Our gemara has a machlokes over what is dilaas haramootza a)a gourd from a location or b) a gourd buried in ash. The gemara seems to prove conclusively from a Mishna in Kelaim that dilaas haramootza refers to a) from a location. It even says "tiyuvta". Nonetheless, the perushim on the Mishna in mishnayos, Rambam, Rav Mibartenuro, Yakin (even Kahati) define dilaas haramootza as b) cooked in ash. What gives?
Menachem Weiman, St. Louis, MO
Menachem, Baruch she'Kivanta! The Mefarshim are concerned with this problem.
1) A solution is suggested in the commentary of the Rosh, cited in the margin of the Gemara. He writes that we see from the source in Kil'ayim that Remutzah is a species in its own right called Remutzah. The reason it is called Remutzah is because it is often buried in ash. However, other species of gourd are not called Remutzah, even if they are buried in ash.
2) The source of the Rosh appears to be the Talmud Yerushalmi Kil'ayim 1:2 which states that Remutzah is a species of bitter gourd which is sweetened by being buried in ashes. We learn from the Yerushalmi that Remutzah is a separate species. However, the reason it got its name is because it is such a bitter species that the standard way of treating it is to sweeten it with the help of ashes. We now can understand the dispute between Shmuel and Rav Ashi. Shmuel maintains that Remutzah is a certain species of gourds which grows in a particular place. Rav Ashi maintains that it is not a specific species but rather it is any gourd which is buried in ashes. The Gemara refutes the opinion of Rav Ashi because we learn in Kil'ayim that there is a specific species called Remutzah.
3) The Tosfos Yom Tov in Kil'ayim 1:2 points out that according to the aforementioned Rosh in Nedarim, one can say that there is no dispute between our Gemara and the Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi tells us that Remutzah is a particular species which is thusly named because one buries it in ashes. The Bavli is not saying that according to Shmuel one does not bury this species from Karkozai in ashes; rather, it is saying merely that it is a species in its own right and this is why Rav Ashi's opinion is rejected.
4) Now we can propose that the understanding of the Rambam in his commentary to the Mishnah in Nedarim is similar to that of the Rosh. In addtion, the Bartenura -- who often follows the explanation of the Rambam -- also learns this way. The Tosfos Yom Tov writes that although it is not so apparent in Nedarim that this is what the Bartenura meant, nevertheless the Bartenura relied in Nedarim upon what he wrote in Kil'ayim. In Kil'ayim, the Bartenura wrote that Remutzah is a bitter gourd, which more clearly suggests that this refers to an entire [bitter] species.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom