Chasidut su I Re 18:34

Now, regarding the phrase “prophecies which were necessary for the generations,” Rashi¹⁶⁵R. Solomon Yitzhaki, Troyes, France. 1040-1105 glosses “to teach repentance or [other] instruction.” What is the nature of this ‘instruction?’¹⁶⁶Horaah, from the same Hebrew root as ‘Torah.’ It cannot refer to adding or detracting from the Torah, since the passage states they did not issue such instructions. Nor can it mean that they innovated specific rulings regarding Torah law, using prophecy rather than standard legal reasoning or hermeneutics. For Maimonides¹⁶⁷R. Moses b. Maimon, Spain and Egypt, 1135-1206 writes (in the introduction to his Mishnah Torah¹⁶⁸Maimonides’ legal magnum opus, a comprehensive codification of Jewish law.): “Know that prophecy is legally inefficacious in interpreting the Torah or extrapolating legal details via the hermeneutical principles. Rather, just as Joshua and Phineas utilized analysis and reasoning, so too did Ravina and Rav Ashi.”¹⁶⁹For more on the role of prophecy in halakhic interpretation in Maimonides’ system, see his Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, Chapter 10. Maimonides continues on to explain that the prophet had only the additional capacity [over the sage] to temporarily suspend a Torah law, as did Elijah on Mount Carmel, but no more.¹⁷⁰See I Kings 18:34-38 and Talmud Yevamot 90b. If so, in what sense is the prophet’s ‘teaching of repentance or other instruction’ superior to that of any other [authority]?