1. Only a forbidden egg containing a chick gives flavor

On the previous Daf, Rav Nachman ruled that an egg is nullified in sixty, and the egg is not included in the count. Rav Idi bar Avin asked Abaye if this indicates that an egg gives flavor when cooked with other foods, because there is an expression "כי מיא דביעי בעלמא" – as tasteless as mere egg water, indicating that eggs do not give any flavor!? Abaye answered that Rav Nachman’s ruling refers to ביצת אפרוח – an egg containing a chick, whose meat does impart flavor. Even if the egg came from a kosher bird, it is forbidden because the chick is a נבילה. However, an egg of a nonkosher bird which does not contain a chick does not prohibit food it is cooked with, since it does not impart any flavor. The Gemara objects from a Baraisa which prohibits kosher eggs which were cooked with ביצים טמאות – nonkosher eggs, and absorbed flavor from them, and answers that the Baraisa is also discussing eggs with chicks, and calls them "טמאה", because the chick prohibits them.

1. Machlokes whether ביטול requires ששים or מאה, derived from זרוע בשלה

Rebbe Chiya bar Abba said in Bar Kappara’s name: כל איסורין שבתורה בס' – all prohibitions in the Torah are nullified in sixty. Rebbe Shmuel bar Yitzchak objected that Rebbe Assi quoted Bar Kappara saying that they are nullified in one hundred. [Rashi explains this applies even if the forbidden substance does not give taste to the permitted food.] ושניהם לא למדוה אלא מזרוע בשלה – And both of them derived [their opinions] from the cooked foreleg of a nazir’s korban of a ram. The passuk says ולקח הכהן את הזרוע בשלה – and the Kohen shall take the cooked foreleg, and Tannaim discuss whether this indicates that the זרוע was cooked together with the rest of the ram. Assuming they were cooked together, the Torah is teaching that although the זרוע is forbidden to a non-Kohen, the rest of the ram is sufficient to nullify the זרוע’s flavor. Rebbe Chiya bar Abba holds בשר ועצמות בהדי בשר ועצמות משערינן – we measure the זרוע’s meat and bones against the ram’s meat and bones, which is a ratio of one to sixty. Rebbe Shmuel bar Yitzchak measures only the meat of each, since bones do not emit flavor, producing a ratio of one to a hundred.

1. זרוע בשלה is a unique היתר and an exception to the general איסור

The Gemara questions deriving the ratio for ביטול from the זרוע בשלה of a nazir’s ram. A Baraisa states: זהו היתר הבא מכלל איסור – this (permit for a non-Kohen to eat the ram which was cooked with its forbidden זרוע) is a permit which is an exception from the general rule of prohibition. Presumably, this excludes all other prohibited foods in a mixture, that they are not nullified by the ratio of זרוע בשלה!?

Abaye answers that the Baraisa follows Rebbe Yehudah, who holds מין במינו לא בטיל – a kind mixed with its own kind is not nullified. Accordingly, the Baraisa is saying that a nazir’s ram is unique in allowing ביטול, despite the זרוע and ram being the same מין. Rava answers that the uniqueness of the nazir’s ram relates to the principle of טעם כעיקר – that prohibited flavor is like its substance, which Rava holds is only prohibited מדאורייתא for kodashim (but chullin is Biblically nullified in a mere majority). Nonetheless, flavor of the זרוע בשלה is permitted in a nazir’s ram. The Gemara proceeds to explain why we consider these permits unique, yet derive from זרוע בשלה the ratio for standard ביטול. A third answer is given on the next Daf.