I was looking at the Gemara Bava Metzia page 43a and then I went to the sea shore, and on the way back, it occurred to me that there is what I think should be a question, but I do not remember seeing anyone asking it. The question is based on the Mishna on page 42, that says : If a person gives his own money (that is not sealed) for safekeeping to a money changer, the money changer can use the money. Therefore, if it is lost in an unavoidable accident, the money changer is liable. Rav Huna holds that he is liable immediately when it comes into his domain because the permission to use it makes him into a borrower, not just a paid guard. [If he would be like a paid guard, he would not be liable for large accidents.] Rav Nachman said the money changer is not liable until he uses the money. The problem that occurred to me if from Bava Metzia 99. Rav Huna said about an axe of hedesh that the gizbar loaned to him by accident, ''If he chopped wood with it, he is liable for meila, if not, not. The question is clear. Rav Huna seems to contradict himself.--------------------I was looking at the גמרא בבא מציעא דף מ''ג ע''א and then I went to the sea shore, and on the way back, it occurred to me that there is what I think should be a question, but I do not remember seeing anyone asking it. The question is based on the משנה מ''ב ע''ב, that says : If a person gives his own money (that is not sealed) for safekeeping to a money changerשולחני , the money changer שולחניcan use the money. Therefore, if it is lost in an unavoidable accident אונסים גדולים , the money changer is liable. Rav Huna holds that he is liable immediately when it comes into his domain because the permission to use it makes him into a borrower, not just a paid guard. [If he would be like a paid guard, he would not be liable for large accidents.] Rav Nachman said the money changer is not liable until he uses the money. The problem that occurred to me if from בבא מציעא דף צ''ט. THERE רב הונא said about an axe ofהקדש that the גזבר loaned to him by accident, ''If he chopped wood with it, he is liable for מעילה, if not, not. The question is clear. רב הונא seems to contradict himself. later note-----this is close to question of the gemara on rav huna from a braita that says he is liable only if he used the money. ---------------------- later note-----this is close to question of the גמרא on רב הונא from a ברייתא that says he is liable מעילה only if he used the money.-----and this question is almost identical with the question on the Rambam [Laws of Robbery and Loss chapter 13, law 17.] who holds with money of a lost object that if it is lost the finder is obligated as a borrower just because of the permission to use the money while in the case of a person gives unsealed money to a friend to guard, the friend is only a paid guard until he uses the money [Rambam Laws of Borrowing and Guardianship chapter 7, law 6]------------------------and this question is almost identical with the question on the רמב’’ם [הלכות גזלה ואבדה פרק י''ג הלכה י''ז] who holds with money of a lost object that if it is lost the finder is obligated as a שואל just because of the permission to use the money, while in the case of a person gives unsealed money to a friend to guard, the friend is only a paid guard until he uses the money [רמב’’ם הלכות שאלה ופיקדון פרק ז הלכה ו']---Later I saw the Gemara in Bava Metzia page 99. There the Gemara asks this question in a parallel form. That is, it finds a case where a cow is borrowed, and Rav Huna would have to agree the borrower is liable immediately. It could have asked from the argument between him and Rav Nachman on page 43a, but asked (for some reason) from some other place. The answer it gives is Rav Huna meant after the borrower of the axe chopped with it, the lender cannot ask for it back until the days (period)of the loan are finished. But, he is still liable as a borrower immediately.-------------------------------------צצצצצצצצצצצLater I saw the גמרא in בבא מציעא צ''ט ע''א. There the גמרא asks this question in a parallel form. That is, it finds a case where a cow is borrowed, and רב הונא would have to agree the שואל is liable immediately. It could have asked from the argument between him and רב נחמן on דף מ''ג ע''א, but asked (for some reason) from some other place. The answer it gives is רב הונא meant after the שואל of the axe chopped with it, the משאיל cannot ask for it back until the days (period) of the שאלה are finished. But, he is still liable as a שואל immediately.