MISHNA: A cow that gave birth to something that looks like a donkey and a donkey that gave birth to something that looks like a horse are exempt from being counted a firstborn, as it is stated: “And every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem” (Exodus 13:13); “and the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem ” (Exodus 34:20)twice, one is not obligated unless both the birth mother is a donkey and the animal born is a donkey.

And what about eating them? In the case of a kosher animal that gave birth to something that looks like a non-kosher animal, its consumption is permitted. And a non-kosher animal that gave birth to something that looks like a kosher animal, its consumption is prohibited.

This is because that which emerges from the non-kosher animal is non-kosher and that which emerges from the kosher animal is kosher.

(22) And the LORD God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad...

, Rava created a man, a golem, using forces of sanctity. Rava sent his creation before Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira would speak to him but he (the golem) would not reply. Rabbi Zeira said to him: You were created by one of the members of the group, one of the Sages. Return to your dust.

(19) Korah gathered the whole community against them at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Then the Presence of the LORD appeared to the whole community, (20) and the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, (21) “Stand back from this community that I may annihilate them in an instant!” (22) But they fell on their faces and said, “O God, Source of the breath of all flesh! When one man sins, will You be wrathful with the whole community?”

They say Kaddish, and it is not said with less than ten males, who are free adults, and this is the rule for Kedushah and Barchu that are not said with less than ten.

(1)Ten people are disqualified from testifying...a chlid, a lunatic, a deaf-mute, a blind person...

(9) A lunatic's testimony is invalid on a biblical [level] because he is not eligigle [to perform] Mitzvot. This [does not refer to] only to a lunatic who goes naked, breaks things, and throws stones rather anyone whose sanity is impaired and finds his intellect constantly confused on some point even if he can ask [questions] and converse on topic regarding other things.

(11)The deaf-mute is like a fool who has no right mind and is not a son of mitzvah. And a -mute deaf speaks and does not hear or hear and does not speak.

Even though his vision is superior and his thought is sound, he can testify in court. Or that it would be appropriate to testify in his mouth. And it will be fitting to hear the judges and the threat that threatens him. And if we remain silent even though we are examined in the way that we examined in the matter of Gettin and his testimony is found to be directed and we will testify in the future.

(12)The blind person, even though they know the voice and know people, these are disqualified from the Torah. It is said (Leviticus 5: 1) "And he is a witness or a seer." He who is worthy to see is the one who testifies. And the blind man in one of his eyes is able to testify:

Adults - One who leads davening in places where it is customary for the children to say Kaddish and Barachu and the congragation to answer after him--they do so against the halacha even if there are ten adults besides him.

We should be stringent at the outset.

When two or three say Kaddish together and one precedes, if everyone comes at the same time, he will answer Amen with the first or with the last and it will go for all. If there is a gap and he can answer each one.

A person who is created by a book of creation, if he joins the ten for that is sacred, see the answer of the Chacham Tzvi C. S.G.

(4) There are those who permit one to Daven in which [God's] holiness [is proclaimed] with 9 and a minor that is older than 6 and knows to whom we pray joins [them]. And their words were not seen for the great decisors... Rema: And even if he has a Chumash [printed Torah] in his hand we do not join him [to the 9], although there are those who follow this practice to be lenient at a time of need...

(6) If one of the 10 started to pray and [being in a section where he] could not answer with them or he is sleeping, even this one is included with them...

(8) A person that can hear but not speak, or speak but not hear, they are like hearing people and can be included. But if he is deaf and mute, he is treated like a mentally incompetent person or a minor.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who entered a synagogue to pray, and he did not find a minyan of ten men, and he emancipated his slave and had him complete a quorum of ten. This demonstrates that one is permitted to free his slave.

The Gemara answers: Freeing a slave to enable the performance of a mitzva, e.g., completing a quorum, is different.

(9) Six days you shall labor and do all your work, (10) but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God: you shall not do any work—you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, or your cattle, or the stranger who is within your settlements.

