Daf Ditty Megillah 27: Longevity

Study finds that the DNA methylation GrimAge clock can predict an

individual’s lifespan and healthspan with accuracy.1

‫ְוִאם ִבּ ְגבוֹּרת ְשׁמוִֹנים ָשָׁנה‬ ,‫ְשׁנוֵֹתינוּ ָבֶהם ִשְׁבִעים ָשָׁנה‬-‫ְיֵמי‬

1
https://www.longevity.technology/grimage-clock-its-all-a-matter-of-time/

1
The Gemara presents the first incident: Rabbi Zakkai was once asked by his disciples: In the
merit of which virtue where you blessed with longevity? He said to them: In all my days, I
never urinated within four cubits of a place that had been used for prayer. Nor did I ever call
my fellow by a nickname. And I never neglected the mitzva of sanctifying the day of Shabbat
over wine. I was meticulous about this mitzva to the extent that I had an elderly mother, and
once, when I did not have wine, she sold the kerchief that was on her head, and from the
proceeds she brought me wine upon which to do the mitzva of sanctifying the day.

It was taught concerning Rabbi Zakkai: When his mother died, she left him three hundred
barrels of wine. When he died, he left his sons three thousand barrels of wine. Since they were
so meticulous in the mitzva of sanctifying the day of Shabbat with wine, God rewarded them with
wealth and an abundance of wine.

In a related incident, it once happened that Rav Huna was girded with a piece of straw [rita] and
was standing before Rav. Rav said to him: What is this? Why are you dressed in this way? He
said to him: I had no wine for sanctifying the day of Shabbat, so I pawned my belt [hemyanai],
and with the proceeds I brought wine for sanctifying the day. Rav said to him: May it be God’s
will that you be enveloped in silk [shira’ei] in reward for such dedication.

2
When Rabba, his son, was married, Rav Huna, who was a short man, was lying on his bed,
and owing to his diminutive size he went unnoticed. His daughters and daughters-in-law came
into the room and removed and threw their silk garments upon him until he was entirely
enveloped in silk. With this, Rav’s blessing was fulfilled to the letter. When Rav heard about
this, he became angry with Rav Huna, and said: What is the reason that when I blessed you,
you did not respond in kind and say to me: And likewise to the Master? Had you done so, I
would have also benefitted from the blessing.

The Gemara discusses the second occasion where a Sage explained his longevity: Rabbi Elazar
ben Shammua was once asked by his disciples: In the merit of which virtue where you blessed
with longevity? He said to them: In all my days, I never made a shortcut through a synagogue.
Nor did I ever stride over the heads of the sacred people, i.e., I never stepped over people sitting
in the study hall in order to reach my place, so as not to appear scornful of them. And I never
raised my hands in the Priestly Benediction without reciting a blessing beforehand.

On the third occasion, Rabbi Perida was once asked by his disciples: In the merit of which
virtue where you blessed with longevity? He said to them: In all my days, no person ever
arrived before me to the study hall, as I was always the first to arrive.

Summary

Sanctity, Change of Ownership, and Prayer

3
We have been discussing whether the sanctity of a place or object is changed when that place or
object is sold.2 Today's daf begins with that conversation. We are reminded that a study hall is
considered to be of greater sanctity than a synagogue. This means that a study hall should not be
sold so that it will be used as a synagogue.

To further this exploration of levels of sanctity, the rabbis discuss which scrolls may be place on
top of other scrolls when they are stored in the arc. After debating some of the options, the rabbis
note that often there is no choice but to place one scroll on another. In fact, when we furl the scroll,
we are similarly placing words of greater and lesser sanctity beside each other.

Before beginning another Mishna, the rabbis speak about what to do when we are asked to give
charity while visiting another town. There is a line of thought about taking care of people who are
needy. However, those who are in our own villages should take priority. It will be interesting to
see if this line of thought continues on through my reading of the Talmud.

A short Mishna teaches us about individuals versus communities when it comes to the sanctity of
items. A comparison is made between communities and cities, individuals and villages.

Another Mishna is introduced. We move into the topic of purchases, interest, permanent sales,
and other financial transactions. The rabbis explore when we might be allowed to reverse a
sale. We also learn that only four uses are prohibited in a former synagogue after its sale: as a
bathhouse, tannery, mikvah, and lavatory (because nakedness and offensive odours would insult
the previous sanctity of that place).

Our daf also touches upon two more ideas. First, the rabbis consider the implications of urinating
in the same place where one prays (within four cubits). Second, the rabbis boast about their prayer
and the ways in which they are rewarded for those prayers.

I continue to be fascinated by the discussion of 'levels of sanctity'. The concept of sanctity seems
to be similar to that of ritual impurity. It is a state that may or may not be reversed given specific
circumstances, actions and intentions. Although sanctity seems 'positive' and impurity seems
'negative', in fact they are simply two states of being.

2
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/08/

4
Rav Avrohom Adler writes:

Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: One is permitted to convert a synagogue into a Torah study
hall (because the latter is considered to have more sanctity); however, it would be forbidden to
convert a Torah study hall into a synagogue. Rav Pappa in the name of Rava learned exactly the
opposite. The Gemora quotes from Rav Acha in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (an early
generation Amora) saying: One is permitted to convert a synagogue into a Torah study hall (in
accordance with Rav Pappi).

Bar Kappara gave the following exposition: What is the meaning of the verse: And he burned the
house of Hashem and the king's house and all the houses of Jerusalem, and even every great house
did he burn with fire? ‘The house of Hashem’: this is the Temple. ‘The king's house’: this is the
royal palace. ‘All the houses of Jerusalem’: literally. ‘Even every great house did he burn with
fire’: Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi gave different interpretations of this. One
said that it means the place where the Torah is increased; the other explains that it refers to the
place where a prayer is increased.

The one who says the Torah bases himself on the verse: Hashem desires, for his righteousness’s
sake to increase the Torah and strengthen it. The one who says prayer bases himself on the verse:
Tell me now the great things that Elisha has done; and what Elisha did, he did by means of prayer.
The Gemora notes: It may be presumed that it was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who said that it refers
to the place where Torah is increased, since Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that a synagogue may
be turned into a study hall (so it is reasonable that a ‘great house’ refers to Torah which is studied
in a study hall, for it (a study hall) is more sacred than a synagogue, which is used for prayer); this
is a clear indication.

The Mishna had stated: If they sold a Torah, they may not purchase the books of Prophets and
Writings. The Gemora inquires: Are they allowed to sell an old Torah scroll with the intention of
using the proceeding to purchase a new Torah scroll? Perhaps, they are required to elevate the
degree of sanctity and therefore it would be prohibited; or, perhaps, since there are no objects with
a greater degree of sanctity, it would be permissible.

The Gemora attempts to prove the halachah from the Mishna: but if they sell a Torah scroll, they
may not buy books of Scripture; it is books of Scripture that they may not buy, but to buy a Torah
scroll with the money of a Torah scroll is unobjectionable!

Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: One is permitted to convert a synagogue into a Torah study
hall (because the latter is considered to have more sanctity); however, it would be forbidden to
convert a Torah study hall into a synagogue. Rav Pappa in the name of Rava learned exactly the
opposite. The Gemora quotes from Rav Acha in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (an early
generation Amora) saying: One is permitted to convert a synagogue into a Torah study hall (in
accordance with Rav Pappi).

Bar Kappara gave the following exposition: What is the meaning of the verse: And he burned the
house of Hashem and the king's house and all the houses of Jerusalem, and even every great house
did he burn with fire? ‘The house of Hashem’: this is the Temple. ‘The king's house’: this is the

5
royal palace. ‘All the houses of Jerusalem’: literally. ‘Even every great house did he burn with
fire’: Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi gave different interpretations of this. One
said that it means the place where the Torah is increased; the other explains that it refers to the
place where a prayer is increased.

The one who says the Torah bases himself on the verse: Hashem desires, for his righteousness’s
sake to increase the Torah and strengthen it. The one who says prayer bases himself on the verse:
Tell me now the great things that Elisha has done; and what Elisha did, he did by means of prayer.
The Gemora notes: It may be presumed that it was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who said that it refers
to the place where Torah is increased, since Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that a synagogue may
be turned into a study hall (so it is reasonable that a ‘great house’ refers to Torah which is studied
in a study hall, for it (a study hall) is more sacred than a synagogue, which is used for prayer); this
is a clear indication.

The Mishna had stated: If they sold a Torah, they may not purchase the books of Prophets and
Writings. The Gemora inquires: Are they allowed to sell an old Torah scroll with the intention of
using the proceeding to purchase a new Torah scroll? Perhaps, they are required to elevate the
degree of sanctity and therefore it would be prohibited; or, perhaps, since there are no objects with
a greater degree of sanctity, it would be permissible. The Gemora attempts to prove the halachah
from the Mishna: but if they sell a Torah scroll, they may not buy books of Scripture; it is books
of Scripture that they may not buy, but to buy a Torah scroll with the money of a Torah scroll is
unobjectionable!

The Gemora rejects this proof as well and states that perhaps it is only permitted to use the
proceedings for Torah study for the learning of Torah leads to the observance of mitzvos; taking a
wife (can also be understood, for it is written:) He did not create the world to be a void; He formed
it to be inhabited; however, exchanging one Torah scroll for another might still be prohibited.

It was taught in a braisa: One should not sell a Torah scroll even if he does not need the scroll (he
has other Torah scrolls). Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Even one who does not have what to
eat and he sells his Torah scroll or his daughter (as a maidservant), he will never see a sign of
blessing from this money.

