BAM 8 - Acquiring together

Rami bar Chama draws an inference from the Mishna's statement that when two people pick up a lost object together, they both acquire it. From this we see that each one intended to acquire it not just for himself, but also for the other person who is picking it up with him.

The question is, what is the inference? Perhaps they are both picking up each half only for themselves, and they each acquire the part that they have picked up, by the power of their own act of acquisition?

נ"ל בע"ה that if they indeed had the intention to acquire the object only for themselves, that would mean that they were each only trying to acquire the entire object. Thus, being that they picked it up together, neither of them would have acquired it, because if two people try to completely acquire the same thing at the same time, their acts cancel each other out, and it remains ownerless.

Therefore, if we say that they have both acquired half of it, it must be that they were acquiring it in a way that each would have half. The intent of each is necessary on behalf of the other party, otherwise their selfish intent would block each other's acquisition attempt. Thus, we see that each one is helping the other acquire his half, and therefore Rami bar Chama proves that a person has the ability to acquire something for someone else.

This answer, however, requires further thought, because if it is correct, then it should not be necessary to have active thoughts to help the other party acquire, rather it should be enough for him to passively permit the other party to acquire his side.

On further thought, however, we already have seen that when they split up the object, it is not per se split based on exactly which side or which part is being held, but rather, it can be split in alternative ways (e.g. the talis with gold). Clearly, each person is helping the other party to acquire the garment in its entirety, albeit as a partner. This is the function that allows each party to request an alternate splitting up of the garment (or object).

It therefore becomes clear that each party is helping the other to acquire the entire object as a partner, and this can only be done through זכייה - actually acquiring it for the other party. This is Rami bar Chama's proof.

BAM 2 - Seeing and acquiring

The Gemara begins with an assumption that the two cases of 'finding' and 'all mine' are one. Based on this, the Gemara learns that even though 'finding' could have the connotation of just seeing an object, the extra part of the case, 'all mine,' teaches that it is not enough to see an ownerless object for it to be considered yours, rather one must actually pick it up.

Then the Gemara rejects the notion that this is one case and says it is actually two separate cases, one referring to a lost object, and one referring to two people claiming they have bought something.

With this new understanding of the two cases as indeed being separate, do we lose the whole previous thought that taught us that seeing is not enough to acquire? In other words, will it now be enough to look at an object in order to acquire it, being that we don't have any extra case in the Mishna to teach us otherwise?

So I asked the local Rosh Kollel, R' Akiva Teichtal, who gives a daily daf shiur, and he said that they asked the same question in the shiur, and they came out as follows. It is clear that the Torah uses the word מצא - 'finding' to mean actually picking up. Thus, the Torah itself indicates that there is no acquisition until the object is picked up. At the first stage of the Gemara, all we were saying was that the mishna is coming to teach you this - so you don't make a mistake - and think that seeing it would be enough for it to be yours. Even without the mishna coming to tell us this, however, seeing would still not constitute an acquisition, thus when we no longer have the extra words from our mishna, we just don't have the indicator to correct our mistake; but seeing would still not create an acquisition in any event.

BK 96 - Old coins

The Gemara says that in regards to a case where someone stole a new coin, and it got old and turned black while in the posession of the thief, it is considered a significant change and the thief does not return the coin as is, but rather pays the original value of the coin when it was new.

The Gemara says that perhaps you would say that it is not a significant change, because it could be shined again and look new. To this the Gemara says, "מידע ידיע שיחמייהו" - Their age (or blackness) is known.

What does this mean?

בע"ה נ"ל לפרש that when you take an old blackened coin and shine it to look 'new,' no matter how much you shine it, it will still be obvious that this is not a new coin, but rather an old coin that was shined. That being the case, the value of a newly minted coin (in 'mint' condition) is higher than an old and dirty coin, and also higher than an old coin that has been shined to remove the effects of age. Thus, the 'age is known' - i.e. it is clear that it is still an old coin, despite the fact that it has been shined, and therefore one would have to pay the original value of what he stole and would not be able to give back the coin as is.