Reference for Bava Kamma 72:6
במאי אוקימתא כר' ישמעאל אי הכי אימא סיפא ר' שמעון אומר שור שוה מאתים שנגח שור שוה מאתים ואין הנבלה יפה כלום זה נוטל מנה וזה נוטל מנה
How then have you explained the Mishnah? As being in accordance with R. Ishmael! If so, what of the next clause: R. SIMEON SAYS: WHERE AN OX OF THE VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>] HAS GORED AN OX OF THE SAME VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>] AND THE CARCASS HAD NO VALUE AT ALL, THE PLAINTIFF WILL GET A HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i> AND THE DEFENDANT WILL SIMILARLY GET A HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i> [OUT OF THE BODY OF THE OX THAT DID THE DAMAGE]. SHOULD THE SAME OX HAVE GORED ANOTHER OX OF THE VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>], THE SECOND CLAIMANT WILL GET A HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i>, WHILE THE FORMER CLAIMANT WILL GET ONLY FIFTY <i>ZUZ</i>, AND THE DEFENDANT WILL HAVE FIFTY <i>ZUZ</i> [IN THE BODY OF THE OX]. SHOULD THE OX HAVE GORED YET ANOTHER OX OF THE VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>], THE THIRD PLAINTIFF WILL GET A HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>], WHILE THE SECOND PLAINTIFF WILL GET FIFTY [<i>ZUZ</i>] AND THE FIRST TWO PARTIES WILL HAVE A GOLD <i>DENAR</i> [EACH IN THE BODY OF THE OX THAT DID THE DAMAGE]. This brings us back [does it not] to the view of R. Akiba, who maintains that the ox becomes the common property [of the plaintiff and the defendant].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if otherwise, why should the first two parties (the owner and the first claimant) always be treated alike? ');"><sup>5</sup></span>