45

I've assumed that the Torah scrolls we read today as the same that Moses wrote. I always assumed it's been the same alphabet.

However lately I came across documents explaining the evolution of the Hebrew alphabet, and how it evolved from the Phoenician alphabet, to the Aramaic and then Hebrew.

Is it just a disagreement between archeologist and orthodoxs? Or is there more that I'm missing?

Nathan H
  • 2,619
  • 18
  • 32
  • A full treatment of this topic and a great explanation can be seen here: http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet9.html – Kman Jul 18 '13 at 20:33
  • 1
    Note that it is no longer thought that alphabetic evolution was entirely linear. Whereas in the past it was supposed that the order was: Canaanite/Sinaitic -> Phoenician -> Judaean/Israelite/Moabite/Amonite/Edomite - > Aramaic -> Hebrew/Ashuri, today it is recognized that for a certain, significant period of time, Canaanite/Sinaitic and Phoenician were used concurrently. In short, our understanding of the way the Hebrew alphabet was developed, in archeological terms, is still evolving in itself, still open to changes based on inscriptions to be discovered B"H in the future. – Harel13 Mar 28 '23 at 19:23

5 Answers5

39

From the archaeological evidence it is clear that the Hebrew srcipt being used during the First Temple Period was what's known as the Ivri script (a handy conversion chart can be found here) which is very similar to Phoenician, as opposed to our script nowadays which is called Ashuri script.

In terms of what script was used at Mount Sinai, there is a 3 way disagreement in the Talmud Sanhedrin 21b-22a.

  • Mar Zutra (some say it was Mar Ukva) holds that the Torah was originally given in Ivri script, but later the standard was changed to Ashuri in the times of Ezra.

  • Rebbi says that it was given in Ashuri script, but after the Jews sinned (not clear which sin is referred to) it was switched to Ivri script. Later when they repented it switched back to Ashuri script.

  • Rav Elazar HaModai says it was always in Ashuri script, and Ivri script was likely just a common handwriting used by the people but not in Torah scrolls.

Double AA
  • 98,894
  • 6
  • 250
  • 713
  • If it is ktav ivri, what implications does it have for Qaballah? Why didn't the gemara ask that as a kashya on mar zutra? – ALK Apr 24 '12 at 02:58
  • 1
    @ALK I'm not sure I follow. Why would mar zutra's opinion be in contradiction with "Qaballah"? – Double AA Apr 24 '12 at 03:10
  • The shapes of the ashuri letters have deep significance in post lurianic (and maybe pre?) luranic qaballah. First there are the meanings letters in isolation, the letters in hashem name, (the yod etc). Then there are the different permuations of hashem's name in the qavanot.

    To be honest, the weight of evidence seems ot be slanting towards ashuri being the original script. In fact, some of the dead sea scrolls, as mentioned, are written in ashuri with only hashem's name kept in ivri.

     – ALK Apr 24 '12 at 03:32
  • Althought this implication might not bother the groups most likely to accept the ktav ivri opinion (baladi yemenites and "rationalists", it bothers me and has for some time. – ALK Apr 24 '12 at 03:37
  • 2
    @ALK I've stated here a number of times that I am not a kabbalist, so I don't feel very qualified to answer this kind of issue. I will venture to suggest that perhaps Ezra formed his new script with Ruach HaKodesh so it still has different meanings. I will post on chat to here so others more qualified than I can chime in. – Double AA Apr 24 '12 at 03:41
  • @DoubleAA I agree, that is a very plausible possibility. – HodofHod Apr 24 '12 at 03:51
  • Thank you for your answer Double AA. That sounds like a good possibility. I would like to investigate more the archeological record on Ktav ashuri, and see if there is any consensus on it's originis (IE was it adopted, or did it spring up in the time of ezra).

    In addition, this also would beg the questions of why make a new script...surely the script given at matan torah has a sanctity. Furthermore, why do we have not qabbalistic interpretations of the old script, and how far back do the ones on ashuri go? Just thinking out loud.

