If you’re talking about somebody who handed money to another person to watch it for him, the halakha (Jewish law) will depend on what type of person the money was handed to, the Mishnah says. If somebody gave coins to a money changer—a person who exchanges coins into different values for people—and gave them to him without payment, the money changer is holding the money for him as a favor. If the bundle of money was handed over to the money changer tied and sealed, or with an unusual knot on it, then the money changer is not allowed to use those coins. The owner tied them in this unusual way because he wanted the money changer to know that he can’t use them. Usually, the money changer would want to use these coins. The more different valuations he has, the better it would be for him. He has more variety to use in his business. But the owner of these coins tied them in an unusual fashion to prevent the money changer from using them. So if the coins were eventually lost and there was no negligence on the part of the money changer, then the money changer would not be responsible. According to this understanding, since the money changer wasn’t a Shomer Sachar, he wasn’t paid to watch these coins, and he wasn’t even allowed to use them, he has the din (status) of a Shomer Chinam (unpaid guardian), because he never used the coins. A Shomer Chinam would not be liable for a loss of money unless there was real negligence.
But if the coins weren’t tied, were loose, were tied up but not with an unusual knot, or weren’t sealed, then the owner, when handing the money to the money changer, is indicating that he has no problem with the money changer using his coins. He wants his money back at some point, at the exact value, and they both know that. But he allows the money changer to use his coins for his business, as long as he wasn’t told otherwise and there’s no indication on the coins that the money changer can’t use them. So the money changer can assume that if a money changer is handed money—coins—he would be allowed to use them, because that would be the status quo. If the coins were lost, then the money changer would be responsible for them, even if he never used them. He isn’t being paid directly for the coins, but he has the right to use them. He could benefit from them. That turns him into a Shomer Sachar, and a Shomer Sachar would be liable for the loss of the item. Here, we’re talking about a case where he didn’t even use them. He was allowed to use them immediately, so he now assumes responsibility for them again, even if he didn’t use them. If he used them, then he becomes a borrower. He’s a Shoel, he’s borrowing the item, and a Shoel would be obligated even for an unpreventable loss.
But if he hands the money over to someone other than a money changer—to a Baal HaBayit—and the coins are given to a regular Baal HaBayit to safeguard, it doesn’t matter whether the coins were tied up or loose: the Baal HaBayit is not allowed to use them. The ordinary person, when handing money to a Baal HaBayit—a regular man with a regular job, not a money changer—usually doesn’t need the extra cash. He wouldn’t need the extra money for his Parnasa (livelihood). So we assume that the owner of the money, when handing it over, does not want the Baal HaBayit to use it, even though he gave him the money or coins loose, not tied up. That doesn’t imply that he was okay with the Baal HaBayit using it. So if the money was lost, the Baal HaBayit would not be responsible for that loss, since the Shomer is forbidden to use the coins in this case. He’s like a regular Shomer Chinam, and a Shomer Chinam would not be liable for any loss.
Now we’ll talk about a storekeeper. Is a storekeeper similar to the Shulchani, the money changer? Or is he more similar to the Baal HaBayit? The first opinion says that a Chanvani, a storekeeper, has the same din as a Baal HaBayit. The storekeeper also doesn’t need such large amounts of money in his store. Here and there, he’ll give change to somebody, you know. So when the owner hands over the money to be watched by the Chanvani, the storekeeper, he wouldn’t imply that he would allow the storekeeper to use the coins, even if he gave them to him loose. He wouldn’t imply that, because just as when he hands money to a Baal HaBayit, a regular man, he doesn’t assume that person is going to use his coins, the same applies to the storekeeper. So the storekeeper has the din of a Shomer Chinam, and a Shomer Chinam would not be responsible for the loss. This is Divrei Rabbi Meir, the Opinion of Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Yehuda, Omer, “Chanvani k'Shulchani,” and he says, “No, a Chanvani is like a Shulchani, a storekeeper is like a money changer,” because a storekeeper, somebody who has a shop, does need extra cash for his business. He gives change, you know, pretty commonly. He’s giving it out all the time. So according to the Opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, when the owner hands over the money to the Chanvani, the storekeeper, to watch, he also assumes that the storekeeper would use the coins, unless, as with the money changer, they were tied in a very unusual fashion. So just as he allows the money changer to use his coins, he would also allow the storekeeper to use his coins. The implication is that this Shomer is no longer a Shomer Chinam; rather, the storekeeper becomes a Shomer Sachar, and therefore he would be liable and responsible for that money if it was lost.