The Mishna had stated: If a sacred object was sold, the proceedings must be used to buy an object
with a greater degree of sanctity. The Mishna concluded that this halachah applies to any leftover
money as well. Rava said: If money was collected to purchase a sacred object and afterwards, they
had leftover money, they can use that money for any use. Abaye cited the following braisa in
objection to this: When does this rule apply? If they made no stipulation; but if they made a
stipulation, they may even give it to the duchsusya (which the Gemora will explain its meaning
shortly).

Now, how are we to understand this? Shall we say that they sold a sacred article and had money
left over after purchasing a new one? Then, even if they made a stipulation that they could do what
they liked with it, what does it help (for all the funds acquire the sanctity of the first object)? We
must say therefore that they collected money and had some left over, and the reason is given that
‘they made a stipulation,’ but if they made no stipulation, they cannot?

6
The Gemora deflects the proof: I still maintain that what is meant is that they sold a sacred object
and had money left over, and the braisa means as follows: When does this rule apply? When the
seven trustees of the town did not make any stipulation in the assembly of the townspeople (that
the money can be used for whatever they liked); but if the seven trustees of the town made a
stipulation in the assembly of the townspeople, it may be used even for paying a duchsusya.

Abaye said to a Rabbinical student who used to recite braisos in the presence of Rav Sheishes:
Have you ever heard from Rav Sheishes what is meant by duchsusya? He replied: This is what
Rav Sheishes said: The town courier. Abaye thereupon observed: This shows that a Rabbinical
student who has heard something of which he does not know the meaning should ask one who is
frequently in the company of the Rabbis, since he is almost certain to have heard the answer from
some great man.

Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Meir: If the residents of one city went to another city,
and the city officials imposed upon them to give charity, they should give it. When they leave the
city, their charity is refunded, and they bring the money with them and use it to provide for the
poor of their own city. The Gemora cites a braisa in support of this ruling: If the residents of one
city went to another city, and the city officials imposed upon them to give charity, they should
give it. When they leave the city, their charity is refunded, and they bring the money with them.
However, an individual who went to another city and they imposed upon him to give charity, it is
given to the poor of that city. The Gemora qualifies this ruling and states that the money is not
refunded if there is a scholar in the town. In that case, the scholar should distribute the money
according to the way that he sees fit.

The Mishna states: They may not sell a public synagogue to an individual because this lowers the
degree of sanctity (even if he plans on using it as a private synagogue). This is Rabbi Meir’s
opinion. The Chachamim said to him: If so, it should be prohibited to sell a synagogue from a large
city to a small city.

The Gemora explains Rabbi Meir’s opinion: There is no difference in the degree of sanctity
between a synagogue in a large city and one is a small one and therefore such a transfer is
permitted; however, a synagogue used by an individual lacks sanctity (because there is no quorum
of ten and certain prayers cannot be recited) and therefore it would be forbidden to sell a public
synagogue to be used as a private one. The Chachamim answer back: There is a difference in the
level of sanctity between a synagogue in a large city and one in a small one because it is written
[Mishlei 14:28]: With the multitude of people is the glory of the King. If Rabbi Meir agrees that a
synagogue can be transferred from a large city to a smaller one, he should agree that a public
synagogue can be sold to an individual.

The Mishna states: The townspeople may not sell a synagogue, except on condition that if the
townspeople desire; the buyers would be required to return it. This is Rabbi Meir’s opinion. The
Chachamim said: They may sell it permanently (unconditionally), except for the following four
purposes; for a bathhouse, for a tannery, for a ritual bath, or for the laundry. Rabbi Yehudah said:
They may sell it for a courtyard, and the purchaser may do with it whatever he pleases.

7
The Gemora asks: But, according to Rabbi Meir's ruling, how do people live in it? The rent they
pay would be interest!? Rabbi Yochanan replied: Rabbi Meir gave this ruling on the basis of the
view of Rabbi Yehudah, who said that interest which is only in one aspect (for if the sale is not
nullified, the money is not a loan at all) is permitted, as it has been taught in a braisa: one who
borrows money, and provides his field to his creditor, which the stipulation that if he does not pay
by a certain time, the field will be sold to the creditor. The Sages say that this is permitted only
when the seller (i.e., the debtor) eats the produce, but if the buyer (i.e., the creditor) eats the
produce, it is forbidden. If the debtor does pay his debt in time, he gets his field back, but the
creditor will have received the produce as extra payment for his loan. Rabbi Yehudah says this is
permitted.

Abaye says that the dispute is whether a case in which only one possible outcome will result in
interest is permitted. In this case, only if the debtor pays back his loan will this result in interest,
and Rabbi Yehudah therefore permits it – even if the debtor does pay back his loan. Rava says that
Rabbi Yehudah only allows this when the buyer will pay back the produce if the debtor pays back
the loan, and the dispute is whether interest which will be paid back is permitted.

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: One may urinate within four amos of a place where
tefillah has been recited. Rav Yosef asked: What is Shmuel coming to teach us? We have learned
in a Mishna: Rabbi Yehudah said: They may sell it for a courtyard, and the purchaser may do with
it whatever he pleases. Even according to the Chachamim, who rule that a synagogue which has
been sold cannot be used as a urinal, this applies only to a synagogue whose sacredness is
permanent; but in regard to four amos, which have no sacredness, even the Chachamim would
admit. A scholar taught a braisa in the presence of Rabbi Nachman: One, who prays, shall distance
himself four amos and then he may urinate. One, who has urinated, shall distance himself four
amos and then he may pray. Rav Nachman said to him: I understand the latter ruling because we
have learned in a Mishna that one must distance himself from urine and excrement four amos
before he can pray. However, the former ruling I don’t understand.

Why is it necessary for one who prays to distance himself four amos and then urinate? According
to this teaching, you make all streets of Nehardea sacred, for there is no place there where men
have not prayed? Rav Nachman emends the braisa: One, who prays, shall wait for the amount of
time it takes to walk four amos and then he may urinate because for that length of time, the prayer
is still in his mind and his lips keep moving as if he is praying. One, who has urinated, shall wait
for the amount of time it takes to walk four amos and then he may pray. This is to ensure that the
drops do not dirty his clothing.

The disciples of R. Zakkai asked him: In reward of what have you been living so many years? He
replied: I never urinated within four amos from the place of my prayer, and I never called my
neighbor by a nickname, and I never recited the kiddush Shabbos morning without wine. It once
happened that I had no money to buy wine with, and my elderly mother sold the veil from her head
and brought me wine for kiddush. It was taught in a braisa: When his mother died, she left him
three hundred barrels of wine, and when he died, he left his children three thousand barrels of
wine.

8
"What happened to your belt?"

…. asked the Sage Rav of his disciple Rabbi Huna when he noticed that he was wearing some
makeshift belt of vegetation rather than his regular one. "I gave away my belt as collateral in order
to secure money to buy wine for Shabbat kiddush." Rav was so impressed by his disciple's sacrifice
of a personal garment for a mitzvah that he blessed him that he should, as a reward, "be covered
with clothes." Sometime afterwards Rabbi Huna was hosting a wedding for his son Rabbah. Rabbi
Huna, who was a very short man, lay down upon a bed to rest while his family gathered for the
celebration. His daughters and daughters-in-law did not notice his presence and they placed their
coats on the bed, completely covering him with clothes in fulfillment of Rav's blessing.

When Rav heard that his blessing had thus been fulfilled, he complained to Rabbi Huna: "When I
blessed you why did you not respond with a blessing of "the same to my master" (Rashi - it may
have been a moment of Divine favor and the blessing would have been fulfilled for me as well).

NOTEBOOK WITH TORAH AND CALCULATIONS

What is the halachah regarding a notebook that has in the beginning mundane matters and at the
end has sacred matters?

Would there be a prohibition against putting the notebook down in a manner that the sacred matters
are on the bottom? Shulchan Aruch (Y” D 282:19) rules that it is forbidden to place the Prophets
on top of a Torah if they are two separate scrolls, but if they are in one scroll, there would be no
prohibition to have the Prophets on top.

This scenario could be allowed only because they are both sacred matters, however, when one is
sacred and the other mundane, perhaps it would be prohibited. (Chashukei Chemed)

Blessings and returns3

"What happened to your belt?" asked the Sage Rav of his disciple Rabbi Huna when he noticed
that he was wearing some makeshift belt of vegetation rather than his regular one. "I gave away
my belt as collateral in order to secure money to buy wine for Shabbat kiddush." Rav was so
impressed by his disciple's sacrifice of a personal garment for a mitzvah that he blessed him that
he should, as a reward, "be covered with clothes."

Sometime afterwards Rabbi Huna was hosting a wedding for his son Rabba. Rabbi Huna, who was
a very short man, lay down upon a bed to rest while his family gathered for the celebration. His
daughters and daughters-inlaw did not notice his presence and they placed their coats on the bed,
completely covering him with clothes in fulfillment of Rav's blessing. When Rav heard that his
blessing had thus been fulfilled, he complained to Rabbi Huna: "When I blessed you why did you

3
Ohr Somayach International

9
not respond with a blessing of "the same to my master" (Rashi - it may have been a moment of
Divine favor and the blessing would have been fulfilled for me as well).

Two problems arise in regard to understanding this story. Why was it necessary to mention the
uncomplimentary fact of Rabbi Huna's diminutive size? Even more puzzling is Rav's
disappointment in not receiving a counter-blessing after seeing the fulfillment of his blessing.
What benefit would Rav have derived from being temporarily covered by clothes as was his
disciple? The simple approach to the first question is that it was necessary to mention Rabbi Huna's
size in order to explain why his family members did not notice his presence on the bed where they
placed their coats.

