רבי was not מחייב unless the רה"י was covered - לא מחייב רבי אלא ברשות היחיד מקורה
Summary:
רב ושמואל were מדייק from the fact that the מחלוקת between רבי ורבנן is in a case of זרק מרה"ר לרה"ר ורה"י באמצע, that is to emphasize that רבי is מחייב only when we can say ביתא כמאן דמליא דמי.
The גמרא in גיטין argues with רב ושמואל and assumes that רבי maintains קלוטה, even if it is not a רה"י מקורה. However רב ושמואל maintain that for a גט to be valid it should be in the protective custody of the woman..
Summary:
A כלי in a רה"ר does not become a כרמלית; rather it remains in the confines of a רה"ר, as opposed to other objects that do become either a כרמלית או מקום פטור in the רה"ר. It is assumed that an עקירה והנחה in a טרסקל ברה"ר, must be 'למטה מי, because 'למעלה מי is a מקום פטור.
For instance when he lowered his hand below three טפחים from the ground and he received it - כגון ששלשל ידו למטה מג' וקבלה
Summary:
רבי אבהו maintains that אגד יד שמיה אגד. For if he would hold לא שמיה אגד, then the חיוב הוצאה for the עני would be, not only when the עני was עוקר the object from יד בעה"ב, but even when the בעה"ב placed the object ביד העני which is למטה מג' טפחים.
Summary:
When the body of a person and his hand are in two different רשויות, then even if the hand is למטה מג' טפחים from the floor of that רשות it is not considered at rest, if we hold אגד יד שמיה אגד. Therefore if an עקירה or הנחה is made from or onto that hand, it is not considered a valid עקירה והנחה from the רשות where the hand is.
Those words were said only where he considered the recipient’s hand significant - הני מילי היכא דאחשבא לידיה
Summary:
The statement דידו של אדם חשובה לו, teaches us that this applies both by עקירה והנחה, and the דין of זרק חפץ ונח בתוך ידו של חבירו, teaches us that it applies even if there was no specific intent to place it on the hand.
As two people and he is פטור, etc. - כשני בני אדם דמי ופטור
Summary:
According to תוספות, the facts are that he ran and grabbed the object away from its intended destination. The two sides of the איבעיא are as follows: A) here the original הנחה, was nullified by his grabbing the object away from its intended destination, therefore it is like the case of עקר ממקומו וקיבל פטור. B) In this case there was a הנחה, for it was he himself who assisted in this new מקום הנחה.
According to the ר"ח, the facts are that he caught the object at its original destination. The two sides of the איבעיא are: A) this is similar to where another person received the object in its original destination and therefore he is חייב. B) since he himself caught the object it is as if the object did not really move anywhere.