     – ALK Apr 24 '12 at 04:14
  • @alk without any of us having any clear memory of Matan Torah (we were all there) it is very hard to know which came first or which was used for the Luhoth or the very first Sefer Torah. In any case, however, it can be assured that when Ashuri was adopted universally and in perpetuity, it was because of the deep significance that the alphabet had for Kelal Yisrael. – Seth J Jul 27 '12 at 02:24
  • @SethJ Could the Gemora that the Mem and Samach in the Luchos were standing by miracle in the Luchos (because the center didn't fall out) give any clues? – Michoel Oct 03 '12 at 02:53
  • @Michoel It would, but realize that an ayin in ktav ivri also has a hollow middle so the tradition of floating centers could easily be applied to either opinion. – Double AA Oct 03 '12 at 03:09
  • @michoel Being more of a detective than Frum here for a moment, I agree with Double AA. Remember that Midrash isn't necessarily text-based, and is part of the Oral Tradition. So if one letter had a miraculously floating center, but it was in 'Ivri, when the writing style of Ashuri became standardized, it's not inconceivable that the story eventually morphed to fit the known style, ignoring the lesser-known historical context. – Seth J Oct 03 '12 at 03:29
  • @SethJ It could be a morphed tradition, or it could be that the tradition had been vague and the rabbi who articulated it as mem and samech happened to have held not like Mar Zutra. – Double AA Oct 03 '12 at 03:32
  • @double aa, but if they're arguing a point of historical fact, which could lead in interesting directions with respect to the purpose and message of Midrash, then it is always difficult to explain "he didn't hold like that other opinion". If it was a Mem it was a Mem. If it was an 'Ayin it was an 'Ayin. Strange that they would disagree on that. But if one had a tradition that it was in 'Ivri, and the other had a tradition that it was Ashuri, then the letter will follow that tradition. Why they would have divergent traditions on that, then, brings us back to our original question. – Seth J Oct 03 '12 at 04:01
  • 1
    @SethJ What I meant by 'vague' was that the tradition was that hollow letters floated in the air. Each side then explained, "Oh this is referring to the [ayin|mem and samech]". So the fact that we have one side's explanation recorded doesn't preclude the other's existence. As for the message, this midrash seems to be emphasizing the general claim that the letters were carved all the way through the stone. I don't know that we need to really darshin which letters those were. – Double AA Oct 03 '12 at 04:06
  • @Michoel Silly me! See the Yerushalmi quoted in Qohelet's answer. – Double AA Oct 14 '12 at 15:55
  • @DoubleAA I heard from a jewish studies teacher that ktav ashuri(while its literal meaning is assyrian), is actually aramaic script. i.e. not invented by ezra, and seemingly no deep mystical significance, according to that. – barlop Mar 12 '18 at 09:16
  • Is there a reason you write mar zutra ‘holds’? – Dr. Shmuel Apr 04 '19 at 09:39
  • @Dr.S instead of "says"? Don't remember – Double AA Apr 04 '19 at 10:57
  • Yes I realize this is a similar silly semantics questions like here, anyways the Gemara in Sanhedrin says said not savar or another alternative. – Dr. Shmuel Apr 04 '19 at 11:03
11

As others have mentioned, there are three opinions in the talmud regarding the issue.

To summarize (as brought by DoubleAA):

  1. Rav zutra / R' Yossi - Torah was given ivri and turned to ashuri in the time of Ezra.
  2. Rebbe - given in ashuri, forgotten and used ivri until Ezra fixed it back to ashuri.
  3. R' Elazar Hamodai - Torah was always in ashuri.

Rabbonim have had a difficult time with the concept of the Torah being changed, even though R' Yossi adresses this by saying "משנה התורה - בכתב הראוי להשתנות", they looked for other explanations. Also, many drashos were said on the shape of the letters (noted too by Qoheleth) so they feel uneasy saying it's changed over the years.

I've recently seen a book titled "כתב עברי, כתב אשורי" by R' Zvi Einman which brings later reference to this issue. According to him:

