Why does the Kollel explain the Maharam Shif as understanding Rashi to be making an assumption that had our Mishnah brought a case of two people disputing over a garment of which each party believes to have woven, there would be no position of Moreh Heter? Similar to the buyer/seller case, the Gemara would attribute the Shevuah to each individual actually believing they had woven the disputed garment in question (unlike Kol Dealim Gavar which lacks Shevuah and Din Yachloku due to one party certainly lying). Given there is a perfectly reasonable way of understanding Moreh Heter by the case of a disputed woven garment, why wouldn't our Mishanh need to additionally teach the case of Metziah where there is no Moreh Heter, and why is Rashi of the opinion that we wouldn't even apply a "Din Yachloku?"
Isaac B., NY, USA
Shalom Isaac,
Great to hear from you!
The reason to be Moreh Heter in the case of Mekach u'Memkar does not apply to the case of Arigah.
Why is that? Because why does the Gemara say one would be Moreh Heter in the case of Mekach u'Memkar? Because a person might think: "Let the other fellow [take his money back from this seller and] go buy the product somewhere else! Since he would not lose the value of the entire garment, only the value of the effort expanded in purchasing it."
But if the dispute is over who wove the garment, then obviously for one fellow to take this one and expect the other fellow to go weave a new one would involve the loss of the entire garment, not to mention the effort expanded creating it.
Warmest regards,
Yishai Rasowsky