This question could have been asked on many dapim. I thought that shinui reshut referred to the thief's giving the item to someone else and the other person making a kinyan on the item.
The maggid shiur of the shiur which I attend stated that in order for there to be a shinui reshut, the stolen item must be brought from the physical reshut hayachid of the victim into the reshut hayachid of another party and that there could not be a shinui reshut in a reshut harabim.
Does shinui reshut refer to the physical location of the object. I thought that if a third party obtained the item from the thief in a reshut harabim by a kinyan such as a kinyan hagbaah that would be sufficient to constitute a shinui reshut and that the purchaser from the thief would not have to bring it into his own reshut hayachid in order to effect the shinui reshut.
I am trying to determine whether the word "reshut" refers to the owenership of the location where the object is or to the ownership of a third party which is effected by a kinyan which not necessarily be a kinyan chatzer.
Michael S. Winokur, Forest Hills, New York, U.S.A.
(1) I have found a discussion about questions related to what interest you in Pischei Choshen, by Rav Yaakov Bloy, shlita, Hilchos Geneivah v'Ona'ah chapter 2 note 40, paragraph beginning b'Divrei. He cites the Divrei Chaim, by Rabbi Chaim Halberstam zt'l of Tsanz, Dinei Geneivah #11, who discusses whether Shinuy Reshus must be a "real" Shinuy Reshus i.e. "Meshichah" (the Kinyan effected by drawing the object being purchased towards one) or "Chatzer" (i.e. in these two Kinyanim the article physically changes location into the domain of the person acquiring it) or alternatively is it sufficient that one does a "Kinyan Sudar" with a handkerchief, or pays money even before the item actually enters one's domain (with these latter two Kinyanim the item does not physically enter his domain)?
(2) The Divrei Chaim argues that this question depends on a dispute between the Ramban and his pupil, the Rashba. (A few weeks ago I wrote an answer to a question on Bava Kama 68, and discussed this dispute, and I am sending this to you as well, as it may be interesting, but I will explain again briefly the positions of the Ramban and the Rashba).
The Rashba Gitin 55b DH v'I Kashya writes that even though Yi'ush alone does not effect a Kinyan, nevertheless together with Shinuy ha'Shem or Shinuy Reshus it does make a Kinyan, because the article becomes the thief's and also becomes the property of Hekdesh simultaneously. One sees from the Rashba that the stolen item does enter the thief's possession and that the person who receives it does so via the thief.
(3) In contrast, the Ramban in Milchemes Hash-m Bava Kama 41a in Rif pages DH u"Mah, writes that the reason Yi'ush followed by Shinuy Reshus effects a Kinyan is because since the real owners have already given up hope of getting it back, therefore when it reaches the third party, it is "b'Heteira Asi l'Yadei" (i.e. it is already a permitted, non-stolen article, when it enters into the possession of the third party) because the owners have given up and have already made the item into "Hefker," so it is permissible for a third party to take it. It follows that according to the Ramban the third party does not acquire it via the thief at all, but only via the original owners.
(4) The Divrei Chaim writes that it follows from the above, that according to the Ramban the Kinyan Sudar of the thief, or the money given to him, cannot make a Kinyan because the Kinyan cannot come from the thief, but rather the item must actually enter into the third party's domain. In contrast, according to the Rashba, the item can be received directly from the Gazlan, so the Kinyan Sudar or money do work, and the article does not actually have to enter into the other person's house.
(5) What your Magid Shiur said, therefore, is consistent with the Ramban's Shitah. I would just like to add a comment about Kinyan Hagbahah. The Gemara states in Kidushin 22b that Hagbahah is an effective transaction everywhere i.e. even in Reshus ha'Rabim. The Sma in Shulchan Aruch CM 197:3 writes that the reason for this is that even if the purchaser is standing in Reshus ha'Rabim, or in the domain of the seller, nevertheless when he lifts it up with his hand this means he is bringing it into his own domain, because anything in a person's hand is considered equivalent to being situated inside his house. According to this logic, the Ramban should agree that if a third party obtained the article from the thief through Kinyan Hagbahah in Reshus ha'Rabim, this would be sufficient.
Shabbat Shalom
D. Bloom