In regard to the second issue, an interesting explanation is offered in the footnotes of Bach (Rabbi
Yoel Sirkis): Rav was upset because the fulfillment of his blessing indicated that it was moment
of Divine favor and had he received a counter-blessing it may well have, in his case because of his
greater merit, been fulfilled in the way it was intended by Rav - by being blessed with the wealth
which enables one to cover himself with clothes.

A most innovative approach to answering these questions is suggested by Rabbi Yaakov Emden.
Rav was the tallest sage of his generation while Rabbi Huna was among the shortest. Rabbi Huna
therefore hesitated to return the blessing which Rav gave, as the clothes which fit his short figure
would look absurd on the tall figure of his master.

An important lesson is to be learned from this story. When you receive a blessing from anyone, be
sure to return it.

WHEN MAY A SEFER TORAH BE SOLD?

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

Rebbi Yochanan says in the name of Rebbi Meir that a Sefer Torah may not be sold except for two
purposes: to raise funds to enable one to learn Torah or to get married.

The Gemara attempts to prove from this ruling that one may sell an old Sefer Torah in order to
buy a new one, because buying a new Sefer Torah is equated with using the funds to learn Torah.
The Gemara rejects this proof and says that buying a new Sefer Torah is not comparable to using
the funds for learning Torah. Learning Torah is greater because it enables one to fulfill the Torah
in practice.

(a) The Gemara leaves its question -- may one sell an old Sefer Torah in order to buy a new one -
- unanswered. What is the Halachah in practice?

(b) May a Sefer Torah be sold for any other Mitzvah, such as Pidyon Shevuyim (the redemption
of captives)? Similarly, may a Sefer Torah be sold in order to provide sustenance for the poor?

4
https://dafyomi.co.il/megilah/insites/mg-dt-027.htm

10
(c) May a Sefer Torah owned by an individual (as opposed to one owned by the community) be
sold?

(d) When a Sefer Torah was originally purchased (such as by a merchant) with an expressed
condition that it will be resold, may it be resold?

(e) When a Sefer Torah is found to be invalid, may it be sold in order to help raise money to buy
a new Sefer Torah?

HALACHAH:

The Gemara clearly rules that if the new Sefer Torah is not yet ready, the old one may not be sold
(because an unforeseen mishap may occur which will leave the community without a Sefer Torah).
The Gemara's doubt applies only when the new Sefer Torah is ready to be purchased.

The SHACH (YD 270:3) rules that an old Sefer Torah may not be sold in order to buy a new one,
even when the new one is ready. He explains that one must be stringent because the Gemara leaves
this question unanswered. (This reasoning is based on the RAN and ROSH's understanding of
the RIF.) RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN zt'l (Igros Moshe YD 3:113) points out that even though
the prohibition against selling a Sefer Torah is only mid'Rabanan, nevertheless one must be
stringent because of the honor of the Torah.

However, the LEVUSH and TAZ permit an old Sefer Torah to be sold when there is no concern
that the community will be left without a Sefer Torah.

In practice, Rav Moshe Feinstein (ibid.) rules like the Shach. (See also DERISHAH, end of YD
270:2.)

TOSFOS in Bava Basra (8b, DH Pidyon Shevuyim, cited by the GILYON HA'SHAS here)
writes that a Sefer Torah certainly may be sold for the sake of Pidyon Shevuyim. Tosfos asserts
that the reason why the Gemara here does not mention it is because it is obvious.

This is the ruling of the MAGEN AVRAHAM (OC 153:9). (The DERISHAH (YD 252:2),
however, writes that when Tosfos says that a Sefer Torah certainly may be sold for Pidyon
Shevuyim, he refers only to raising money for the Pidyon of oneself but not for others.)
The MISHNAH BERURAH (153:24) points out that the Magen Avraham later (153:11) writes
that a Sefer Torah may be sold for Pidyon Shevuyim only as a last resort, when there is no other
way to raise the money needed. This is the ruling of the RAMBAM and SEMAG.

According to the RAMBAM (Hilchos Sefer Torah 10:2), a Sefer Torah may not be sold even to
provide food for poor people who have nothing to eat. The HAGAHOS
MAIMONIYOS questions the Rambam's ruling from the Yerushalmi (end of Bikurim) which
explicitly states that a Sefer Torah may be sold in order to provide food for one who has nothing
to eat. Moreover, the Gemara here quotes Raban Shimon ben Gamliel who says that one who sells
a Sefer Torah in order to buy food (even if he has nothing else to eat) will see no blessing from the

11
sale. This implies that one is not prohibited from selling a Sefer Torah to provide food, but just
that he will see no blessing from the sale.

The BEIS YOSEF explains that the Rambam assumed that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's
statement that one will see no blessing from such a sale implies that the sale is prohibited.
However, the Beis Yosef seems to conclude like the Hagahos Maimoniyos that one may sell a
Sefer Torah when he has no other source of funds to provide food for himself.

The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 153:10) records two opinions with regard to whether or not a
Sefer Torah owned by an individual may be sold. The MAGEN AVRAHAM writes that the
common practice is to sell a privately-owned Sefer Torah even if it was used for the public Torah
reading, because it is assumed that the owner gave it over for public use only on condition that he
retain the right to sell it. The owner did not donate (Makdish) his Sefer Torah to the public, but
rather he merely gave them permission to read from it (SHA'AR HA'TZIYUN 153:57).

When a Sefer Torah is purchased with a specific condition that it be sold later, the Sefer Torah
may be resold. This leniency also applies to one who receives a Sefer Torah as payment for a debt
owed to him (MISHNAH BERURAH 153:62). In both cases, the seller may use the money for
any purpose.

RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN (ibid.) rules that a Sefer Torah which is invalid may be sold in order
to raise money to buy a new Sefer Torah.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

“By what merit did you live such a long life?”

In a number of places in the Talmud we find this question presented to leading Sages by their
students. Although the general principle of the Talmud is that rewards for the performance
of mitzvot are received not in this world, but in the world-to-come, nevertheless it appears to have
been widely accepted that someone who is particular in his performance of a given mitzvah over
and above the basic requirements is rewarded with long life. In fact, the commentaries examine
each of the answers presented in our Gemara and attempt to show how the particular activity
described goes beyond the letter-of-the-law in its performance.

Among the activities that are credited with long life we find:

• “I never called someone by their nickname.”

Tosafot explain that even nicknames that did not carry any negative elements were to be avoided.
Calling someone by a nickname that was insulting is a very serious matter according to the Talmud
(see Bava Metzia 58b). Rabbeinu Yehonatan explains that this refers to a name that carried with it

5
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_megillah2329/

12
some negative connotation when it was first given to an ancestor years before, but today is no
longer an embarrassment.

• “I never missed making Kiddush on Shabbat.”

The issue here is whether there is an obligation to make Kiddush on wine, or can it be made on
bread. From the Gemara it is clear that this statement refers to the fact that Kiddush was always
made over wine, and the Rashba explains that this was done, even though Kiddush could have
been made over bread.

• “I never used the synagogue as a shortcut.”

Rav Shmuel ha-Levi in his Ramat Shmuel suggests that this was true even in a case where it was
permissible to do so according to the letter-of-the-law – for example when there was an existing
walkway in front of the synagogue that was built for that purpose.

Rav Huna came to the Beis midrash wearing a cord around his waist instead of a belt.6 When Rav
asked why he was not wearing a regular belt, Rav Huna admitted that he had sold his belt to
purchase wine for the mitzvah of Kiddush. Rav was impressed, and he pronounced a blessing upon
Rav Huna that he should be covered with silk.

Ostensibly, the blessing was for him to become wealthy and to own silk clothing. Ironically, the
story continued with Rav Huna being caught under a pile of silk cloaks which were unwittingly
placed upon him as he sat at his daughter’s wedding. When Rav heard that his prayer had been
fulfilled, he expressed disappointment with Rav Huna. “When I pronounced the blessing for you,
why didn’t you say, ‘You should also be so blessed’?”

Rashi explains that Rav realized that his prayer for Rav Huna to be covered with silk was
apparently well-accepted in the heavens and had Rav Huna davened as well on the behalf of Rav,
his prayer might have also been accepted.”

wonders about this response of Rav. Where do we see that the blessings of Rav had
been accepted?

When he prayed that Rav Huna be covered with silk garments, he hardly meant for him to be
covered with someone else’s clothes! He meant that Rav Huna be blessed with riches, and this did
not happen in the story. Why, then, did Rav feel that the moment was so opportune, and that Rav
Huna should have utilized it?

6
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Megilla%20027.pdf

13
We must say that Rav detected that although the full extent of his blessing had not come true, some
response had been elicited. He felt that if Rav Huna had blessed him, perhaps his blessing of Rav
Huna would have been answered more appropriately.

Shulchan Aruch (1) records a dispute whether it is permitted to sell a Sefer Torah that is privately
owned. One opinion maintains that as long as it was not designated for public use it may be sold,
whereas the dissenting opinion maintains it may not be sold unless it is to provide funds to enable
one to study Torah or marry.

Shulchan Aruch (2) writes that nowadays writing or printing other sefarim fulfills the mitzvah of
writing a Sefer Torah and it is prohibited to sell these sefarim similar to the prohibition against
selling a Sefer Torah. Rav Yaakov Chaim Sofer (3), the Kaf Hachaim, explains that Shulchan
Aruch is following the strict opinion in the dispute regarding the permissibility to sell a privately
owned Sefer Torah. Additionally, he is including other sefarim in that prohibition. Therefore, a
person who purchased sefarim for private use may not sell those sefarim. The only option would
be to donate the sefarim to the community since that is considered an elevation of its sanctity.

