here i would like to raise a question. At furst glance it looks like The Rambam and the Gemara differ on major points. The Rambam writes in laws of theft 1 law 14 and 15: If a person steals an animal or a vessel, and at the time of theft it was worth four, and now at the time of trial it is worth two, he pays according to the value at the time of theft and a double payment according to the value at the time of trial. If at the time of the theft it was worth two and at the time of trial it was four, if he slaughters or sells or breaks the vessel or it is lost, he pays double payment or four and five according to the the time of trial. If the animal dies or the vessel is lost by itself, he pays double payment as per the time of theft. The end of the halacha seems to have has some vague correspondence with the statement of Rabah Bava kam page 65a, but the connection is unclear. Rabah said in a case of robbery that if the vessel goes up in value from one to four, and then the robber breaks it, he pays four. If it broke by itself, he pays one. This refers only to the main value, not the double. The Rambam however does not mention the main value and seems to say the same law in terms of the double. But even there, he is unclear, double in the case of theft at time of judgment ought to be eight. Yet the Rambam does not say what he means. The Rambam seems to be based on Rav, and yet the Gemara consistently whittles down the meaning of the statement of Rav (who said the main value according to the time of the theft and the double according to the time of the judgment) until it seems to have little resemblance to the original statement. First it says Rav is only referring to variations or fluctuations in market value, not improvements made by the thief. The Rambam leaves out this distinction. Next Rav is only referring to a case where the object went down in value, noy when it went up in value. One of the modification the Rambam skips, that is that Rav is only referring to when the market value of the stolen object has gone up or down by fluctuations in the market, not because of the thief adding value himself to the animal by feeding it well. The Rambam is unclear what he means but double according to the value of the time of the judgment. In the end of the law, he does not mention the main value at all.-------------------------------------------------------------The רמב''ם and the גמרא seem to differ on major points. The רמב’’ם writes in הלכות גנבה פרק א' הלכה י''ד: If a person steals an animal or a vessel, and at the time of theft it was worth four, and now at the time of trial it is worth two, he pays according to the value at the time of theft and a double payment according to the value at the time of trial. If at the time of the theft it was worth two and at the time of trial it was four, if he slaughters or sells or breaks the vessel or it is lost, he pays double payment or four and five according to the time of trial. If the animal dies or the vessel is lost by itself, he pays double payment as per the time of theft. The end of the halacha seems to have has some vague correspondence with the statement of רבה בבא קמא page ס''ה ע''א, but the connection is unclear. רבה said in a case of גזל that if the vessel goes up in value from one to four, and then the robber breaks it, he pays four. If it broke by itself, he pays one. This refers only to the main value קרן , not the double. The רמב’’ם however does not mention the קרן and seems to say the same law in terms of the double. But even there, he is unclear, double in the case of theft at time of judgment ought to be eight. The רמב’’ם seems to be based on רב, and yet the גמרא consistently whittles down the meaning of the statement of רב (who said the קרן כעין שגנב כפל דו'''ה כשעת העמדה בדין) until it seems to have little resemblance to the original statement. First it says רב is only referring to variations or fluctuations in market value יוקר וזולא, not improvements made by the thief. The רמב’’ם leaves out this distinction. Next רב is only referring to a case where the object went down in value, not when it went up in value. One of the modifications the רמב’’ם skips, היינו that רב is only referring to when the market value of the stolen object has gone up or down by fluctuations in the market, not because of the thief adding value himself to the animal by feeding it well. The רמב’’ם is unclear what he means but double according to the value of the time of the judgment. In the end of the law, he does not mention theקרן at all.