To Rashi Tosphot and the Rosh a thief can pay back only with whole vessels or money. To the Rashbam [Bava Metzia 96] even with anything that is worth money. But we also have a law that אין שמין לגנב one does not evaluate the worth of the object. [That is the object that was stolen and broken according to the time it was stolen]. To the Rashbam it looks that this must mean one evaluate the object at the time he stands before the court. But to Rashi and the Rosh the meaning of "one does not evaluate" is to pay back whole vessels, for if one could evaluate then he could give back teh broken pieces and jut pay for the damaged part.
However the Rambam might hold like the Rosh and Rashi or like the Rashbam. But in any case, he holds the law "one does not evaluate" and the law of how the thief must pay are not related because he holds one does not evaluate refers to what value the object lost by being broken,--not the whole object and what it was worth.. I have written about this in my little book on Bava Metzia but I see Rav Shach is explaining the subject according to the Rambam that the two laws are unconnected. At any rate, it is hard to see the difference between אין שמין לגנב one does not evaluate the worth of the object or one does not evaluate the worth of the damage. The reason is the only way to evaluate the worth of the damage is by seeing what the object was worth at first before the damage. .
____________________________________________________________________
To רש''י תוספות and the רא''ש a thief can pay back only with whole vessels or money. To the רשב''ם [בבא מציעא צ''ו] even with anything that is worth money[שווה כסף]. But we also have a law that אין שמין לגנב one does not evaluate the worth of the object. [That is the object that was stolen and broken according to the time it was stolen]. To the רשב''ם it looks that this must mean one evaluate the object at the time he stands before the court. But to רש''י and the רא''ש the meaning of "אין שמין לגנב" is to pay back whole vessels, for if one could evaluate then he could give back broken pieces and pay for the damaged part. However the רמב''ם might hold like the רא''ש and רש''י or like the רשב''ם. But in any case, he holds the law "one does not evaluate" and the law of how the thief must pay are not related because he holds ''אין שמין לגנב'' refers to what value the object lost by being broken,,not the whole object and what it was worth.. רב שך is explaining the subject according to the רמב''ם that the two laws are unconnected
____________________________________________________________________
