Leviticus 17:13 teaches that anyone “who hunts down an animal or a bird that may be eaten: they shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.” The rabbis apply this rule about covering blood (kisui ha-dam) specifically to the slaughter of undomesticated animals and birds.
On today’s daf, Ya’akov the heretic, whose name suggests exactly how seriously we should take him, challenges this assumption:
Ya’akov the heretic said to Rava: We maintain that an undomesticated animal is included in the category of a domesticated animal with regard to the characteristics. If so, I will also say that a domesticated animal is included in the category of an undomesticated animal with regard to the covering of the blood.
In asking his question, Ya’akov demonstrates his knowledge of Torah. His reasoning is rooted in verses of the Torah. This seems surprising for one labeled a heretic, as is his interest in the laws of kosher slaughter which, presumably, he would not apply to himself if he placed himself outside of the Jewish (or rabbinic) community. And he puts forth a rabbinic-style argument: Deuteronomy 14:4–6 lists animals that one is permitted to eat and their characteristics: “These are the animals that you may eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat; the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, the mountain sheep, and any other animal that has true hoofs that are cleft in two and brings up the cud — such you may eat.” Given that this list groups together domesticated and undomesticated animals, and ultimately determines their kashrut by their physical features and not whether or not they are domesticated, Ya’akov argues that the rule about covering the blood should apply equally to domesticated and undomesticated animals.
Rava says no, also giving a classic rabbinic-style argument:
The Torah states in reference to the blood of a domesticated animal: “You may slaughter of your cattle and of your sheep … but be strong not to eat the blood … you shall pour it out on the ground, like water” (Deuteronomy 12:21–24). Accordingly, just as water does not require covering, so too, this blood of a domesticated animal does not require covering.
This is not the only place in the Talmud in which Ya’akov the heretic is reported to show interest in Jewish religious practice. On Megillah 23a, he asks Rabbi Yehuda to explain why we read six aliyot from the Torah on Yom Kippur and not seven. There, despite his appellation in the Talmud, the Tosafot (later commentators) assert that Ya’akov is not a heretic at all. In fact, they also have a proof, based upon Proverbs 10:7: “The name of a righteous person is invoked in blessing, but the fame of the wicked rots.” If Ya’akov were indeed a heretic, they argue, his name would not be mentioned in the Talmud, for fear of the “rot” that would result from doing so. Tosafot suggest that the text should read Ya’akov Matza’ah, a name that does not suggest heresy, but rather that Ya’akov is from the town of Matza’ah, or perhaps a maker of mattresses.
Tosafot’s comment may have influenced the Koren-Steinsaltz translators to call him not Ya’akov the heretic (Hebrew: mina) but Ya’akov of Mina on that page, although this did not stop them from rendering the word as “heretic” on our daf.
The only other mention of Ya’akov Whoever-He-Is in the Talmud is on Avodah Zara 28a, where he is accused of placing a poison salve on Rabbi Abahu. This reference is part of a conversation about whether one is allowed to receive medical treatment from idolaters. In this context, the heretic label seems appropriate as the incident is reported to support a claim that it is unsafe to be treated by those who are outside of the community.
To become a heretic, one must first be part of the community in question. Could it be that Ya’akov was well ensconced in the rabbinic community when he asked his question on today’s daf and on Megillah 23a, and then left on the path of heresy, returning later with the intent to harm Rabbi Abahu? Or, might there be more than one Ya’akov here, one from Mina, one who is a mattress maker, and one who was a heretic? There is no way to know for certain — it is notoriously difficult to paint a full literary portrait of any talmudic character, especially one who appears only three times.
Read all of Chullin 84 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on July 23, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world. With your help, My Jewish Learning can provide endless opportunities for learning, connection and discovery.
