Beitzah 3B

רבינא אמר: לעולם לא תיפוך, ורבי יהודה לדבריהם דרבנן קאמר להו:

With regard to the contradiction presented by R' Yoḥanan, which led him to suggest that the opinions should be reversed, Ravina said that this is not the only possible resolution: Actually, do not reverse the opinions. Rather, in the case of the two Festival days, one could claim that R' Yehuda spoke to them in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, rather than presenting his own opinion.

לדידי אפילו בראשון נמי שריא, דאוכלא דאפרת הוא. אלא לדידכו ⁠— אודו לי מיהת דבשני שריא, דשתי קדושות הן. ואמרי ליה רבנן: לא, קדושה אחת היא.

If so, R' Yehuda’s statement should be understood as follows: In my opinion, even on the first Festival day, the egg is also permitted, as it is food that was separated. However, according to your opinion, which is that you prohibit liquid that comes from food, at least agree with me that it is permitted on the 2nd day, as they are two sanctities. The first and second days of Rosh HaShana are not one unit, but two separate entities. Therefore, it is possible that the 1st day is sacred, while the second is a weekday. Consequently, an item prohibited on the 1st day might be permitted on the second. And the Rabbis said to him: No, the two days are one sanctity, i.e., they are viewed as a single continuous unit. The uncertainty applies equally to both of them.

רבינא בריה דרב עולא אמר: הכא בתרנגולת העומדת לגדל ביצים, ורבי יהודה לטעמיה, דאית ליה מוקצה.

Ravina, son of Rav Ulla, said: There is an alternative resolution to the contradiction raised by R' Yoḥanan. Here, in the case of the egg laid on a Festival, R' Yehuda prohibited eating the egg since it is not from a chicken designated for food, whose legal status is that of food. Rather, the case refers to a chicken designated for laying eggs, and R' Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he holds that there is a prohibition of muktze. Since the egg is produced by something muktze, it is certainly muktze itself, which means that the halakha of food that was separated is inapplicable to this case.