  • Ge'onim (starting with רב האי גאון and רב שרירא גאון) understand the Talmud just like that and simply state - אין הלכה כר' יוסי!
  • Ritva says the tana'im couldn't be arguing what was on the Luchot, hence offers an explanation that the Luchot were ashuri but sifrei torah were written ivri until the time of Ezra.
  • Radvaz comments that the Ritva probably did not see the Yerushalmi (brought by Qoheleth) which explicitly states that the machlokes is around the Luchot. He says luchot rishonim were ashuri but after the sin (perhaps what Rebbe is referring to) luchot shni'im were ivri and so were scrolls until the time of Ezra.
JNF
  • 2,114
  • 14
  • 21
  • I'm not sure what it means for the Ge'onim to paskin what letters were used. – Double AA Oct 15 '12 at 16:49
  • @DoubleAA It's a phrase used for agada as well as halacha. I can't give something concrete here, but sometimes a נפקא מינה can be found. – JNF Oct 16 '12 at 06:51
  • @DoubleAA Potential halachic ramification: Lishkat HaSofer 9:10 uses the ם/ס miracle to argue for being מחמיר on not allowing corrections לא כסדרן of a הפסק שאינו ניכר להדיא. – magicker72 Mar 17 '21 at 03:47
  • @magicker72 interesting, but it's not necessarily a nafka mina as much as a possible prooftext for only one side. R' Yosi doesn't have to dispute that a broken samekh has lost its tzurah, and in fact he probably doesn't. (Though interestingly some versions of sefer tagi have samekhs that don't touch on purpose, so seemingly the Lishkat Hasofer's proof is simply invalid, maybe because God's wanting the letters to be "lechatchila" was enough to warrant the miracle.) – Double AA Mar 17 '21 at 15:39
  • @DoubleAA You could be right, but I don't know why a priori one (or R Yosi) should be more machmir on samekh than on any other letter. – magicker72 Mar 17 '21 at 20:13
  • @magicker72 It's not a matter of more machmir on one letter than another. Different letters are practically easier and harder to make lose their tzura. Yud is a finicky one, while shin almost never looks like anything else. To think an open samekh is lacking in its fundamental tzura doesn't sound like such a chiddush to me any more than a kuf whose leg touches its roof (though as I said sefer tagi may imply otherwise but the unintuitive nature of that change may be why it was lost in some versions and most implementations which really supports what i'm saying). – Double AA Mar 17 '21 at 20:19
  • @magicker72 I admit to being generally skeptical of the whole genre of scouring aggadot for diyukim to find the 'crucial' components of letter forms (like https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/40736/759 ) but without any other mesora it's often all we have to base these sorts of decisions on besides halachic instinct. – Double AA Mar 17 '21 at 20:25
8

There's a debate in the Talmud (which is in turn subject to more debate by commentaries how to understand it), the two opinions appear to be as follows:

  • The original Torah was given in the script we now know (ktav ashuri). Back then, this script was only used for "sacred matters." Regular (not sacred) Hebrew documents were written in the proto-script (ktav ivri). Around 2500 years ago, Ezra realized that Jews were starting to forget the sacred (ashuri) script, so he convinced people to use that script for both sacred and regular documents, so that it would not be forgotten.

    (Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls found use the modern script for most words but the paleo script for G-d's name; that would be consistent with this "sacred/non-sacred" distinction.)

  • The original Torah was given in paleo-script. 2500 years ago Ezra recognized it was the end of an era -- prophecy was ending and instead teaching would be based on books and rabbis -- and to reflect that change, the script was switched to the modern one. (Ezra saw hints to this in the Torah itself, but that's a bit more complicated.)

Community
  • 1
Shalom
  • 132,602
  • 8
  • 193
  • 489
7

BS"D

Based on Archaeological and Talmudic sources at least from the time of the giving of the Torah by Moshe(pbuh) to the end of the Babylonian exile writing was done in K'thav Ivri/Paleo-Hebrew script. It thus could be assumed that this was also the case with the actual tablets.

Clearest statement about this concept if found in the Bavli : "Mar Zutra or, as some say, Mar ‘Ukba said: Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew characters and in the sacred [Hebrew] language; later, in the times of Ezra, the Torah was given in Ashshurith script and Aramaic language. [Finally], they selected for Israel the Ashshurith script and Hebrew language, leaving the Hebrew characters and Aramaic language for the hedyototh. Who are meant by the ‘hedyototh’? — R. Hisda answers: The Cutheans. And what is meant by Hebrew characters? — R. Hisda said: The libuna'ah script." - Sanhedrin 21b

In the Yerushalim it is stated: "Rabbi Levy said that according to the view that the Torah was given in r'tz script (Paleo-Hebrew), the 'ayin stood by a miracle. According to the view that it was given in Ashuri script, the Samekh stood by a miracle." - Megillah 1:9

In K'thav Ivri the Ayin looks like "O" Where as in K'thav Ashuri an Ayin looks like "ע"

As far as the TaNaKh is concerned there is no direct reference to this, though some say we can find an allusion to this in YeHezqe'l 9:4-6 where it is stated that a "תָּו" was placed on his forehead. Now was it a Taw written in Ashuri which looks like "ת" or Ivri which looked like "X" from what i have heard on the subject most say that it must have been in K'thav Ivri not only because of the archaeological evidence of when which Aleph-Beth was used when, but by simply looking at the shape of each letter and which made more "sense" to mark with.

Even in the post the Ezra period K'Tav Ivri was still held with respect and sanctity so much so that it seems to have always been used in holy writings as shown in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls that are written in Ashuri but where ever Hashem's name comes up it is writen in K'thav Ivri It also shows up in practical Halakha: (in reference to saving items from a fire on shabboth) "... provided that the [sacred writings] are written in the Assyrian script and in Hebrew. If, by contrast, they are written in any other language or using any other script, we should not save them even if there is an eruv... Even if [these sacred texts] are written with other tints or with red ink, or even if the writing is not permanent, since they are written in the Assyrian script and in Hebrew, we should save them." - M"T Hilkhoth Shabboth 23:26-27

Qoheleth
  • 641
  • 6
  • 13
  • Some people downvoted his post - can someone explain why? – Nathan H Jul 29 '12 at 18:50
  • i have a question> even if the script was transfered to other languages written and oral time, granted the meaning stayed the same, "how" it was writte, if the letters were different does that change the meaning alltogether of the text>? you mentioned>" In K'thav Ivri the Ayin looks like "O" Where as in K'thav Ashuri an Ayin looks like "ע", this is but one of many examples, it is a known fact that over time the trouble was that meaning were changed by literation, when passing on to one language to another, which creates a significant problem~~do you have answer for this>? ken? toda raba in sha –  Aug 05 '12 at 14:54
  • BS"D Im not to sure what your question is. – Qoheleth Aug 07 '12 at 04:59
  • BS"D EDIT: Im not to sure what your question is if you dont mind restating it. If it's if there is a chance of the literation changing because of a change in the font of the text I think its clear that it does when it came to the Talmudic/midrashic literature that talks about the specific letters and their symbolism , But that has nothing to do (that I know of) with a basic understanding of the Miqra, unlike the way some people might view gamatria. I could be wrong though since personally I have no interest in such methods of elucidation so I have no knowledge on it. sorry. – Qoheleth Aug 07 '12 at 05:08
  • 1
    The sources you bring are clear that it's a machlokes... how can you then state definitively that it was ksav ivri? Further, your Rambam says only to save ksav ashuri, doesn't it? (@nute, that's why I downvoted, anyway) – yoel Aug 07 '12 at 13:16
  • 1
    BS"D Thanks for the response. I never stated definitively that it was, like you say my sources don't necessarily come to that conclusion. See my first paragraph "It thus could be assumed" being that I stated its would be an assumption that negates any definitive stance. My point was just to show how historically Jewry interacted with the two Aleph-Beth's thats all. RE: M"T quote its my understanding of the text that we can only save scripture that is written in either letters and no other language, not just ashuri :http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/3123n.htm#26 – Qoheleth Aug 08 '12 at 00:59
5

The March/April 2010 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review had an article By Dr. Orly Goldwasser on the creation and evolution of the Hebrew alphabet. The full article is on her website here.

It's pretty detailed - but the main idea of what she writes is that the earliest (around 1800s-1600 BCE) aleph-betic writings were found in the Sinai mines alongside hieroglyphic writings, sometimes even on the same stone. Evidently, it started out as the "Canaanite" turquoise miners attempting to make something easier to use to memorialize people and record prayers than the ruling Egyptian class's hieroglyphics, and succeeding in inventing a pictographic near-alphabet with the initial sound of the picture being the sound value of it in their language - for example:

yud was a hand "yad" picture,

nun was a snake "nahash" picture,

mem was a water "mayim" picture,

resh was a head "rosh" picture, and so on...

Her website has a nice video she made for the Israel museum explaining the process here.

