Gittin 1:5 - 1:6

חוץ מגיטי נשים – that if there was upon it [a Jewish bill of divorce] one witnesses who is a Cuthean/a member of the sect of the Samaritans (on occasion, this word is used in place of גוי/non-Jew; עכו"ם /idol worshiper or מין/sectarian as a result of censorship), it is valid, if both of the them are Cutheans, the first teacher of the Mishnah disqualifies them for Jewish bills of divorce, but Rabban Gamaliel relates a story where he validated [it], even where both of them [the witnesses] were Cutheans. But nowadays, they [the Rabbis] decreed [against] the Cutheans as they were [to be considered] as non-Jews in all matters, making no distinction between other documents and Jewish bills of divorce, for even if one witness was a Cuthean, it [the document] is invalid.

בערכאות של גוים – that the witnesses would offer their testimony before the sitting judge in the place where their matters of justice take place. But this is where they knew that judge and of those witnesses who do not accept bribes. And this specifically [refers to] loan documents and documents of sale where the witnesses saw funds exchanged. But documents of admission and Jewish bills of divorce, and any thing which is a legal matter in their [i.e., Roman] gentile offices, everything is invalid.

רבי שמעון אומר כשרים – they were not mentioned in the Jewish academy (Bet Midrash) to be invalidated.

אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט – through non-Jewish commoners who are not judges, but the Halakha does not follow like [the opinion of] Rabbi Shimon.

רצה לחזור בשניהן – before it [the Jewish bill of divorce or the bill of manumission] reaches the hand of the woman and/or the slave.

יחזור – But the agent cannot provide their needs for their benefit since it [the document] is something to their detriment and they lose their food/support.

וחכמים אומרים: בגיטי נשים – He (i.e., the husband) can retract (his Jewish bill of divorce),

אבל לא בשחרורי עבדים – but he cannot retract in his bill of manumission of slaves. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

שאם ירצה שלא לזון את עבדו רשאי – Therefore, when he (i.e., the owner) frees him (i.e., his slave), he does not cause him to lose his support/food, but he is not permitted to feed his wife; therefore, if he divorces her, she causes her to lose her support/food.

מפני שהוא קנינו – That is to say, since he {i.e., the slave] eats the heave-offering/Terumah when the slave is the servant of a Kohen/Priest, it is only because he is the purchase-property of the Kohen/Priest, since regarding the cattle of Kohen/Priest which can eat the veches of Terumah/heave-offering, but it is not a a perfect comparison. Therefore, when he frees him (i.e. the slave), even though he causes him to lose the ability to eat Terumah/heave-offering, it is not an obligation for the slave [to do so].

לא יתנו לאחר מיתה – The Get/Jewish bill of divorce does not take effect until it reaches her hand, and if it reaches her hand, he has died, and there is no Jewish bill of divorce after death. And similarly, the document of manumission, when it reaches his (i.e. the slave’s) hand if he died, his ownership over him is broken.

יתנו לאחר מיתה – even though he (i.e., the now deceased owner) did not say, “this Maneh”/weight equivalent to fifty silver shekels, since the words of someone who is on his death bed are regarded as if they are written and transmitted.