Megilla folio 9b:
The Mishna deals with the differences ( or lack thereof) between the anointed high priest and the (unanointed) high priest who holds office by virtue of the vestments (the invested high priest?).

This leads to the question of the significance of anointing. The anointing oil, made by Moshe could not be reproduced under penalty of death. This was the oil that Aaron, Saul and David were anointed with. This is the oil that represents the prophetic tradition. Moshe, Joshua, the Elders, prophets. Failure to anoint the high priest means that the tradition has been broken. It means the second temple. It means the difference between then and now.

The fundamental question, and the relevance of this material to Megilla and Purim is the question of authenticity. If the high priest is not anointed is he authentic? How does he differ from the authentic high priest. Similarly, if a miracle occurred without the overt intervention of the Almighty, is that an authentic miracle. How does iPurim differ from the miracles of the earlier prophets?

In the subsequent gemarra, the issue of the mishna's authorship is raised. Is the author R. Meir, for whom a statement supporting the first clause is known, or is it the Rabbis, whose authorship is inferred from the last clause? The resolution of this question returns to the question of authority. Acceding to R. Hisda, there is a dual authorship to the mishna. According to R. Joseph, Rebi (the redactor of the Mishna) chose the opinions.

The idea that Rebi chose the opinion challenges the authority of the Mishna. It makes the mishna more of a work of an individual rabbi. A man who could have flaws. The alternative explanation of R. Hisda allows for either the evolutionary selection of the dominant, and hence incorporated, opinion or the persistence of the correct opinion from a previous age and the dissent form that opinion a degeneration.

Ultimately, there is no choice to be made on the basis of authenticity. The second temple priest, who could not be anointed because there was no anointing oil, was the only high priest that the people and the temple had. The decision to have such a defective high priest had been made. The question was: how will his deficiency be recognized? The answer is clearly minimally, if at all.


The Mishna that we have is the only mishna available. The question of its origin and divine authenticity is liberating. It allows for its evolutionary and human origin but it does not remove its authority from those who invest the mishna with authority. Nor does it add to its credibility for those who relegate it to the geniza of flawed, human documents.