The pictures gradually evolved into the Canaanite / Phoenician / Hebrew Ivri alphabet by the 10th century BCE, as evidenced by the Izbet Sartah (1200 BCE) and Tel Zayit (1100-1050 BCE) ABCeDaries, then the Gezer "calendar" (1000-950 BCE). The timing of the development of the alphabetic writing of the time suggests that the Torah was given in the Early Alphabetic precursor of the Ivri script. Archaeology so far shows that the Ashuri characters(yet another derivative of the same Early Alphabetic script) were not in use until 500-700 years later.

The Jerusalem Talmud in Megillah 1:9 has R. Levi quoting Mar Zutra's(see DoubleAA's answer above) opinion that it was in Ivri, and the Ayin and Tet stood stood up miraculously. This makes sense only in Ivri script - Ayin is an eye/circle and Tet is a circle with an "x" in it. The Babylonian Talmud(also ref Double AA's details) has an opinion that the Mem and Samech(on Ashuri tablets) stood up, which only makes sense with the closed characters in Ashuri. To me, this situation seems perfectly logical - The Jerusalem/Israeli Rabbis of that time would still have seen plenty of evidence of the older script"s former use in the Land of Israel. On the other hand, the Babylonian Rabbis would have seen little to no former Ivri script use in Babylonia by that time, 600-1000 years after Ezra.

In Pritchard's ANET and A. Mazar's Archaeology Of The Land Of The Bible they have NO surviving Land of Israel inscriptions from before the Babylonian conquest - royal inscriptions, letters, jar handles, grave markers, you name it, that are NOT in the Ivri script.

The earliest Ashuri Hebrew/Aramaic writings are from Elephantine and Samaria from around 500-400 BCE. Dead Sea scrolls are in both, but mostly Ashuri, with only some Torah books (4Q Paleo-Leviticus, 4Q Paleo-Genesis/Exodus, etc) written entirely in Ivri.

Ashuri was evidently mostly used during the Second Temple period, except for the coins, probably because Ivri was the only proper script for JERUSALEM THE HOLY.

I hope this clears things up...By the way, I LOVE the fact that the last Israeli use of the Ivri script was when Simon Bar Kosiba took nice Roman Latin coins – hopefully a LOT of Judea Capta coins – and restamped them as Israeli coinage!

