Daf Yomi Kiddushin 60b: Where The Piska, And Just What Is Obvious?

When preparing Rif for my Rif Yomi blog, I noticed something a bit different in the Rif from our gemara. The Rif reads:

Kiddushin 60b

על מנת שאראך מאתים זוז הרי זו מקודשת ויראנה הראה על השולחן אינה מקודשת:
תנא לא נתכוונה זו אלא להראותה משלו
פשיטא לא צריכא אף על גב דנקיט זוזי בעיסקא

""On condition that I show you 200 zuz," she is betrothed, and he shows her. If he shows her on the table {money which is not his} she is not betrothed":

A tanna taught: {For} this one {=the woman} only intended that he would show her of his own {money}.
This is obvious?!
No, it is necessary -- even though he received the money to invest.

While our gemara reads:

ע"מ שאראך מאתים זוז וכו':
תנא לא נתכונה אלא לראות משלו:
ואם הראה לה על השלחן אינה מקודשת:
פשיטא לא צריכא דאע"ג דנקט דמי בעיסקא:

Can you spot the difference? It is quite subtle. It is a difference in the piska, the citation from the Mishna. In our gemara, there are two separate citations from the Mishna, where תנא לא נתכונה אלא לראות משלו goes on the first citation, and פשיטא לא צריכא דאע"ג דנקט דמי בעיסקא goes on the second. In contrast, in Rif, all the words of the citation are present, but they are present in a single, lengthy, citation.

Mai Beinayhu? Perhaps nothing. But perhaps something. Specifically, what is the peshita going on?

In our gemara, the peshitta is going on the statement of the Mishna that if he shows her money on a table, she is not betrothed. This is certainly not something obvious to me, given only the preceding words in the Mishna. Indeed, only once we understand the justification given in the brayta. Also, it is slightly awkward in our gemara how the brayta goes on ע"מ שאראך מאתים זוז וכו, which is the positive rather than negative case in the Mishna. But at any rate, in the tzricha, the idea is that in whatever {expansive} case the money is on the table, she is not betrothed.

In the Rif, the peshitta seems to be going on the brayta, which is giving the reason for the law in the Mishna. And once you see the two sides of the case in the Mishna, the brayta's elaboration indeed seems somewhat obvious. If so, the point is that the brayta, rather than the Mishna, is telling us that she expects the money to be his, and here, it is not his, even though he has the money to make more money with.

Which is correct? I don't know. I prefer the second. But on the other hand, earlier in the gemara on the daf, a different diyuk is made from the Mishna, in the same form of first asking peshitta.

It is also important to point out that these piskas are not Talmudic, or even savoraic. They are Geonic at the earliest. Originally, Mishna and gemara were separate. And the Geonim added these short quotations to show what part of the Mishna the gemara was going on. This might be a girsological difference which arose from mistaken copying, but perhaps reflects an actual machlokes in how to understand the gemara.