From  a  source outside the  work itself one knows  that a liturgical work containing Selihot and  other services  was  put together by  a prominent Bene-Israel leader  for  the  Bene-Israel community  in Bombay.
How might these facts affect  the uniform title(s)?

This question can't  really  be answered without  a  careful examination of  the  book  itself  by  someone familiar with  the
"standard"  liturgy   (AACR2's   choice   of   "standard,"   i.e. Ashkenazi).  Liturgical uniform titles  get qualifiers when  what
they  refer  to  differs  from  the  "standard,"  so   the  first determination  might   be   in   this  case,  "Is   this  Selihot
(Sephardic)?" and  then,  does  it  differ sufficiently from  the "standard" Sephardic  text  to  warrant  a  still  more  specific
qualifier?  The  mere fact that  a "non-standard" group published it  or that it  was published in  a "non-standard" place does not
necessitate a qualifier in the heading.

Even  if "Bene  Israel"  doesn't  find   a  place  in   the  heading,  the relationship of the work to that group can be brought out in  the  subject cataloging.

Another point  to consider  is  whether  the  uniform  title  should be something like  (for example) "Selihot (Sephardic)" or,
instead,  "Mahzor  (Sephardic). Selections."  Remember  the  rule  (25.6A1) referred to  in  our  recent Palache correspondence that  requires a uniform title for  the separately cataloged part of  a  work when possible, rather than a  more general u.t.  The work as  described apparently contains three or more parts of  the Mahzor,  but  how does the chief source present it?  This question is also  involved in the following problem.

Because the  work also contains liturgy for Hatarat nedarim,  should  this  u.t.  be  set  up?
The prior  question, of course, is whether such a heading needs to be traced  in  the bibliographic record.
If  the  u.t.  for   the  whole  work  is  "Mahzor  (Sephardic). Selections," though, there'll be  no need for u.t.'s for  the parts.)  Then  a determination has  to  be made  on  the  basis of the checklist on p.  2  of the introduction to Z1, which  details  the  conditions that necessitate the establishment of  a title or name-title heading.  The decision will  be based on  how much research one needs to do  to determine the heading, and what turns up  in  the course of  the research (varying forms  of  the title, etc.)

Joan Biella

Is  there  justification  to  establish  the subject  heading "Judaism$xBene-Israel rite"  for  a liturgical   work?

Generally, the rite is specified only if it  is represented in the uniform title  or is otherwise clearly identifiable in the work.
If there is no warrant here  for adding Bene-Israel to  the  u.t.,  then  it  is  preferable NOT to add it to the "liturgy" heading.

How, then to bring out the concept of Bene-Israel?
For  the most  part,  the subdivision "--Prayer-books and devotions" is assigned   to  works OTHER  than official liturgies.  But  while these texts  have  been  clearly identified as Sephardic, the  selections have   only  loosely  been associated with  the Bene-Israel.  Therefore,  the assignment of "Bene-Israel$xPrayer-books and devotions" seems  to be an acceptable approach in this case.

Lenore Bell

Upon further examination of the book it was found out that much of the text is standard Sephardic.  Since it is not strictly only the Selihot service (it includes Hatarat nedarim at the end) and it calls itself "Mahazor", it was decided to give it a 130 for Mahzor (Sephardic).$kSelections with a 650 for Bene-Israel.  Since the Hatarat nedarim is such a small part of the text,  a uniform title for it was not added.

130 0_  Mahzor (Sephardic).$kSelections
245 10  Mahazor li-yeme ha-Selihot ve-Hatarat nedarim ...
650 _0  Mahzorim$xTexts.
650 _0  Judaism$xSephardic rite$xLiturgy$xTexts.
650 _0  Bene-Israel$xPrayer-books and devotions.
730 02  Seli.hot (Sephardic)