Beis Yosef (4), on the other hand writes that although one can fulfill the mitzvah of writing a Sefer
Torah by printing sefarim, nevertheless, sefarim are not invested with the same sanctity as a Sefer
Torah and consequently they may be sold. Mishnah Berurah (5) writes that to resolve the
contradiction between these two rulings we must assume that the earlier cited ruling restricting the
sale of sefarim must be limited to those sefarim that were dedicated for public use.

Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein (6), the Aruch HaShulchan, rules that one who privately owns two
Sifrei Torah may certainly sell one of them. Based on this ruling, Poskim write that one who has
two of the same sefer, as commonly occurs with a bar-mitzvah boy, may give away or sell the
extra sefer.

14
On our daf we find talmidim asking their Rebbi in what merit each had been blessed to live such
a long life.

Similarly, the Torah Temimah, zt” l, told the story of a certain elderly man named Reb Binyomin
whom he had once met as a child. This Reb Binyomin was of exceedingly old age, and it was well
known that he was not particularly cautious about getting chilled or overheated.

In other words, he didn’t take the normal precautions that even younger people do to safeguard
their health, much less the great care that is normally taken by the elderly. His acquaintances once
tried to encourage him to take better care of himself, but to no avail. Reb Binyomin responded,
“Unlike other people, I am not concerned about such matters.

People, for good reason, worry that they might get overheated or catch cold and die, but I am
confident that the blessing that I was fortunate enough to receive from the Vilna Gaon, zt” l, will
ensure me of a very, very long life.

“I was a little boy when the Gaon was still alive, and I used to go to pray in his beis midrash. One
time, after the prayers, the Gaon paced the floor of the beis midrash sunk deeply in his thoughts.
On that day, I too was pacing the floor deeply immersed in reciting Tehillim, and without realizing
it, the Gaon and I ran right into one another. “I was completely dumbfounded that I had knocked
into the holy Gaon and stood there paralyzed in shock.

Little did I realize that the Gaon could not move away from me either—because I was standing on
his tzitzis! Eventually, the Gaon saw how confused and terrified I was, and he had pity on me. He
placed his hand on my shoulder and said lovingly, ‘You should live long, my son, but please…let
my tzitzis go.’

“When the matter became known in the beis midrash and later in the city, people looked at me as
if I was a rare find—a child that had been graced by the attentions and the blessing of the great
tzaddik. My parents even made a great celebration that day and distributed charity to the poor!”

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:7

Sometimes we can learn a text and do a double-take because either we suspect that we haven’t
understood the text well enough, or it would appear that the text describes an outlook that sits
outside the boundaries of what we think to be moral.

I mention this in reference to our daf (Megillah 27a) where, having been taught by Rabbi
Yochanan that a Sefer Torah may only be sold in order to learn Torah or to raise the necessary
funds to marry, we are then taught the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who rules that it is
forbidden to sell a Sefer Torah ‫ – אפילו אין לו מה יאכל‬even if someone doesn’t have food to eat.

7
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

15
On first glance, such a ruling simply seems incomprehensible, and though we find that later
commentaries (see Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 270:1) do acknowledge that a Sefer Torah can be
sold if someone is starving and is therefore ‘under the most dire circumstance’ ( ‫ואפילו אין לו מה‬
‫)יאכל רק ע"י הדחק‬, it remains hard to make sense of the calculation between near death by starvation
and selling a sefer Torah which, apparently, may be sold for seemingly less urgent needs such as
to learn Torah or to raise the necessary funds to marry.

Troubled by this, I turned to a source and a deeply sensitive rabbinic voice where I suspected that
this issue would be wrestled with – namely Rav Nachum Rabinovich (in his Yad Peshuta on the
Rambam - Hilchot Tefillin, Mezuzah V’Sefer Torah 10:2), and not only did he do so through a
thorough analysis of this Gemara, but through his commentary, he offers what I believe to be an
important perspective about our priorities in life. As he writes: ‘The meaning of the words of
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel are as such: ‫ – אפילו אין לו מה יאכל‬even if someone doesn’t have
food to eat, and is therefore compelled to sell their possessions - but still has an assortment of
possessions – yet such a person chooses to sell a Sefer Torah rather than any other possession’,
then this will not bring them blessings.

According to Rav Rabinovitch, our Gemara is not coming to tell us that a person should, God
forbid, starve rather than sell a Sefer Torah. Instead, it teaches us that a person shouldn’t select a
Sefer Torah from amongst all their other possessions as the first thing they sell when they are in
dire straits, because by doing so, this implies that they relate to sacred objects as forms of capital
rather than as a source of sacredness.

Thank God, most of us have not found ourselves in such a situation. However, there are instances
when our time is limited, or when we have more limited energy, when we need to reconsider what
we keep in our schedule or what we have the energy to do. And though it is reasonable to evaluate
all that we do, there is a tendency amongst some people to first remove Torah study, or to first
remove a particular mitzvah, from their schedule.

It is to this tendency that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel addresses his words. True, Pikuach Nefesh
gives us license to do almost anything for lifesaving, and true, we need to look after ourselves and
balance what we do with what we have the time and energy to do. But the sacred shouldn’t always
be the first to go, and it shouldn’t just be precious in terms of what we can get for it, but rather,
what we get from it.

Ben Harris writes:8

Our daf continues the Gemara’s discussion of the limits imposed on the sale of sacred items. As
we saw yesterday, there’s a hierarchy of holiness surrounding synagogues, beginning with the
ground on which a synagogue stands and proceeding right up to the Torah scroll itself, the pinnacle
of holy items. As a rule, money earned from the sale of a sacred item can only be used to purchase
something of greater sanctity.

8
Myjewishlearning.com

16
Today, our daf entertains a question that sounds like it comes straight from the smart aleck in the
back of the classroom: Oh yeah? What if you want to use the proceeds from the sale of a Torah
scroll to buy another Torah scroll? What then?

The question isn’t as snarky as it might sound (or as I rendered it to sound). On the one hand, we
have the general rule we learned yesterday, that proceeds from the sale of a sacred item can only
be used to buy items of greater sanctity. Since there’s no object more sacred than a Torah, buying
a Torah with proceeds from the sale of another Torah would violate that rule. But maybe since the
rule is impossible to follow in this case, a Torah should be an exception. After all, what else could
a community do with the proceeds from the sale of a Torah? If the answer is nothing, that would
imply that selling a Torah scroll is itself impermissible.

The Gemara makes a few efforts to resolve the dilemma and rejects each one in turn. We won’t
review them all, but here’s one to give you a flavor.

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma: As Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Meir:
A Torah scroll may be sold only if the seller needs the money in order to study Torah or to marry
a woman.

The Gemara attempts to infer from Rabbi Meir’s teaching that selling a Torah scroll to buy another
scroll is permitted. The logic here is that since, per Rabbi Meir, one kind of Torah (the scroll) can
be exchanged for another kind of Torah (Torah study), it should be allowed to sell one scroll to
purchase another. But the Gemara rejects this logic. Perhaps Torah study is only in a special
category because study is what leads to the fulfillment of the commandments. Ergo, we cannot
conclude from Rabbi Meir’s teaching that selling a scroll to buy another scroll is permitted.

That marks the Gemara’s final attempt to resolve the matter. What comes next is its last word on
the subject:

On the same topic, the sages taught: A person may not sell a Torah scroll, even if he does not
need it. Furthermore, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Even if a person has nothing to eat,
and out of his need he sold a Torah scroll or he sold his daughter to be a maidservant, he never
sees a sign of blessing (from the proceeds of either sale).

The Gemara’s bottom line is that Torah scrolls should never be sold. And if you have to because
you’ll starve to death otherwise — recall: selling a Torah scroll is not one of Judaism’s three
cardinal commandments that one is required to die rather than transgress — the sale will not lead
to blessing. In fact, it’s tantamount to selling one’s own child into servitude.

Interestingly, Rabbi Meir’s position is generally understood to be the rule today. According to the
Shulchan Aruch, selling a Torah scroll is prohibited orphans. There may be more leniency with
respect to a privately owned Torah, but even then some say that it may only be sold except for
these two cases. Maimonides goes even further, writing that these two exceptions apply only if the
seller has nothing else to sell.

17
It’s surely no surprise to see that, for the ancient rabbis, Torah was of supreme importance — an
importance reflected not only in their dedication to its study, but also in their reverence for the
scroll itself. So, if you do plan on buying a Torah scroll someday, be forewarned: It’s probably
going to be with you for life.

The Talmudic Formula for a Long Life

9
file:///Users/jungar/Downloads/The_Talmudic_Formula_for_a_Long_Life.pdf

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Longevity I: How Long Do We Live?

Jeremy Brown writes:10

GEMARA: Rava said: [this Mishnah] speaks only of a husband who is not yet eighty years old
and of a husband who is ill [but not dying], because most ill people recover. But if the husband
is an old man who has already reached the age of eighty, or was in the process of dying, then
the Get should not be given to the wife, because most people who are dying do actually die.

10
http://www.talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2016/1/5/gittin-28a-how-long-do-we-live

41
Abaye raised the following objection [to Rava from a Baraisa]: 'If an agent was bringing a Get
and he left when the husband was old, even a hundred years old, he should give it to the wife on
the assumption that the husband is still alive.

This is indeed a refutation [to Rava]. But it is still possible to accept Rava’s position, because
[in the case of the Baraisa] if a man reaches such an exceptional age, he is altogether
exceptional and unlike other elderly men [and so it may be assumed that the elderly husband is
still alive when his appointed agent reaches the wife to give her the Get.]

This is an examination of statements of longevity in the Talmud, and how they measure up against
data from the sciences today.

