Bava Metzia 43A

ומשלם ליה דמי כיסי.

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

מתני׳ המפקיד מעות אצל שולחני, אם צרורין ⁠– לא ישתמש בהן, לפיכך אם אבדו אינו חייב באחריותן. מותרין ⁠– ישתמש בהן, לפיכך אם אבדו חייב באחריותן. אצל בעל הבית, בין צרורין ובין מותרין ⁠– לא ישתמש בהן, לפיכך אם אבדו אינו חייב באחריותן. חנוני כבעל הבית, דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יהודה אומר: חנוני כשולחני.

Mishnah: 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 R' Meir. R' Yehuda says: If the bailee is a storekeeper, his status is like that of a money changer.

גמ׳ משום דצרורין לא ישתמש בהן? אמר רב אסי אמר רב יהודה: בצרורין וחתומין שנו. רב מרי אמר: בקשר משונה. איכא דאמרי, בעי רב מרי: קשר משונה מאי? תיקו.

Talmud: The Talmud 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 Mishnah 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 Talmud concludes: The dilemma should stand unresolved.