(Mishnah): If Reuven deposited coins with a moneychanger (Shimon):

If they were wrapped, Shimon may not use them. Therefore (he is like a Shomer Chinam, so) if they were lost, Shimon is exempt.

If they were loose, he may use it. Therefore (he is like a borrower, so) if they were lost, he is liable.

If Reuven deposited coins with a regular person (Levi), whether or not they were wrapped, Levi may not use them. Therefore (he is like a Shomer Chinam, so) if they were lost, Levi is exempt.

R. Meir says, a grocer has the law of a regular person;

R. Yehudah says, a grocer is like a moneychanger.

(Gemara) Question: Why is he forbidden to use them if they are wrapped?! (It is normal to do so. This does not show that he objects to Shimon using them more than when they are loose!)

Answer #1 (Rav Asi): They are wrapped and sealed (such that it will be known if it was opened).

Version #1 - Answer #2 (Rav Mari): They are tied in an unusual knot.

Version #2 - Question (Rav Mari): What is the law if they are tied in an unusual knot?

This question is not resolved.

(Mishnah): If the coins were loose, he may use it...

(Rav Huna): He is liable even for (loss through) Ones.

Question: The Mishnah obligates him only if it was lost!

Answer: (Elsewhere,) Rabah said 'they were stolen' - by armed robbers. Similarly, we explain 'they were lost' (through Ones), e.g. his ship sank.

(Rav Nachman): If it was Ones, he is exempt.

Question (Rava): You must hold that he is not a borrower. If so, he is not even a Shomer Sachar (he should be exempt even for loss)!

Answer (Rav Nachman): He is a Shomer Sachar` because he benefits from the money (before using it). He knows that if a profitable purchase presents itself, he can use the money.

Question (against Rav Huna - Rav Nachman - Beraisa): Reuven (the treasurer of Hekdesh) deposited money (he forgot that it was Hekdesh) with a moneychanger (Shimon):

If it was wrapped, Shimon knew he may not use it (even though he thought that it was Chulin). Therefore, if he uses it, Reuven did not transgress Me'ilah;

If it was loose, Shimon (thought he) could use it; therefore, if he used it, Reuven transgressed Me'ilah.

Summation of question: If Shimon is liable for Ones, he is considered like a borrower. If so, the money left Hekdesh's domain (and Reuven transgressed Me'ilah) even before Shimon uses it!

Answer (Rav Huna): Indeed, he is liable even before using it;

The Beraisa mentioned using it for parallel structure with the previous case.

(Mishnah - Beis Shamai): If one was Shole'ach Yad in a deposit, he suffers to pay the decrease and increase in value (if he got rid of it at a later date, he pays its value then or when he first used it, whichever is higher);

Beis Hillel say, he pays according to when he removed it;

R. Akiva says, he pays its value at the time he is brought to trial.

(Gemara - Rabah): If Reuven stole a barrel of wine from Shimon, and originally it was worth one, and in the end, it was worth four, if he broke or drank it, he pays four. If it broke by itself, he pays one.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: If it would be intact, he would return it to Shimon. When he breaks or drinks it, he steals it;

(Mishnah): All thieves pay like at the time of the theft.

(Rabah): If it broke by itself, he pays one.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Now, he did nothing to be liable for. His liability is for when he stole it. Then, it was worth one.

(Mishnah - Beis Hillel): He pays according to when he removed it.

Question: What does this mean?

Suggestion: It is when he removed it from the world (e.g. ate it).

Question: What is the case?

Answer #1: It was worth less when he ate it than when he stole it

Rejection: No one says so (that he pays the lower price at the end)!

(Mishnah): All thieves pay like at the time of the theft.

Answer #2: It was worth more when he ate it than when he stole it.

Rejection: This is Beis Shamai's opinion!

Answer #1: Rather, it means when he removed it from the owner's possession.

Objection: If so, Rabah's holds like Beis Shamai!

Answer #2: (Really, Beis Hillel mean when he removed it from the world.) All agree about when the value increases (that he pays the higher value);

They argue about when it decreases in value (not about theft, rather, about Shelichus Yad);

Beis Shamai say that Shelichus Yad applies even without Chisaron. Therefore, he acquires liability for it like a Gazlan from when he took it. His object decreased in value;

Beis Hillel say that Shelichus Yad is only if there was Chisaron. He becomes a Gazlan only when he removed it. The owner's object decreased in value.

Question: If so, Rava's law (Shelichus Yad does not require Chisaron) is like Beis Shamai!

Answer #3: The case is, he moved it so that chicks will climb on it. They argue about whether or not one who borrows without permission is considered a Gazlan.

Beis Shamai say that he is. He is a Gazlan from when he moved it, his object decreased in value;

Beis Hillel say that he is not a Gazlan. He did not become a Gazlan until (he removed it, when) it was worth less.

Objection: Rava taught that one who borrows without permission is considered a Gazlan. This is like Beis Shamai!

Answer #4: Rather, they argue about increased value due to changes in the item itself. Beis Shamai say that the owner receives it, and Beis Hillel says that the Gazlan gets it.

The following Tana'im also argue about this.

(Beraisa - R. Meir): If Reuven stole a sheep and sheared it, and it gave birth, he pays it and its shearings and its offspring;

R. Yehudah says, he returns only the stolen object itself.

Support (Mishnah - Beis Shamai): If one makes unauthorized use of a deposit, he suffers to pay the decrease and increase;

Beis Hillel say, he pays like when he removed it.

R. Akiva says, he pays its value at the time he is brought to trial.

(Rav Yehudah): The Halachah follows R. Akiva. R. Akiva admits when there are witnesses (who saw the theft and know what it was worth).

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: It says "b'Yom Ashmaso (the day of his guilt)." Since witnesses saw him use it, he immediately acquired it like a Gazlan does.

(R. Oshiya): R. Yochanan taught that R. Akiva argues even when there are witnesses.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: It says "b'Yom Ashmaso", and Beis Din obligates him to pay.

(R. Aba bar Papa citing R. Yochanan): The Halachah follows R. Akiva always.

Question: What does 'always' mean?

Answer #1 (Rav Ashi): It is even when there are witnesses.

Answer #2: This includes if he returned it to the place he took it from, and it broke later;

This teaches that the Halachah is unlike R. Yishmael, who does not require telling the owner.

(Rava): The Halachah follows Beis Hillel.

(Mishnah - Beis Shamai): One who (Tosfos - says that he) intends to be Shole'ach Yad is liable (for any future Ones);

Beis Hillel say, he is liable only if he actually took the object - "Im Lo Shalach Yado".

If he tilted a barrel and took a Revi'is from it, and it broke, he pays only for the Revi'is;

If he lifted a barrel and took a Revi'is from it, and it broke, he pays for the whole barrel.