Was Rava correct in assuming the outer limit of longevity to be around 80 years, and do those who
make it into their golden years have good odds of making it even further? Let's take a look.

NASTY, BRUTISH AND SHORT

It's quite a challenge to estimate how long most people lived way, way back. But there are some
data to suggest that life was, as Thomas Hobbs wrote in his Leviathan "nasty brutish and short".

For example, in the Bronze Age - that would be the time in which the Patriarch Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob lived lived - life expectancy was about 20-30 years.

So yes, Abraham's death at the age of 175, or Sarah's at the age of 127, are both examples of ultra-
extreme-turbo-charged longevity.

42
Life Expectancy: From the Epipalaeolithic Period to the Iron Age11

LONGEVITY OF HUMAN AND OTHER PRIMATES

Among all the primates, humans have the greatest life expectancy at birth. Before the industrial
era, human life expectancy at puberty was about 30 years, about twice that of chimpanzees. Based
on evidence from tooth eruption found in skulls it has been possible to estimate the life
expectancy of the earliest common ancestor of humans and the great apes. But all this was long
ago and far away, and, let's be honest, we really don't know very much about what happened back
then. However, we do have better data about more recent societies, so let's jump to life under the
Romans...
11
Oded Galor and Omer Moav.Life Expectancy: From the Epipalaeolithic Period to the Iron Age. Unpublished paper 2005

43
Evolution of the human life expectancy (LE). The LE at birth of the shared great ape ancestor
is hypothesized to approximate that of chimpanzees, which are the closest species to humans by
DNA sequence data. The LE of chimpanzees at puberty is about 15 years, whereas pre-industrial
humans had LE at puberty of about 30 years Since 1800 during industrialization, LE at birth
as well as at later ages has more than doubled. LE estimates for ancestral Homo species are
hypothesized to be intermediate based on allometric relationships. Ages of adult bones cannot
be known accurately after age 30 even in present skeletons. The proportion of adults to juveniles
does, however, suggest a shift toward greater LE at birth. The few samples in any case cannot
give statistically reliable estimates at a population level. The number of generations is estimated
at 25 years for humans.12

LIFE EXPECTANCY IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

In Roman society, lifespan remained pretty short, and it was still rather brutish. One-third of all
new-borns died within their first year of life. This high infant death rate put the average life
expectancy at birth to 20-30 years. But if an infant made it beyond that stormy first year, her
projected life expectancy was 33 years.

Indeed, as you got older, your projected life expectancy increased: if you made it to the age of 45
(and only 6% of the population did) then your projected life expectancy was whopping 61 years,
as you can see in the chart. However, very few reached the age of 60, and it is estimated that fewer
that 1 in 1,000 (0.001%) lived to age 80. (By comparison, today in Israel over 3% of the population
is over 80. In the US its almost 4%.)
12
Finch, C. Evolution of the Human Lifespan, Past, Present, and Future: Phases in the Evolution of Human Life Expectancy in
Relation to the Inflammatory Load. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 2012:156 (1). 9-44

44
Based on a number of sources, the historian John Barclay wrote "that people who died in their 60s
would be considered to have lived a full life."

Life Table for the Roman Empire13

LIFE EXPECTANCY IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND BEYOND

Life in the Middle Ages was not much better. Life expectancy at birth was around 35 years. As
urbanization increased and people began to live in closer proximity to one another, the mortality
risk increased.

Two Israeli scholars estimate that "...life expectancy at birth fell from about 40 at the end of the
16th century to about 33 in the beginning of the 17th century while mortality rates increased by
nearly 50%."

Life expectancy continued to remain low by modern standards over the next few centuries,
although there was an upward trend.

13
adapted from Parkin, TG. Demography and Roman Society. John Hopkins University Press 1992.

45
Life Expectancy (at birth) in England 1540 -187014

LIFE EXPECTANCY IN THE MODERN WORLD

Things have gotten much better, very quickly. In the US the average length of life was about 47
years in 1900. Today it is almost double that.

This is true for all of the economically developed countries, thought if you want to maximize your
chances for a long life, you should live in Monaco; the life expectancy is almost 90 years. But
unfortunately, only about 30,000 people live there. (This data comes from the CIA, so it must be
true.)

Although there remains a large disparity in life expectancy between the developed world and
Africa, life expectancy is increasing across the globe as a whole.

14
From Wrigley, E.A., and R.S. Schofield. The Population History of England 1541-1871: A Reconstruction Harvard University
Press,1981.

46
15

BACK TO THE TALMUD

In the passage from the Talmud with which we opened, Rava suggests that a man who has reached
eighty is at the very limit of his natural lifespan and may die at any time. If such a person sent an
agent to end his marriage - and presuming the trip was relatively long - we cannot assume the
elderly husband will still be alive by the time the agent reaches his destination. Rava's assumption
is supported by the evidence we have reviewed here. Today, life expectancy in the economically
advanced nations hovers right around 80 years, and so Rava's 80-year suggestion seems
particularly fitting. But will it remain so in the future?

Over the last century the average length of life doubled: could this happen again over the span of
the present century? There is no end to "experts" predicting a huge increase in longevity, but for
the foreseeable future a slow increase to around 100 years (at least in the developed nations) is
certainly possible. This is not to suggest that Rava's estimates were only correct for us today. It
would seem in that in many earlier societies, eighty years was a reasonable guess for the outer
limit of how long it is possible to live.

There's one other point. Abaye objected to Rava by citing a Baraisa: "If an agent was bringing a
Get and he left when the husband was old, even a hundred years old, he should give it to the wife
on the assumption that the husband is still alive." To reconcile this with Rava, the Talmud suggests
that once a person has reached an old age, he has shown himself to be "exceptional" (‫)איפליג‬.
Actuarial studies today show that this is indeed the case - and it is certainly likely to have been
true in Rava's time. (He died around the age of 70 in 352 CE in Babylonia). In Roman times,
although chances were against you living to 50 - if you did make it to that birthday you could

15
By Rcragun (Own work) [CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)],

47
expect to live a further eleven years. And take a careful look at the chart below, which shows life
expectancy today once you make it to 65 years of age or better.

Estimates of life expectancy at selected ages, in two longitudinally followed US

Today, if you make it to 85, you might expect another 20 years of life (or only 11 if you are man).
So, the Talmud is spot on - once you prove yourself to have exceptional longevity, the future looks
pretty good. Until it doesn't.

WHAT ARE YOUR CHANCES OF DYING?

The Social Security Administration's Actuarial Life Table shows the probability of death at a given
age. Here is the data summarized by decade:17

16
From Manton KG, Stallard E, Tolley HD. Limits to human life expectancy: evidence, prospects and implications. Population
and Development Review 1991. 17 (4): 603-637.
17
https://www.census.gov/population/age/data/2007comp.html

48
Longevity and the Jewish tradition
Ilia Stambler writes:18

In the quite famous essay of 2001, “L’Chaim [“To Life”] and Its Limits: Why Not Immortality?”
the American bioethicist Leon Kass notoriously placed a limit on the possibility and desirability
of life extension, claiming that “the finitude of human life is a blessing for every human individual,
whether he knows it or not.” He presented such a view as truly and pristinely Jewish. Speaking in
the name of true wisdom and true Judaism, he claimed that “the unlimited pursuit of longevity
cannot be the counsel of wisdom, and, therefore, should not be the council of Jewish wisdom.
L’Chaim, but with limits.”1

Yet, I would argue that this is only one of many possible interpretations of the Jewish tradition
with relation to life extension, and interpretations other than Kass’s may be both better grounded
in Jewish sources and more beneficial for individual and social well-being.

In fact, the pursuit of life extension, and even radical life extension, has strong roots in the Jewish
religious tradition, insofar as in Judaism, human life has been an absolute and supreme value.

18
http://www.longevityhistory.com/longevity-and-the-jewish-tradition/

49
Thus, the principle “ve-chai bahem” – ‫ – וחי בהם‬viz. the obligation to live by the commandments
and not to die by them, is strongly emphasized (Leviticus 18:5; Talmud – Masechet (Tractate)
Sanhedrin 74a; Talmud – Masechet Yoma 85b).2

The value of human life is illustrated by the saying that “whosoever preserves a single soul [any
soul, according to most manuscript versions of the Talmud], scripture ascribes merit to him as
though he had preserved a complete world” (Talmud – Masechet Sanhedrin 37a).

The obligation to preserve life (“pikuach nefesh”) is so important that it overrides all other
obligations and observances (such as Shabbat, Fast, etc.), in fact it overrides all commandments of
the Torah. As the Talmud states, “there is nothing that can stand before the duty of saving life.”3

The only exceptional cases, in which a person is said to be obliged to sacrifice one’s life, but not
transgress, are idolatry, forbidden sexual practices, and murder. Yet, in some attenuating
circumstances and according to some Rabbis, even the former two prohibitions can be excused to
preserve life. In contrast, murder of innocent people (for example to use their body parts to sustain
one’s life) is prohibited under any circumstances, as it contradicts the very principle of the
preservation of life (to be distinguished from the killing of an aggressor in self-defense which is
permitted).

A related principle is “ein dokhin nefesh mipney nefesh” – “do not reject a soul for another soul”
(Mishnah – Ohalot 7:6). That is, one cannot curtail some person’s life to preserve another person’s
life. It can be added that an implication of this is that one cannot reject the preservation of life for
the aged in favor of the preservation of life in other diseases. All causes of death are equal, and
one cannot reject one for another.4

In the Jewish religious rules of conduct – the Halakhah – “tumah” (the unholiness, evil or impurity)
means simply “the negation of life,” hence the prohibition of murder and of bloodshed, and the
laws of “tumah ve’taharah” (or ritual purity).5

Moreover, the Talmud equates between evil, Satan and death: “Satan, the evil prompter, and the
Angel of Death are all one” (Talmud – Baba Bathra 16a).