(2) [In the case of] a gentile who did forbidden work on his own on Shabbat: If he did it for the sake of a Jew, it is forbidden to benefit from that work until the conclusion of Shabbat; and he waits [the time it would take] in order to make it. And that is when the thing is not in public to the point that many know that this thing was done on Shabbat for the sake of x. But if he did it for himself alone, it is permissible to benefit from it on Shabbat.

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If a garment caught fire on one side, one may place water on its other side, and if as a result the fire is extinguished, it is extinguished. The Gemara raises an objection : If a garment caught fire on one side, one may stretch it out and cover himself with it, and if the fire is extinguished, it is extinguished. And so too, if a Torah scroll caught fire, one may open it and read it, and if the fire is extinguished, it is extinguished. Apparently, it is prohibited to actually pour water, but one may perform a permitted act that will incidentally extinguish.

It was taught: With regard to a candle behind a door, one may open and shut the door in his usual manner, and if it is extinguished, it is extinguished.

Rav would curse one who did so. Ravina said to Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, and some say that Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is the reason that Rav cursed and reprimanded one who did so? If you say it is because Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that it is prohibited to perform an unintentional act from which a prohibited labor could ensue, and the tanna taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that it is permitted to perform an unintentional act in those circumstances;

because Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he curses anyone who teaches the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? They rely on the ruling of a tanna, whose opinion is legitimate. He said to him: In this case, even Rabbi Shimon concedes that it is prohibited, as it was Abaye and Rava who both said that Rabbi Shimon concedes in a case of: Cut off its head, will it not die? In an instance where the unintentional act leads to an inevitable prohibited consequence, even Rabbi Shimon agrees that the person who performs the unintentional act is liable.

If so, here too, with regard to Shabbat, it is written: “you shall not perform any labor” (Exodus 20:9). Performance is that which is prohibited; indirectly causing a prohibited action is permitted. The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi Yosei maintains there is no prohibition in indirectly causing a fire to be extinguished; however, since a person is agitated about his property, if you permit him to indirectly extinguish the fire, he will come to extinguish it directly.

Rami bar Ḥama said: With regard to one who drives his laden animal on Shabbat, if he does so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, and if he does so intentionally, he is liable to be executed by stoning.

What is the reason? Rava said that the verse states: “You shall not perform any manner of labor, neither you…nor your animal” (Exodus 20:10). His animal is similar to himself; just as he, if he performed a prohibited labor on Shabbat unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, and if he did so intentionally, he is liable to stoning, so too, if his animal worked, if he did so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, and if he did so intentionally, he is liable to be executed by stoning.

MISHNA: One who was reading sections of the Torah which comprise Shema, and the time for the recitation arrived, if he focused his heart, he fulfilled his obligation and need not repeat Shema.

...

GEMARA: Learn from this that mitzvot require intent.

(19) One should have in mind when wrapping - And this is besides (ie. in addition to) the intention that one needs to have in mind when wearing [the ציצית] to fulfill the מצוה of ציצית. And the Ba"ch wrote that the same law applies to תפילין and סוכה:

Even though by other מצוות he fulfills his obligation even if he did not have any intentions, except that he is doing this מצוה for the sake of Hashem that commanded [us] to do it... but these [3 מצוות] are different.

...

Nevertheless, it seems that this is all [the] optimal [way] in order to fulfill the מצוה in it's [most] complete way. But after the fact, even if he did not have in mind by all these [3 מצוות], to only [have in mind to] fulfill the positive commandment, he fulfills his obligation.

§ Everyone slaughters an animal, and their slaughter is valid, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, lest they ruin their slaughter...And for all of them, when they slaughtered an animal and others see and supervise them, their slaughter is valid,

Who is the tanna who taught that we do not require intent for slaughter? Rava said: It is Rabbi Natan, as Oshaya, the youngest of the of Sages, taught a: If one threw a knife to embed it in the wall, and went and slaughtered an animal in its proper manner, Rabbi Natan deems the slaughter valid, and the Rabbis deem the slaughter not valid. Oshaya teaches the baraita and he states about it: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Natan that there is no need for intent to perform a valid act of slaughter.

§ Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: Does a minor have halakhically effective thought, or does he not have halakhically effective thought? Rabbi Ami said to: And let Rabbi Yoḥanan raise this dilemma with regard to the action of a minor. What is different about the action of a minor that he does not raise a dilemma? Is it due to the fact that we learned in Kelim : A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor have the capacity to perform an action? With regard to thought as well let him not raise this dilemma, as we learned: They do not have the capacity for thought. As we learned: With regard to an acorn, a pomegranate, or a nut, which minors hollowed in order to measure dirt with them or that they affixed to a scale, the halakhic status of those shells is that of vessels, and they are susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, if the minors merely thought to use the shells for measuring or weighing, unlike adults, they do not thereby render those shells into vessels. The reason for this distinction is due to the fact that they have the capacity to perform an action,

A deaf-mute, a fool and a child and a drunkard who is confused his mind that slaughtered--their slaughter is invalid, because they have no da'at (knowledge) and they might mess up. Therefore if they slaughter in the presence of the someone who knows and sees them slaughter, such a slaughter is kosher:

MISHNA: Anyone is qualified to write a bill of divorce, even a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor....

GEMARA: But how can a deaf-mute, imbecile, or a minor write a bill of divorce? They are not halakhically competent, Rav Huna says: And that is the case only when there was an adult standing over him. Rav Naḥman said to him: If that is so, a gentile, and a Jew stands over him, would you also say that it is valid?

And if you would say that it is also valid, but isn’t it taught in a baraita: A gentile is disqualified from writing a bill of divorce in any event? A gentile acts based on his own will.

It is allowed to let a fool and deaf-mute or a childto write the get to begin with. And a competent adult stands on over him.

But a non-Jew or a slave cannot write to begin with. Even if a Yisrael is standing over him because you are not allowed to right a get unless it is l'shma (intentional)

Sending a fire out even if he himself lit the fire while inside his own area and it went out and burned inside his friend's area; even if it did not burn but his trees and stones, he must must pay everything even if it went a normal distance, but if he farther than expected and then harmed, he is exempt. Rema: this is only when he lit in his own area, but in someone else's area, even many miles away he is liable

§ The mishna : If the wind fanned the flames, all involved are exempt, [even if one fanned the fire at the same time that the wind was blowing].

A baraita : the Sages taught one fanned the flame and at the same time the wind fanned it, if his fanning has was enough to fan the flames, he is liable for damage caused , since even without the wind the fire would have spread. But if his fanning was not sufficient, he is exempt. Why? Let it be as one who winnows grain on Shabbat, and the wind assists him by separating the chaff -he is liable for desecrating Shabbat.

Abaye said: With what are we dealing here? Where he fanned the fire from one side and the wind fanned it from the other side, and the fire was blown in the direction the wind was blowing. Rava says: where he fanned it along with a typical wind, , and suddenly an atypical wind came and fanned it. Therefore, he is exempt since he could not have anticipated this.

But here, in the context of damages, he is considered to have caused damage merely through indirect action, and one who causes damage through indirect action is exempt.

§ Rabba says: One who throws another’s coin into the Great Sea is exempt from liability. What is the reason for this? He can say: The coin is resting before you; if you wish, take it. And this statement applies only if the coin is in translucent water, where the owner can see the coin, but in turbid water, where he cannot see it, it does not apply, and the one that threw it will be liable to compensate the owner.

What is different about Pit? It is that its initial formation (digging)t, can result in damage, and it is your property, and responsibility for its safeguarding, is incumbent upon you.

The pit is one of the primary causes of injury, and its derivatives are like it, deemed forewarned from the very beginning. Anyone who interposes an obstacle is deemed a derivative of pit, and if a person or an animal has been injured by it, the one who interposed the obstacle must pay full indemnity.

The mishna continues: With regard to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, an encounter with them is disadvantageous. One who injures them is liable. But if they were the ones who injured others, they are exempt. This is because they lack awareness and are not responsible for their actions.

A slave and a woman, an encounter with them is disadvantageous, since one who injures them is liable. But if they were the ones who injured others, they are exempt, because they do not have money . But they pay compensation at a later time. The exemption is only temporary, as, if the woman becomes divorced or the slave becomes emancipated, and then have their own money, they are liable to pay.