And he pays him the value of the hops mixed with thorns according to his profit.

MISHNA: In the case of one who deposits money with a money changer, if the money is bound, the money changer may not use it. Therefore, if it is lost he does not bear responsibility for it. If the money was unbound, the money changer may use it. Therefore, if it is lost he bears responsibility for it. If he deposited money with a homeowner, whether it is bound or whether it is unbound, the homeowner may not use it, as it never entered the mind of the depositor that the homeowner might use the money. Therefore, if the homeowner lost the money, he does not bear responsibility for it. If the bailee is a storekeeper, his status is like that of a homeowner; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the bailee is a storekeeper, his status is like that of a money changer.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why is it that due to the fact that the money is bound the money changer may not use it? Don’t people typically bind their money? Binding is no indication that the intent of the one who deposited the money is that it not be used. Rav Asi said that Rav Yehuda said: It is in a case where the money is bound and sealed, a clear indication that he does not want the bundle to be opened, that the mishna is taught. Rav Mari says: It is in a case where the money is bound with an atypical knot, also indicating that he does not want the bundle to be opened. There are those who say that there is a variant reading: Rav Mari raises a dilemma: What is the legal status of money bound with an atypical knot? Is it like that of money that is sealed or not? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

§ The mishna teaches that if the money is unbound the money changer may use it, and therefore he bears responsibility if it is lost. Rav Huna says: And even if it was taken from him under circumstances beyond his control he is liable to pay. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in the mishna: It is lost, from which it may be inferred that only if the money was lost does he bear responsibility, but not if it was taken by force? The Gemara answers: This must be understood in accordance with that which Rabba stated in a different context, as Rabba says: They were stolen; this is referring to a case where the items were stolen by force by armed bandits. They were lost; this is referring to a case where his ship sunk at sea.

And Rav Naḥman says: If it was taken from him under circumstances beyond his control, he is not liable to pay. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: According to your opinion, that you said if it was taken from him due to circumstances beyond his control, he is not liable to pay; apparently, the money changer is not considered a borrower with regard to the money. If he is not a borrower, he is not a paid bailee either. Why, then, does he bear responsibility for the money if it is lost? His status should be that of an unpaid bailee, and he should be exempt. Rav Naḥman said to him: In this case, I concede that he is a paid bailee, since he benefits from the money. It is with the benefit the money changer derives, based on the fact that if a profitable purchase would happen to present itself to him he can purchase it with the deposited money, that he is considered a paid bailee with regard to the money.

Rav Naḥman raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from a mishna (Me’ila 21b): With regard to the Temple treasurer who deposits money with a money changer, if the money is bound, the money changer may not use it. Therefore, if he spent the money, the Temple treasurer is not liable for misuse of Temple property because the money changer is liable. If the money was unbound, the money changer may use it. Therefore, if the money changer spent the money, the Temple treasurer is liable for misuse of Temple property, as the money changer serves as an agent for the treasurer.

Rav Naḥman explains his objection: And if you say that even if the money was taken from the money changer under circumstances beyond his control, he bears responsibility for the money, why did the tanna specifically teach that the Temple treasurer bears responsibility if the money changer spent the money? Even if he did not spend the money the treasurer should bear responsibility. Since the Temple treasurer gave him unbound money, it is tantamount to a loan. The treasurer should be liable for misappropriation at the moment that he gave unbound money to the money changer.

Rav Huna said to him: The same is true even if he did not spend the money, and the treasurer is liable the moment he gives the money to the money changer. And since the tanna taught in the first clause of the mishna that the money changer is liable if he spent the money, the tanna taught in the latter clause of the mishna as well that the treasurer is liable if he spent the money, although he is liable even if he did not spend the money.

MISHNA: With regard to one who misappropriates a deposit, Beit Shammai say: He is penalized for its decrease and its increase. If the value of the deposit decreases, the bailee is liable to pay in accordance with its value at the time of the misappropriation. If it increases in value, he is liable to pay in accordance with its value at the time of repayment. And Beit Hillel say: He pays in accordance with its value at the time of removal. Rabbi Akiva says: He pays in accordance with its value at the time of the claim.

GEMARA: Rabba says: In a case of this one who robbed another of a barrel of wine, where initially it was worth one dinar and now it is worth four dinars; if the robber broke the barrel or drank the wine, he pays four dinars. If it broke by itself, he pays one dinar.

The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason for the difference? Since if the barrel were intact, it would return to its owner in its original state and there would be no need to calculate its price, that moment that he drank it or that he broke it is the moment that he stole from the owner of the wine. And we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 93b): All robbers pay in accordance with the value of the stolen item at the moment of the robbery. Here, that is four dinars. If the barrel broke by itself, the robber pays one dinar. What is the reason for this? He did not do anything to the barrel now. Why do you deem him liable to pay? Because of that moment that he robbed the other of it. At that moment, it was worth only one dinar.

We learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel say: One who misappropriates a deposit pays in accordance with its value at the time of removal. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: In accordance with its value at the time of removal? If we say it means in accordance with its value at the time of its removal from the world, when he drank the wine or broke the barrel, that is difficult.

The Gemara clarifies the difficulty: And with regard to what case is this referring? If it is with regard to a case where there was a decrease in value before its removal, is there anyone who says that the bailee pays the lower price? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: All robbers pay in accordance with the value of the stolen item at the moment of the robbery, and no less than that? And if it is with regard to a case where there was an increase in value before its removal, that is the opinion of Beit Shammai, as the one who misappropriates a deposit always pays the higher value, not the opinion of Beit Hillel.