According to the Talmud, “the sins will cease” but not “the sinners.”6 That is to say, human sins
need to be eliminated, but not people who commit the sins; the people need to keep on living.

All these concepts are directly supportive of life-extension, insofar as life-preservation,

50
Reaching farther, super-longevity, rejuvenation, and even immortality and revival, are prominent
concepts in the Jewish tradition:

Mortality, the main tragedy of the Fall, was not the original and inexorable destiny of humankind
(Genesis 3:17-24).

The extreme longevity of antediluvian patriarchs is admired, ranging from 365 years for Enoch to
969 years for Methuselah (Genesis 5:1-32).

According to the Talmud, “Until Abraham there was no [signs of] old age” (Talmud – Masechet
Sanhedrin 107b).

In the Torah, longevity is the main prize for observing the commandments (without a direct
mentioning of an afterlife – Exodus 20:12, Leviticus 26:3, Deuteronomy 5:33).

In other books of the Tanakh (Torah, Neviim, Ketuvim – Torah, Prophets and Writings – the
corpus of what has been sometimes called “The Old Testament”), the prophet Elijah attained
physical immortality (the ascension in the chariot of fire – 2 Kings 2:11).

Ezekiel could revive the dead (the vision of the resurrection of dry bones – Ezekiel 37:1-14; also,
in the Talmud – Masechet Sanhedrin 92b). The prophecy continues: “And David, my servant, will
be their prince forever” (Ezekiel 37:25).7

King David (conventionally dated c. 1040-970 BCE) practiced rejuvenation (by proximity to
young maidens – 1 Kings 1:1-4).

51
“Tchiat Hametim” (resurrection in the flesh) is among the Thirteen Articles of Faith of
Maimonides (1135-1204) – one of the greatest Jewish intellectual authorities, a theologian as well
as a physician.8

Furthermore, resurrection is a subject of the daily prayer (Amida): “Blessed are you, O Eternal,
Who Resurrects the Dead.” And it is given the same weight in the prayer as “Blessed are you, O
Eternal, Who Heals the Sick.”

According to many great Rabbis, such as Rabbi Saadia Gaon (882-942), Rabbi Moshe ben
Nachman/Nachmanides (1194-1270) and Rabbi Abraham Bibago (1446-1489), the resurrection is
to be followed by physical immortality.9

These examples may appear far-reaching, mystical and mythical, yet they demonstrate that in the
Jewish intellectual tradition (as in many others), the pursuit of life does not seem to have any limits.

Essentially, the preservation of life is not something just to pray for, but to work for.

There is a work by Maimonides – “The Responsum on Longevity” – which is definitive of the pro-
active principle for the prolongation of life. Maimonides believed that there is no predetermined
limit to human life, and therefore efforts toward the prolongation of life are justified.

In the “Responsum on Longevity,” Maimonides stated directly: “For us Jews, there is no

In agreement with the theoretical perception that if something can be broken, it can also be fixed,
Maimonides appeared to be quite pro-active:10

“It is written: ‘When you build a new house, you should make a parapet for your roof so that you
bring not bloodshed upon your house should any man fall therefrom” [Deut. 22:8]. This phrase
proves that preparing oneself and adopting precautionary measures – in that one is careful before
undertaking dangerous enterprises – can prevent their occurrence. …

This demonstrates, however, that there is no firmly determined time for death.
Moreover, the elimination of harmful things is efficacious in prolonging life,
whereas the undertaking of dangerous things is the basis for shortening life.”

Indeed, this passage does not explicitly speak of immortality, but only implies the possibility of
indefinite life extension.

Elsewhere in the Jewish oral tradition, the concept of potential physical immortality is explicit.
There is even foreshadowing of regenerative biotechnology. Thus, for example, there is an

52
extensive Jewish oral tradition about the “Etzem Luz” – ‫ – עצם לוז‬the bone of resurrection, the
indestructible part of the human body from which the resurrection will proceed.

“Luz” (almond) is a very fraught mystical concept, denoting the source of resurrection and
regeneration, as well as an endocrine gland and a sprout. Jacob used “Luz” (almond) rods for
“bioengineering,” to change the color of his sheep (Genesis 30:37-39). “Luz” is also the name of
the blessed land of the immortals.

It may be sufficient to quote a remarkable article on “Luz” from Jewish Encyclopedia to illustrate
how deeply rooted is the concept of potential immortality (and even its laboratory testing) in the
Talmud and Midrash (orally transmitted legends):11

“LUZ – Name of a city in the land of the Hittites [a territory restricted to the hills of Canaan-Israel
or broadly referring to Anatolia-Asia Minor], built by an emigrant from Beth-el, who was spared
and sent abroad by the Israelitish invaders because he showed them the entrance to the city (Judges
i. 26). “Luz” being the Hebrew word for an almond-tree, it has been suggested that the city derived
its name from such a tree or grove of trees. Winckler compares the Arabic “laudh” (“asylum”).
Robinson (“Research,” iii. 389) identifies the city either with Luwaizah, near the city of Dan, or

53
(ib.iii. 425) with Kamid al-Lauz, north of Heshbon (now Hasbiyyah); Talmudic references seem
to point to its location as somewhere near the Phenician coast (Sotah 46b; Sanh. 12a; Gen. R. lxix.
7).

Legend invested the place with miraculous qualities. “Luz, the city known for its blue dye, is the
city which Sennacherib entered but could not harm; Nebuchadnezzar, but could not destroy; the
city over which the angel of death has no power; outside the walls of which the aged who are tired
of life are placed, where they meet death” (Sotah 46b); wherefore it is said of Luz, “the name
thereof is unto this day” (Judges i. 26, Hebr.). It is furthermore stated that an almond-tree with a
hole in it stood before the entrance to a cave that was near Luz; through that hole persons entered
the cave and found the way to the city, which was altogether hidden (Gen. R.l.c.).”

Luz is also “Aramaic name for the os coccyx, the “nut” of the spinal column. The belief was that
being indestructible, it will form the nucleus for the resurrection of the body. The Talmud narrates
that the emperor Hadrian, when told by R. Joshua that the revival of the body at the resurrection
will take its start with the “almond,” or the “nut,” of the spinal column, had investigations made
and found that water could not soften, nor fire burn, nor the pestle and mortar crush it (Lev. R.
xviii.; Eccl. R. xii.).

The legend of the “resurrection bone,” connected with Ps. xxxiv. 21 (A. V. 20: “unum ex illis
[ossibus] non confringetur” – [one of those bones is unbreakable]) and identified with the cauda
equina [horse tailbone] (see Eisenmenger, “Entdecktes Judenthum” [Judaism discovered], ii. 931-
933), was accepted as an axiomatic truth by the Christian and Mohammedan theologians and
anatomists, and in the Middle Ages the bone received the name “Juden Knöchlein” (Jew-bone; see
Hyrtl, “Das Arabische und Hebräische in der Anatomie” [The Hebrew and Arabic elements in
Anatomy] 1879, pp. 165-168; comp. p. 24). Averroes accepted the legend as true (see his “Religion
und Philosophie,” transl. by Müller, 1875, p. 117; see also Steinschneider, “Polemische Literatur,”
1877, pp. 315, 421; idem, “Hebr. Bibl.” xxi. 98; idem, “Hebr. Uebers.” p. 319; Löw, “Aramäische
Pflanzennamen” [Aramaic plant names] 1881, p. 320).

Possibly the legend owes its origin to the Egyptian rite of burying “the spinal column of Osiris” in
the holy city of Busiris, at the close of the days of mourning for Osiris, after which his resurrection
was celebrated (Brugsch, “Religion und Mythologie,” 1888, pp. 618, 634). Bibliography: Jastrow,
Dict.; Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. K.” (Emphasis added)

The latter statement about potential immortality being “accepted as an axiomatic truth by the
Christian and Mohammedan theologians and anatomists” is of particular interest, showing the
compatibility of the religions with the concept of radical life extension.12

In more recent times, Jewish thinkers have expressed an agreement with life-extensionist goals
and with biotechnological interventions generally.

Thus, in March 2000, the International Symposium “Extended Life – Eternal Life” took place in
Philadelphia.13 The Russian journalist Michael Ettinghoff thus summarized the symposium

54
discussion: “Christians are against immortality. Jews are for it.” The Conservative American Rabbi
Neil Gilman is quoted as saying at the conference that he would be ready to break Shabbat and
Yom Kippur, even if they occur on the same day, for the preservation of life.14

According to the Conservative American Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff, radical life extension ties with
Jewish expectations of the Messianic Era. At the same time Dorff did express some concerns that
radical life extension will make us “even more blind to the importance of other values, such as
family, enjoying life, fixing the world, and connecting with God” and it will “likely bring a variety
of yet unseen problems to thwart the arrival of the Messianic era” as it will exacerbate the
“overpopulation” problem. Yet, ultimately, he asserted that imaginative thinking will “prompt us
to exert yet more effort in achieving the ideal world, and may we succeed!”15

The Society of Jewish Science (a part of Reform Judaism), established in 1916-1921 by the
American Rabbis Alfred Moses and Morris Lichtenstein, believing in the power of “affirmative”
prayer for healing and longevity, exists to the present time.16

There has also been pronounced interest in physical immortality in the literature of Chabad (a
branch of Orthodox Hasidic Judaism, deriving the name from Chochmah, Binah, Daat – Wisdom,
Understanding, and Knowledge).17

Thus, as can be seen, the Jewish religious tradition is perfectly supportive of the pursuit of life
extension, even radical life extension, perceiving it as a high manifestation of the valuation of
life.18 Let the works of the Jewish tradition inspire more people to become enthusiasts (Hasidim)
of the rational and scientific pursuit of the prolongation of human life, among Jews and non-Jews
alike!

