One of the questions I raised on the Rambam laws of theft 1:14 is that the Gemara diminishes the law of Rav to almost nothing based on the Braita that Rav Sheshet brings, while the Rambam ignores that, and states the law of Rav as if there was no modification. An answer to this question is that the Rabmam is going like like Rabainu Izhak in bava Kama 65a who says that the only modification of Rav Sheshet is when the thief causes physical harm or physical benefit to the animal he stole. In the case of Rav Sheshet, the payment of the double would be in accord with the value of the animal at the time of the theft. But the law of Rav can be applied to a situation where the animal got weaker or stronger without any imput from the thief. In that case, the law would be like Rav that the evaluation goes by the time of the judgment. The variations in the value of the animal do not have to be because of variations in market value. And this explains the Rambam perfectly. He says when the value of the animal goes up or down, and does not mention if the thief himself caused this. Another question I asked on the Rambam is that the Gemara modifies the statement of Rav about theft from a teaching about robbery. The teaching about robbery is that if the value of the stolen object increased and then the robber broke the object, he pays according to the time of the judgment. If it broke by itself, he pays according to the value at the time of the robbery. This refers to the main value, because there is no payment of double for robbery. Yet the Gemara brings a question from this on Rav and the Rambam brings the conclusion of the gGemara. I think the Gemara is equating the law of payment of the main value for robbery with payment of double for theft. This the Gemara itself is stating, and so this can not be a question on the Rambam who is simply quoting the Gemara-------------------------------------------------------------------One of the questions I raised on the רמב’’ם הלכות גנבה א' הלכה י''ד is that the גמרא diminishes the law of רב to almost nothing based on the ברייתא that רב ששת brings, while the רמב’’ם ignores that, and states the law of רב as if there was no modification. An answer to this question is that the רמב''ם is going like like רבינו יצחק בבא קמא ס''ה ע''א who says that the only modification of רב ששת is when the thief causes physical harm or physical benefit to the animal he stole. In the case of רב ששת, the payment of the double would be in accord with the value of the animal at the time of the theft. But the law of רב can be applied to a situation where the animal got weaker or stronger without any imput from the thief. In that case, the law would be like רב that the evaluation goes by the time of the judgment. The variations in the value of the animal do not have to be because of variations in market value. And this explains the רמב’’ם perfectly. He says when the value of the animal goes up or down, and does not mention if the thief himself caused this. Another question I asked on the רמב’’ם is that the גמרא modifies the statement of רב about theft from a teaching about robbery. The teaching about robbery is that if the value of the stolen object increased and then the robber broke the object, he pays according to the time of the judgment. If it broke by itself, he pays according to the value at the time of the robbery. This refers to the main value, because there is no payment of double for robbery. Yet the גמרא brings a question from this on רב and the רמב’’ם brings the conclusion of the גמרא. I think the גמרא is equating the law of payment of the main value for robbery with payment of double for theft. This the גמרא itself is stating, and so this can not be a question on the רמב’’ם who is simply quoting the גמרא