(Rava): One who died on the first day of Yom Tov should be buried by gentiles but if he died on the second day of Yom Tov he should be buried by Jews.

These rules apply also the two days of Rosh Hashanah, but the rules regarding an egg laid are different (on the second day of Yom Tov it is permitted but on second day Rosh Hashanah, it is prohibited).

(Neharda'ei): The rules for eggs are the same (an egg laid on the first day of Rosh Hashanah is permitted on the second day).

Question: Why would you have thought that it is prohibited?

Answer: Because perhaps Elul was made a full month (with 30 days, thus making the two days of Rosh Hashanah as Kedushah Achas).

This need not be a concern since from the time of Ezra, Elul was never made a full month, and therefore the two days of Rosh Hashanah are two separate Kedushos.

(Mar Zutra): Rava's permission for Jews to do the burial on the second day applies only to a corpse lying from the first day, but if the person had died on the second day we postpone the burial (until after Yom Tov).

(R. Ashi): Rava's permission applies even to a death on the second day (see Rosh and Rashi for the application of the Machlokes).

Question: Why does the leniency exist?

Answer: Because with respect to a corpse, Chazal made the second day of Yom Tov like a weekday (it is even permitted to prepare and tear garments for the corpse and to cut a myrtle branch for it).

(Ravina): Now that there are "Chavri," we do not do burials on the second day of Yom Tov.

Ravina saw that R. Ashi was sad on the first day of Rosh Hashanah, and he asked him about it.

R. Ashi responded that he had not made an Eruv Tavshilin before Yom Tov.

Question (Ravina): Then make it now, on the first day of Rosh Hashanah (given Rava's ruling that one may make an Eruv Tavshilin on the first day of Yom Tov for use on the second day [Chutz la'Aretz-Ma Nafshach])!?

Answer (R. Ashi): That applies only to two days of Yom Tov Shel Galus; it does not apply to the two days of Rosh Hashanah (Kedushah Achas).

Question (Ravina): But Neharda'ei said that an egg laid on first day of Rosh Hashanah is permitted on the second day (which proves that they are two Kedushos).

Answer (R. Mordechai): R. Ashi does not agree with Neharda'ei.

(Rav): A chick born on Yom Tov is prohibited.

(Shmuel, or R. Yochanan): It is permitted.

Rav prohibits it because it is Muktzah while Shmuel (or R. Yochanan) permits it because of "Ho'il" (since the chick, by being born, becomes permitted to eat through Shechitah, it also becomes permitted with regard to Muktzah).

Question: According to Rav, why does a chick differ from a calf born on Yom Tov (which is permitted)?

Answer (Rav): A calf was Muchan because of its mother which can be slaughtered.

Question: Why does a chick differ from a calf born from a Tereifah on Yom Tov (which is permitted)?

Rav was silent.

Question: Why did Rav not answer that a calf born from a Tereifah is Muchan because of its mother which can be fed to dogs?

Answer (Abaye): If something which is Muchan for man is not considered Muchan for dogs (as Abaye proves from a Mishnah), then something which is Muchan for dogs cannot be considered Muchan for man.

Question: Rav still should have given this answer.

Something which is Muchan for dogs is also Muchan for man, because man has his mind on everything which may be fit for him.

Something which is Muchan for man is not Muchan for dogs, because man does not give to dogs what is fit for use for himself.

Hence, Rav should have given this answer.

A Beraisa supports each, Rav and Shmuel (or R. Yochanan).

A Beraisa supports Rav, saying that a calf born on Yom Tov is permitted, while a chick born on Yom Tov is prohibited, the difference being that the calf was Muchan because of its mother which can be slaughtered.

A Beraisa supports Shmuel (or R. Yochanan), saying that both a calf and a chick born on Yom Tov are permitted, the reasons being that the calf is Muchan because of its mother, and the chick permits itself to be eaten by Shechitah.

(Tana Kama): A chick born on Yom Tov is prohibited.

(R. Eliezer b. Yakov): Even when it is born on a weekday, it is prohibited, because it has not yet opened its eyes.

A Beraisa was taught in accordance with R. Eliezer b. Yakov's opinion.

(R. Huna citing Rav): An egg is completed upon its exit from the chicken.

Question: What does this mean?

Answer: It means that the egg may be eaten with milk upon its exit, but while it is inside the chicken it may not be eaten with milk.

Question: But a Beraisa states that whole eggs found within a slaughtered chicken may be eaten with milk!?

Answer: It means that the egg may be eaten on Yom Tov if it exited before Yom Tov, but if it is inside the chicken at the onset of Yom Tov it may not be eaten.

Question: But a Beraisa states that eggs found within a slaughtered chicken on Yom Tov may be eaten!?

Answer: Perhaps the Beraisa is teaching something that the Mishnah did not teach (Rashi: and thus the Beraisa is in error).

Question: This was also taught in a Mishnah:

Beis Shamai says that an egg laid on Yom Tov may be eaten; Beis Hillel says that the egg may not be eaten.

The argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel concerns only an egg that was laid; they both agree that an egg inside of the chicken is permitted (like the Beraisa).

Answer: Perhaps Beis Hillel also prohibits an egg inside of the chicken, and the Mishnah expresses the argument with regard to an egg that was laid to teach us the extent of the Kula of Beis Shamai (and the Halachah of the Beraisa is not in the Mishnah)?

Question: If so, then the Beraisa is in accordance with neither Beis Shamai nor Beis Hillel!?

Answer: It must be that the argument concerns only an egg that was laid.

Question: Then the Beraisa is in accordance with Beis Hillel, and is not in error, and thus the Beraisa contradicts this interpretation of Rav Huna's statement!?

Answer: Rather, "an egg is completed upon its exit" and it will bear chicks, whereas an egg inside of the chicken cannot bear chicks.

Question: What Halachic difference does this make?

Answer: Regarding a legal transaction, as in the following incident:

The buyer asked for eggs from a living chicken and the seller gave him eggs from a slaughtered chick.

R. Ami invalidated the sale.

Question: But such a sale is obviously invalid!?

Answer: We might have considered it only Ona'ah (which requires that the difference in price be returned) if we assume that the buyer wanted the eggs for eating and was only stating his preference, not making a condition of sale.