References and notes

1. Leon Kass, “L’Chaim and Its Limits: Why Not Immortality?” First Things, 113, 17-24, May
2001, https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/05/lchaim-and-its-limits-why-not-immortality.
2. The translation of the Talmud used here is English Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz, Rabbi Dr. I Epstein, et al.
(Eds.), Talmudic Books, 2012, http://halakhah.com/.
3. Talmud – Masechet Yoma 82a; also, Talmud – Masechet Yoma 84b-85b; Talmud – Masechet Sanhedrin 74a.
4. “Pikuach Nefesh” (Saving a life), in Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics (Hebrew), compiled and edited by Abraham
Steinberg, The Shlezinger Institute, Jerusalem, 1996, vol. 5, pp. 390-392, 404-406.
5. “Tameh met” (unholiness of death), “Tumah” (unholiness), in Talmudic Encyclopedia. A Digest of Halachic Literature
and Jewish Law from the Tannaitic Period to the Present Time (Hebrew), edited by Rabbi Meyer Berlin, Talmudic
Encyclopedia Institute, Jerusalem, 1997, vol. 19, pp. 450-507.
6. Talmud [Gemara] – Masechet Berachoth [Tractate on Blessings], 10a.
7. The text used here is The Bible: New International Version, https://www.bible.com/versions.
8. Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (the Rambam), Perush Hamishna, Masechet Sanhedrin 10 – Maimonides’ Commentary on
the Mishna, Tractate [Masechet] Sanhedrin, Chapter 10.

9. Dov Schwartz, Messianism in Medieval Jewish Thought (Hebrew), Bar-Ilan University Press, Ramat-Gan, Israel, 1997,
pp. 36, 105, 142-143, 218-219.

55
10. Fred Rosner, “Moses Maimonides’ Responsum on Longevity,” Geriatrics, 23, 170-178, October 1968, reprinted in
Fred Rosner, The Medical Legacy of Moses Maimonides, Ktav, Hoboken NJ, 1998, pp. 246-258, quotes on pp. 255,
258. Maimonides-Responsum-on-Longevity In Hebrew: ‫תשובת הרמב”ם בשאלת הקץ הקצוב‬
‫לחיים‬https://www.nli.org.il/en/books/NNL_ALEPH990017734610205171/NLI Arabic (original) with the first German
translation of 1953: Maimonides. Über die Lebensdauer https://www.karger.com/Book/Home/219022
11. Kaufmann Kohler, “Luz,” Jewish Encyclopedia, in 12 volumes, 1901-1906, online
reprint, https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10200-luz.
12. See also: Fred Rosner, Medicine in the Bible and the Talmud, Ktav, Hoboken NJ, 1995 (1977), particularly the articles
“The Balm of Gilead” and “Therapeutic Efficacy of Chicken Soup,” pp. 132-139; James Joseph Walsh, Old-Time
Makers of Medicine. The Story of The Students And Teachers of the Sciences Related to Medicine During the Middle
Ages, Fordham University Press, NY, 1911, Ch. III “Great Jewish Physicians,” Ch. IV “Maimonides,” pp. 61-
108, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20216/20216-h/20216-h.htm.
13. The International Symposium “Extended Life – Eternal Life,” Philadelphia, March 2000, www.extended-
eternallife.org.
14. Argumeny I Fakty (Arguments and Facts), 41/322, 2000, http://gazeta.aif.ru/online/health/322/z41_13.
15. Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff, “Becoming Yet More Like God: A Jewish Perspective on Radical Life Extension,” in Religion
and the Implications of Radical Life Extension, Edited by Calvin Mercer and Derek F. Maher, Macmillan Palgrave,
New York, 2009, pp. 63-74.
16. Society of Jewish Science, http://www.appliedjudaism.org/; Rabbi Morris Lichtenstein – Founder Society of Jewish
Science, http://www.irenedanon.com/Rabbi.htm.
17. See, for example: Prof. Yirmiyahu Branover, “The Immortality Enzyme,” Chabad World Magazine,
10/22/2009, http://www.chabadworld.net/; Rabbi Nissan Dovid Dubov, To Live and Live Again. An Overview of
Techiyas Hameisim Based On The Classical Sources And On The Teachings Of Chabad Chassidism, 1995 [5756], Ch.
10, “Life after the Resurrection,” http://www.chabad.org/library/moshiach/article_cdo/aid/2312363/jewish/To-Live-
and-Live-Again.htm.
18. Ilia Stambler, A History of Life-Extensionism in the Twentieth Century, Longevity History,
2014, http://www.longevityhistory.com/.

A Greek amphora from the sixth century BC depicts a man drinking wine —
as would later be recommended for the elderly by the physician Galen

56
Longevity examined: an ancient Greek’s very modern views on
ageing
Stanley M. Burstein and Caleb E. Finch reveal how a work by classical physician Galen
pioneered the idea of the ‘healthspan’.19

Stanley M Bernstein and Caleb E. Finch write:20

How did the ancients see ageing? Many in the classical West saw old age as a disease. The
prodigious Greek physician Galen thought otherwise. His treatise Hygiene, written around ad 175
and featuring the only surviving classical study of gerontology, framed ageing as a natural
process that can be eased or even delayed through preventive measures such as diet. Thus, the
work, also known as De sanitate tuenda (‘On the preservation of health’), resonates to a startling
degree with ideas today, both on care of the elderly (gerokomica in ancient Greek) and on models
of ageing.
Ian Johnston’s excellent translation of Hygiene is the best appreciation yet of the classic — with
the added benefit of a medically informed introduction (Johnston is a former neurosurgeon). It
joins the extraordinary archive of Galen’s medical writing, which comprises around 10% of extant
ancient Greek literature.
As Johnston clarifies, Galen thought of ageing holistically, as a lifelong process with a number of
stages, of which three were crucial: the first seven years of life, maturity and old age proper. He
recognized that a person’s ageing ‘path’ is highly individual, with a wide range of possible health
outcomes at each stage. And he realized the importance of a healthy youth as the basis for a robust
old age.

19
Hygiene, Volumes I & II (Loeb Classical Library) Galen (Translated by Ian Johnston) Loeb (2018)

20
Nature 560, 430 (2018) doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05986-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05986-
1

57
An eighteenth-century mezzotint of a bust of Galen,
by John Faber after a drawing by Peter Paul Rubens
Galen’s originality and insight were hard-won, as historian Susan Mattern has described in her
2013 biography The Prince of Medicine. He wrote Hygiene at the peak of his career, as physician
to the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius. His path to that exalted position took him from the Greek
city of Pergamon (in what is now Turkey) to Alexandria, Egypt, where he mastered the work of
predecessors such as Hippocrates and Herophilus. Becoming renowned as a physician and
philosopher, he was called to Rome.
Galen adhered to many prevalent medical theories, including the concept of humours — based on
bodily fluids such as blood — and the curative properties of ‘divinely’ inspired dreams. But he
also pioneered the empirical study of human functions and diseases.
He developed treatments based on herbs and spices, which he administered to fellow doctors for
verification. At a time when religious taboo forbade dissection of corpses, he found ingenious
ways to investigate anatomy. He studied skeletons exposed in flooded cemeteries and, while
treating the horrific wounds of gladiators, examined their exposed muscles and blood vessels. An
ambitious self-promoter, he revelled in anatomical demonstrations on animals, including gruesome
public vivisections of live Barbary macaques to demonstrate the function of nerves.

58
Given that breadth and depth, it’s not surprising that the six books of Hygiene read like a lecture
series for advanced medical students. Galen assumes his readers know the range of existing
treatises. But what surprises is how far from Galen has broken with earlier thinkers on lifespan and
ageing. In the sixth century bc, Athenian statesman Solon saw old age reductively, as the last of
ten life stages, each seven years long. Galen’s more nuanced concept subdivided the final stage of
his lifespan model into three phases of unspecified length, from active old age to senility. And he
argued that the “causes of destruction” are present “innately from the beginning”.
Galen saw elder care as integral to the work of an educated doctor and believed it should emphasize
prevention. He noted that many ills of ageing — such as dizziness, eye inflammation and ear pain
— can be delayed or managed to maximize quality of life.
Galen’s ‘anti-ageing’ regime might be prescribed today: he advocated walking and moderate
running and noted the health benefits of a simple diet involving gruel, raw honey, vegetables and
fowl. (Amusingly, he exhaustively details wines suitable for the elderly, advising them to stick to
“yellow” wines, and to “always choose the thinnest in consistency”.) He emphasized moderate
treatments, avoiding strong purges and bloodletting but allowing gentle massage for kidney and
bladder problems. Hygiene does not specifically discuss diseases of ageing, but in other books,
such as To Thrasyboulos, Galen noted remarkably advanced treatments, such as surgical
procedures for cataracts.
He mercilessly ridiculed an unnamed philosopher who claimed he could prolong life indefinitely
— an ambition with echoes in our own era (see M. Baker Nature 517, 436–437; 2015). Death,
Galen stressed, is inevitable as “the body deteriorates of itself”. But life could be prolonged. At a
time when many died long before 70, he cites two cases of extreme age: Antiochus, a doctor still
practising in his eighties, and the grammarian Telephus, who lived to nearly 100 with his faculties
intact. Galen notes that their achievement exemplified the success of principles laid out in Hygiene;
he believed that the techniques contributed to his own longevity (he purportedly lived to 80).
The trailblazing insights in Hygiene suffered a mixed fate after Galen’s death around ad 210. The
treatise had become part of the Western medical curriculum by ad 500 and was translated into
Arabic in the ninth century by Hunayn ibn Ishaq. However, Galen’s key principles on elder care
were omitted in the brief summary of Hygiene in the 1025 The Canon of Medicine by Persian
polymath Avicenna (Ibn Sina), and in successors such as John Floyer’s 1724 Medicina
Gerocomica, or The Galenic Art of Preserving Old Men’s Healths. It is only relatively recently
that Galen’s holistic approach to gerokomica as a road to optimizing the ‘healthspan’ — the length
of time a person enjoys optimal health — has been rediscovered

