Daf Yomi Gittin 58a-b: Does ארצי ליה זוזי mean that the buyer gives money, or that the recipient counts out the money given to him?

From my Rif blog:

{Gittin 58a}
Gemara:

לקח מסיקריקון כו'. אמר רב לא שנו אלא דאמר ליה לך חזק וקנה אבל בשטר קנה
ושמואל אמר אף בשטר לא קנה עד שיכתוב לו אחריות

"IF A MAN BUYS FROM THE SICARICON...":
Rav said: They only learned this where he {the original owner} said to him {the buyer} "Go and take possession {via chazaka, by working the land} and acquire it." But with a written deed, he acquires.
And Shmuel said: Even with a deed he does not acquire until he writes for himself responsibility {for reimbursing him if the title proves invalid}.

{Gittin 58b}

ואותבינן עליה דרב מהא דתניא
רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר לקח מן האשה בכתובתה וחזר ולקח מן האיש מקחו קיים מן האיש וחזר ולקח מן האשה מקחו בטל עד שיכתוב אחריות
ופריק מאי אחריות נמי שטר
והלכתא כשמואל דקי"ל דכל היכא דפליגי רב ושמואל ולא איתמר הלכתא כחד מינייהו הלכתא כשמואל בדיני ועוד דתניא מסייעא ליה
ופירוקא דרב שינויא הוא ולא סמכינן אשינויא

And they object to Rav from this that they learnt {in a brayta}:

Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says: If one buys [a married woman's property] from the wife and then buys it again from the husband, his purchase is effective. But if he first buys from the husband and then from the wife the purchase is invalid, unless he {our gemara: she} writes responsibility.

And it resolves: What is "responsibility?" It is also a written deed.
And the halacha is like Shmuel, for we establish that wherever Rav and Shmuel argue, and the halacha is not stated like one of them, the halacha is like Shmuel in laws {dinei, such as monetary matters}. And furthermore, that there is a brayta which supports him, and resolution of Rav {that Rav could offer} is a mere shinuya {a weak retort and a way of reading his position into the brayta with difficulty}, and we do not rely on a shinuya.

ואי קשיא לך ההיא דגרסינן בחזקת הבתים אמר רב הונא תליוה וזבין זביניה זביני
ואותיב רב המנונא עליה דרב הונא מהא מתני' לקח מסיקריקון וחזר ולקח מבעל הבית מקחו בטל
ואמאי התם נמי נימא אגב אונסיה גמר ומקני
ופריק הא איתמר עלה אמר רב לא שאנו אלא דא"ל לך חזק וקנה אבל בשטר קנה
ואקשינן ולשמואל דאמר אף בשטר לא קנה מאי איכא למימר
ופריק מודה שמואל היכא דיהיב זוזי
ואסיקנא והלכתא בכולהו זביניה זביני ואפי' בשדה זו בין ארצי ליה זוזי בין לא ארצי ליה זוזי אלא בשטר בלבד קנה וכי אמר ליה בתר הכין תא שקול זוזך לא מצי למהדר ביה
למימרא דהלכתא כרב דאמר לא צריכינן לכתיבת אחריות
ההיא לא קשיא מידי דהא אמרינן מודה שמואל היכא דיהיב זוזי
ואע"ג דאיפסיקא הלכתא בין ארצי ליה זוזי בין לא ארצי ליה זוזי התם גבי תליוה וזבין דעתיה למיתן ליה זוזי ודעתיה דמוכר למישקל מיניה זוזי
אבל הכא גבי אשה וסיקריקון ליכא מאן דיהיב להו זוזי הילכך לא מהניא כתיבת שטר עלייהו עד דכתיבי אחריות:

And if it is difficult to you this that we learned in Chezkat HaBatim {the third perek of Bava Batra}:

{Bava Batra 47b}
Rav Huna said: If someone is threatened {with physical violence} and he sells, his sale is valid.
{Bava Batra 48a}
And Rav Hamnuna objects to Rav Huna from this Mishna {local to Gittin}:

'If a man buys a field from a sicarius and then buys it again from the original owner, the purchase is void.'

But why? There {in the Mishna} as well, let us say that because of compulsion he decided to sell it ?
And it resolves: Behold, Rav said upon it {=the Mishna, as we see local to Gittin}: They only learned this in the case where he said "take hold {chazaka} and acquire," but with a {written} deed, he does acquire.
And we ask: But according to Shmuel who said that even with a {written} deed, he does not acquire, what is there to say?
And they resolve: Shmuel admits in the case where he gives money.
And we conclude {Bava Batra 48b}: And the halacha in all of these is that his sale is a valid sale, even for {threats to sell} "this field" {rather than just "a field"}, and whether he counted out for him the money or did not count out for him the money -- but rather just did the acquisition with a {written} deed, and when he says to him after this "come, take your money," he is not able to retract.

That is to say that the halacha is like Rav who said that we do not require the writing of responsibility.

{This is difficult because Rif would like to rule in accordance with Shmuel, for the reasons given above. And so:}

This is no question at all, for we say that Shmuel admits in the case where he gave money. And even though we rule the halacha is whether he gives him money or does not give him mother, there, where he was pressured and sold, his intent was to give him money and the intent of the seller was to take money from him. But here, by the woman and the sicarius, there is none who gives them money. Therefore, the writing of the deed does not help them until they write responsibility.

End quote from the Rif.

The portion marked in red above is not in our gemara and seems to be Rif's gloss. Also, in our gemara we have ארצי זוזי instead of ארצי ליה זוזי. Rif, and Tosafot who happens to have ארצי ליה זוזי, understand this as giving over the money as payment. Therefore, the alternative, which Rif offers as a gloss, is that he did not give money but only had a shtar. In contrast, see Rabbenu Gershom, who understands this phrase as the recipient counting out the money after he is given it, to make sure that all is there. If so, this is different from דיהיב זוזי. And if so, this hilchesa is certainly in agreement with Shmuel, such that there is no question. Indeed, the assumption is that money was given, for otherwise, there would not be two alternatives of counting out the money or not counting it. But Rif interprets this as simply giving money, and it is valid even if no money is given, but only a shetar.