manuscripts in general are more often than not, missing at least a few pages, they are still "incomplete manuscripts", not "fragments". There was once a qualitative connotation to the term "Genizah"- in detriment to this body. In certain Rabbinic circles there was a suspicion that Genizah items were discarded because of defective copy, which cannot be said of the European fragments, which were never discarded, merely sold or confiscated. This statement cannot be qualified in either direction. We have enough experience in Genizah to know when an item has been discarded for defective copy and these are few. Some of the paper manuscripts found in secondary use as cardboard binders (almost exclusively in Yemen and the Orient), are likely to have been collected from the local genizah. I don't know enough about the Gerona cardboard binders, to say if these are from local genizah, or confiscated/deserted in the events of 1391. The term Fragment effectively reflects the physical condition of the item, without making a qualitative statement as to how this came about.
Note: the spellcheck in Outlook does not allow for the non-generic Genizah (small g), and only recognizes The Genizah (capital G) the generic, presumably- Cairo, Genizah. Dr. Ezra Chwat The Department of Manuscripts/ Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts E.J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram POB 39105, Jerusalem 91390, Israel Tel: 972-2-6586232 fax: 972-2-6584606 http://jnul.huji.ac.il/imhm/index.html blog: Giluy Milta B'Alma: http://imhm.blogspot.com From: Yael Okun Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 8:13 AM To: Ezra Chwat Subject: FW: [ha-Safran] Cataloging non-Cairo "geniza" From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michelle Chesner Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 6:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ha-Safran] Cataloging non-Cairo "geniza" We have a number of old, fragmentary manuscripts that were initially thought to have been from the Cairo Geniza, but as it turns out, were from bookbindings (and would probably be more accurately classed as part of the European Geniza). My question is thus to catalogers who deal with manuscripts: Is there a term used for non-Cairo Geniza fragments? We want to indicate that they are fragments that had been discarded in some way, but I don't know of an appropriate subject that we can use. Any ideas would be most helpful. (I am not on the Judaica catalogers' list, but can someone forward this there as well?) Thanks! Michelle Michelle Chesner Norman E. Alexander Librarian for Jewish Studies Columbia University 304 International Affairs (420 W. 118th St.) New York, NY 10027 212-854-8046<tel:212-854-8046> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://blogs.cul.columbia.edu/jewishstudiesatcul/
__ Messages and opinions expressed on Hasafran are those of the individual author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association of Jewish Libraries (AJL) ================================== Submissions for Ha-Safran, send to: [email protected] To join Ha-Safran, update or change your subscription, etc. - click here: https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/hasafran Questions, problems, complaints, compliments send to: [email protected] Ha-Safran Archives: Current: http://www.mail-archive.com/hasafran%40lists.service.ohio-state.edu/maillist.html Earlier Listserver: http://www.mail-archive.com/hasafran%40lists.acs.ohio-state.edu/maillist.html AJL HomePage http://www.JewishLibraries.org -- Hasafran mailing list [email protected] https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/hasafran
