Bava Metzia 8A

דחזיא לקטנים.

This is because each party receives an item that has monetary value, as it is fit to be made into a garment for small children.

והא דאמר רבא: אם היתה טלית מוזהבת ⁠– חולקין, הכי נמי דפלגי לה, הא אפסדוה! הא לא קשיא, דחזיא לבני מלכים.

The Talmud asks: But as for that which Rava said, that if the garment was fashioned with gold thread they divide it, does that also mean that they divide the garment itself? By doing so they would ruin it. The Talmud answers: That is not difficult, as after the garment is divided it is fit to be made into a garment for the children of kings or wealthy people. Therefore, it is not ruined.

והא דתנן: היו שנים רוכבין על גבי בהמה וכו׳, הכי נמי דפלגי לה? הא אפסדוה! בשלמא טהורה ⁠– חזיא לבשר. אלא טמאה, הא אפסדוה! אלא לדמי, הכא נמי לדמי.

The Talmud asks: But with regard to that which we learned in the Mishnah (2a): If two people were sitting on an animal and each of them claims to own the entire animal, they each take an oath and divide the animal, does that also mean that they divide the animal itself? By doing so they would ruin it. Granted, if it is a kosher animal it is fit to be slaughtered and divided between them for the meat. But if it is a non-kosher animal, slaughtering it and dividing the carcass would ruin it and render it worthless. Rather, clearly they divide its monetary value. Here too, in the other cases where the ruling is to divide the item, it means that the litigants divide its monetary value and not the item itself.

אמר רמי בר חמא: זאת אומרת, המגביה מציאה לחבירו ⁠– קנה חבירו.

§ Based on an inference from the Mishnah on 2a, Rami bar Ḥama says: That is to say: In a case of one who performs an act of acquisition by lifting a found item on behalf of another, the other person, i.e., the latter, acquires ownership of the item.