Tosafot (Lamelachim) seems to reject Rashi's assertion that Melachim refers to NonJewish kings. Tos. rejects Rashi's "proof" from Gitin that shows that they used to use nonjewish kings in gitin stating that gitin is different because it is an important document.
My question: Why does Tosafot assume rashi meant ONLY non jewish kings? The proof seems strong enough to indicate that indeed there were instances where non jewish king's dates were used by Jews. Also, there is no need for Shalom Malchut if there is a Jewish king. Isnt the simple understanding of Rashi that obviously (and therefore it goes without saying) that at times when there is a Jewish king, that name would be used? And Rashi is telling us that when there is no jewish king, and for shalom malchut the non jewish king's name is used, EVEN then the Rosh Hashana is Nissan 1?
J Sasson, New York, USA
Tosfos is asking two major questions on Rashi:
1. Shalom Malchus is a reason for mentioning a non-Jewish king in a document. But our Mishnah is only discussing Jewish kings who are mentioned in documents.
2. Rashi seems to be comparing documents of sale to Gitin, in which the local king is included for Shalom Malchus. But in Avodah Zarah the Gemara tells us that the local, non-Jewish king is not included in documents of sale. Rather, in the Diaspora, the year is counted by the beginning of the Greek reign (and in Israel, the year of the Jewish King is used).
I hope this clears things up.
Be well,
Mordecai Kornfeld