59
EVOLVING VIEWS OF AGEING AND LONGEVITY FROM
HOMER TO HIPPOCRATES:

EMERGENCE OF NATURAL FACTORS, PERSISTENCE OF THE

CALEB ELLICOTT FINCH writes:21

21
Greece & Rome, OCTOBER 2010, Second Series, Vol. 57, No. 2 (OCTOBER 2010), pp. 355-377

60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
How to Live Longer
Stephen J. Dubner writes:22

Our latest Freakonomics Radio on Marketplace podcast is called “How to Live Longer.”23

It looks into why Hall of Fame inductees, Oscar winners, and Nobel laureates seem to outlive their
peers. The deeper question in the podcast concerns the relationship between status (not income!)
and longevity — a fascinating, complex, and controversial topic (here’s a good place to start
reading) about which I believe we’ll hear a great deal in years to come. It will be valuable to know
what kind of “status boosts” confer health advantages and, conversely, how disappointment and
the like can chip away at us.

This podcast was timed to coincide with two events this week: the annual Baseball Hall of Fame
election, in which no players were selected this year for the first time since 1996 (here’s ESPN’s
take and here’s a useful statistical snapshot); and the announcement of this year’s Oscar nominees.

Accordingly, here’s some of the research you’ll hear about in the podcast:

22
https://freakonomics.com/2013/01/how-to-live-longer-a-new-marketplace-podcast/
23
You can download/subscribe at iTunes, get the RSS feed, listen via the media player above, or read the transcript here.

73
https://freakonomics.com/2013/01/how-to-live-longer-a-new-marketplace-
podcast/

The quest to define biological age

Prof Steve Horvath, the founder of epigenetic age measurement, talks methylation clocks and

the need for standardisation.

Danny Sullivan writes:24

A key speaker on the subject will be Steve Horvath, professor of human genetics and biostatistics
at UCLA. Horvath developed the epigenetic clock, a highly accurate multi-tissue biomarker of
aging based on DNA methylation levels, also known as Horvath’s clock.

Longevity.Technology: With the Longevity market taking off and a wide range of companies
moving forward with therapies for treating age and age-related disease, it begs the question of
what exactly is biological aging and how can we define it? The opening session on Monday 27
April, at this month’s Longevity 2020 online conference seeks to address that very question, with
a host of experts coming together to discuss definitions, biomarkers, standards and more.

Despite having a lifelong interest in aging research, Horvath only entered the field relatively
recently (around 2010), having previously worked in bioinformatics and biostatistics.

24
https://www.longevity.technology/the-quest-to-define-biological-age/

74
“As a biostatistician, you work a lot on biomarkers, so I was acutely aware that the ageing field
needs biomarkers,” he says. “You really cannot study something unless you can measure it, so you
want a quantitative readout.”

Horvath admits that he stumbled across methylation’s relation to aging “by fortuitous accident”
after an academic colleague asked him to analyse data to learn if methylation had any relation to
sexual orientation. It turned out there was no connection, but Horvath decided to check if there
was any relation to aging.

“We found a huge effect,” he says, recalling the chain of events that led to his current work. “I
said, ‘Oh my god, there’s such a huge signal – if I want to build a biomarker for aging, I really
have to focus on methylation’ and so I’ve been working on that ever since.”

In 2011, Horvath’s lab published a paper on the first epigenetic clock, which only worked using
saliva samples. Two years later, he published his multi-tissue clock, which can be used on any
human body tissue.

“At the time, the question was whether this measure of chronological age had biological
significance?” says Horvath. “And long story short, it does, because we showed that it does predict
lifespan.”

But the original clocks built to predict chronologic age and weren’t very accurate at predicting
how long someone would actually live. And so in the last few years, Horvath has refined the
technology and has arrived at the latest version of his clock, a blood sample-based mortality risk
predictor called DNAm GrimAge.

“We named it after the Grim Reaper, first because we ran out of good names, but also because it’s
our best mortality risk predictor,” says Horvath. “So, if you give me a blood sample, I could say
your mortality risk is half that of another person, or twice that of another person that has the same
age.”

75
The GrimAge clock is built in a different way from the original clocks, making use of lifespan and
mortality risk in their construction, as well as looking at different locations in the genome. Horvath
also has a range of other clocks, including one focused on skin and blood, as well as clocks for a
range of animal models. Last year, several of Horvath’s clocks were used in a small clinical
study led by immunologist Gregory Fahy, co-founder of Intervene Immune, and provided the first
evidence that biological age can be reversed.

While Horvath himself is not focused on consumer testing, he is generally supportive of the growth
in direct-to-consumer DNA and epigenetic testing. Although he stresses it must come with the
proper counselling and guidance on how to interpret the results of tests, which often make
statements about risk that really only point to negligible risk.

“I’m a big believer in empowering people by providing them information,” he says. “But there is
a danger that a layperson gets a genetic test and they’re not familiar with the statistical aspect
behind it… It might say you have a slightly elevated risk of developing diabetes, and a layperson
may misinterpret it and think ‘Oh my God, I will get diabetes’. But they can’t quite interpret the
significance of this study and that the risk increase is really very low.”

As the founder of the epigenetic age testing, Horvath feels similarly cautious about companies
focused on measuring the biomarkers of aging at a consumer level.

76
“I’m fundamentally a believer that people should have a right to get this test done, however there
is again a danger of misinterpretation, so that makes me very nervous,” he says. “If the test says
you’re five years older than you should be, there is a danger that you get nervous about it. There’s
always a danger for misunderstanding.”

With several companies already offering epigenetic testing kits and services, Horvath is concerned
that each uses different implementations and that the tests need to be characterized.

“Ideally, they should be evaluated by something like a regulatory agency that would certify the
accuracy of these tests,” he says, pointing out that his epigenetic clocks have been validated by
many independent studies. “My name is affiliated with this field and as such, I would like to ensure
that these tests are properly used and properly interpreted. Because I’m concerned that
misinterpretation will then lead to a backlash.”

So, what’s next for Horavth and his lab in the question for epigenetic clock measurement?

“It would be my dream that, one day, the molecular biomarkers of aging would be approved by
the FDA as a surrogate endpoint for aging studies,” he says. “This is what the entire field wants,
it’s the Holy Grail. And it would be nice if the epigenetic clocks would be part of that solution.”

Aging researcher and geneticist Steve Horvath is a professor at UC Los Angeles. He's known for
developing the Horvath aging clock. The clock is a highly accurate molecular biomarker of aging.

77
A Nature commentary explains that “Horvath's clock emerges from epigenetics, the study of
chemical and structural modifications made to the genome that do not alter the DNA sequence but
that are passed along as cells divide and can influence how genes are expressed.”25

“I developed a multi-tissue predictor of age that allows one to estimate the DNA methylation age
of most tissues and cell types,” said Horvath in a 2013 paper published in Genome Biology. “I
propose that DNA methylation age measures the cumulative effect of an epigenetic maintenance
system. This novel epigenetic clock can be used to address a host of questions in developmental
biology, cancer and aging research.”

A 2013 press release issued by UC Los Angeles explains that DNA methylation is a chemical
modification of one of the four building blocks that make up our DNA. Horvath analyzed more
than one hundred sets of data collected previously by researchers who had studied methylation in
both healthy and cancerous human tissue, with thousands of samples of many types of tissue and
cells taken from all over the body.

Horvath charted how age affects DNA methylation levels from pre-birth through old age. His age
predictor is based on hundreds of markers linked to methylation that change with age and are
present throughout the body. Horvath tested the age predictor by comparing the biological age to
the chronological age of tissues and found that the age predictor is remarkably accurate.

"It's surprising that one could develop a predictive tool that reliably keeps time across the human
anatomy," said Horvath. "My approach really compared apples and oranges, or in this case, very
different parts of the body - including brain, heart, lungs, liver, kidney and cartilage."

An interesting application of the clock targets the detection of “age acceleration.” This
acceleration reflects discrepancies between a person's epigenetic and chronological ages, either
overall or in one particular part of their body. For example, healthy breast tissue “is about two to
three years older than the rest of a woman's body," said Horvath. But if a woman has breast cancer,
“the healthy tissue next to the tumor is an average of 12 years older than the rest of her body."

Horvath’s best guess, as reported in the Nature commentary, is that the clock corresponds to the
function of an epigenomic housekeeping system. The system helps to stabilize the genome by
maintaining methylation patterns. The more active this mechanism, he proposes, the faster the
epigenetic clock ticks.

"The big question is whether the underlying biological clock controls a process that leads to aging,"
concluded Horvath. "If so, the clock will become an important biomarker for studying new
therapeutic approaches to keeping us young."

“The Horvath clock, a widely used biomarker of ageing, is one of a series of discoveries over the
past two decades that are invigorating the science of life extension,” notes a recent Financial Times
piece titled “Can we defeat death?”

25
https://thrivous.com/blogs/views/horvath-epigenetic-aging-clock

78
79