ondaf 3/1 the last tos sais that rashi pshat is not good etc. i want to know why tosfos brings a proof from the second posible case to prove from mishna he could have said the erlier case and also why does it say the whole thing in a round about why (i am think maybe the pshat that we all learn is wrong) please answer a.s.a.p. thanx
me, unitedstates world
You want to know why Tosfos brings a proof from the case of 'Pashat he'Ani es Yado ... O she'Natal mi'Tochah ve'Hotzi Chayav' (regarding the Akirah that the owner of the hand then performs) that when the hand and the body are in the same domain, the hand is called Munach, and not from the case of ' ... ve'Nasan le'Toch Yado shel Ba'al ha'Bayis, Chayav' (the Hanachah of someone who places something into it).
It seems to me that this is because the Gemara's She'eilah is whether the hand is called Munach regarding the Akirah that the owner subsequently performs, and not whether it called Munach regarding the Hanachah performed by somebody else ... even though there is no Halachic difference between the same. In that case, the proof is clear cut and there is nothing roundabout about it at all.
be'Virchas Kol Tuv.