edit: added some references

Community
  • 1
Gary
  • 2,188
  • 1
  • 18
  • 25
  • 3
    This really needs references. We are not a talky-talk site, we are students. – Zachariah Oct 09 '12 at 03:51
  • NewAlexandria--I hope my added references to my first humble Mi Yodeya answer make it as palatable as Teonancatl for you... – Gary Oct 14 '12 at 22:22
  • Are these references really legitimate for a site expecting answers based on Jewish tradition? – yoel Oct 15 '12 at 20:05
  • 4
    @yoel Maybe yes maybe not, but good thing this site is not such a site. We expect questions about Jewish life/learning/tradition but we will accept anything that answers the question, and for many possible questions academic science or other 'neutral' sources of information are perfectly good ways of dealing with the issue qua Judaism. Feel free to bring it up on meta if you disagree. – Double AA Oct 16 '12 at 02:56
  • 2
    @Gary I don't see any discussion in the Yerushalmi about tet; only ayin. Also, the Yerushalmi quotes the opinion that it was a samech as well so you can't prove that they knew it was Ivri based on their personal experiance, only that they knew it might have been Ivri. – Double AA Oct 16 '12 at 03:10
  • @DoubleAA is science a neutral source? – yoel Oct 16 '12 at 16:54
  • 4
    @yoel Why not? Assuming it's real science it should be very clear about what it's assumptions are (essentially: things have tended and will tend to work the same way that we observe and measure them working now) and by what reasoning it claims what it claims. What about that is skewed from neutral? And aside from that being extremely reasonable, the fact is that literally countless Jews over the millenia have used scnitific method, experimentation and data in their interaction with the world and in their interaction with the Divine. How else do you propose we as Jews interact with God's world? – Double AA Oct 16 '12 at 17:14
  • 1
    @DoubleAA through Torah and Emuna, both of which contemporary neutral science purports to disprove. You are more than entitled to your opinion. – yoel Oct 16 '12 at 17:19
  • 2
    @yoel How does science purport to disprove Torah and Emunah? And how would Torah and Emuna teach you how to drive a car? Write code? Transplant a heart? Fly to the moon? Treat cancer? Connect to Mi Yodeya? – Double AA Oct 16 '12 at 17:22
  • The point is science is incredibly indifferent and transparent about what it does. This makes it's findings incredibly valuable as perfectly non-skewed. On a case by case basis you might want to insert factors or variables that were not accounted for (ie places where things act irregularly through Divine intervention, or places where they work as they work now were we able to properly observe them) but that doesn't make any data they find wrong and certainly not irrelevant to Judaism. We can only build on science's findings, not live without them. – Double AA Oct 16 '12 at 17:26
  • 1
    @DoubleAA I hear what you're saying and agree to an extent, but I think that certain sciences are inherently biased. The sciences which are historical and speculative in nature - in this case, archaeology - are in inherent disagreement with our Torah. The same archaeologists cited above would deny outright Torah miSinai. This is not the same as the functionality of a transistor or a combustion engine. I think the area in which we disagree is the extent to which certain sciences are valid to a believing Jew, and I don't begrudge you your opinion. – yoel Oct 16 '12 at 17:57
  • @yoel They aren't inherently biased. They are accurately reporting, eg., that there is currently no evidence of large scale population movements in the area. Jews agree to that statement. So too they can accurately report that there are currently no Ashuri script letters that we have from before a certain time (as measured by the method which they specify they use). Jews agree to that statement. – Double AA Oct 16 '12 at 18:03
  • 1
    Science says: based on our assumptions (as I stated 3 comments above) we have no reason to believe there was large populations there/Ashuri script was in use. Jews say that is correct, just we have (or in the latter case might have) other forms of evidence you didn't consider. Science never skewed any facts. Hence it is still completely usable data for us. – Double AA Oct 16 '12 at 18:04
  • It can be confusing to understand where it is appropriate to inject extra assumptions and where not to. On the one hand, as Jews we generally assume God doesn't perform miracles all that often (particularly now in Galut), but we know He can and sometimes does. In some cases (Torah miSinai) our hands are 'forced' in that we know we should insert a miracle. But in many many other cases it's not as clear. – Double AA Oct 16 '12 at 18:10
  • Sometimes we say Nishtaneh HaTeva and sometimes we say science 'got it wrong' (not intentionally of course). It's a balance between the strength of a given tradition in Judaism vs the strength of the evidence from science and I don't pretend to have any conclusive answers. /end-rant – Double AA Oct 16 '12 at 18:13
  • Wow! I come back from a couple of jobs, and all this... I was just trying to add a "traditional" reference, and found half a dozen unique pages on the Ivri/Ashuri subject. Some of them had the Talmud sources/opinions, and two of them(http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.jewish.moderated/2005-11/msg01122.html and another one I'm trying to re-find) had the "tet" also. Sorry..that's what I get for trusting other folks to accurately translate for me, and not waiting a few years until I can quote/translate Talmud like a Super-mensh)... – Gary Oct 16 '12 at 21:19
  • @yoel - btw, I'm pretty sure all three generations of Mazar archaeologists are/were observant Jews...the granddaughter, Eilat, relied on "traditional" materials for the right locations to dig in her current City of David excavations. – Gary Oct 16 '12 at 21:31
  • 1
    Gentlemen - in my studies of the archaeology of the Land of Israel and its surroundings, I have not run across ANYTHING that absolutely positively contradicts the Tanach, from the first Torah book onwards. How long really is a "day" when it's describing the generations of Heaven and Earth? We, our ancestors and descendents can all have opinions, but only One was there with a stopwatch. The names of the people all through Tanach are correct for the times they are written as lived in.... – Gary Oct 17 '12 at 23:25
  • 5
    No Exodus evidence, so it's a fable? Bull! They've found buildings at Pithom and elsewhere with different, decreasing straw/mud ratios in the bricks...there's even a roll in the Louvre(LR1724)from Rameses II's reign that has the taskmasters explaining their quota failure as being due to the slaves not gathering enough straw...they probably won't find the daily brick production records for Amram Levi's family, but the slaves' situation is absolutely accurate as described for that time period.. – Gary Oct 18 '12 at 00:09