Urim V'tumim

The Rambam (Beis Habichira 4:1) says ואף אורים ותומים שהיו בבית שני לא היו משיבין ברוח הקדש ולא היו נשאלין בהן שנאמר עד עמוד כהן לאורים ותומים ולא היו עושין אותן אלא להשלים שמנה בגדים לכהן גדול כדי שלא יהא מחוסר בגדים.  This would seem to be complimented by his words in Kli Mikdash 10:10 עשו בבית שני אורים ותומים כדי להשלים שמנה בגדים ואף על פי שלא היו נשאלין בהן ומפני מה לא היו שואלין בהן מפני שלא היתה שם רוח הקודש וכל כהן שאינו מדבר ברוח הקודש ואין שכינה שורה עליו אין נשאלין בו:  However, the Briskor Rav asks that we find that רוח הקודש lasted even in the times of the second Beis Hamikdash (like Ezra) so how is this a reason not to have the Urim V’tumim?  Another difficulty is that the Gemorah Yoma (21b) counts the lack of Urim V’tumim and ruach hakodesh as two separate things; according to the Rambam it should only be counted as one?  Furthermore, why are these two statements of the Rambam found in two separate places, they should be together if one explains the other?  He explains that the Rambam in Beis Habechira is explaining that in the times of the second Temple the Urim V'tumim ceased to answer.  That is codified in in Beis Habichira because it is there that the Rambam is explaining which items were lacking in the second Temple.  In Kli Mikdash the Rambam is describing when people stopped asking the Urim V’tumim questions and that was when ruach hakodesh ended.  It is a little difficult because the Rambam also says in Beis Habechira that people didn’t ask the Urim V’tumim.  See more about this here [see especially footnotes 26-28 there.]  (Thanks to my father shlita for the m.m.)

Rav Solovetchik (גאבד דבסטון) asks why does the Rambam (in Beis Habichira) say in the second Temple they weren't answered, and they didn't ask.  Obviously if they weren't answered they wouldn't ask?  And why does the Rambam need to cite a verse that they didn't ask?  He explained that the ruling of the Rambam is that the lack of asking questions to the Urim V’tumim in the days of the second Temple isn't just because of Divine inspiration, it is a din that there is no more obligation and fulfillment of any law to ask questions to the Urim V’tumim.  It’s not just the lack of response that stops questions; there was no more requirement to ask.  That’s why one could wage war even without the Urim V’tumim even though when it did function it was a requirement (see Rabbenu Yonah Sanhedrin 20.)  The Rambam in Kli Mikdash is explaining the reason why the Urim V'tumim wasn’t functional in the times of the second Temple.  However, the possuk that the Rambam cites in Beis Habechira is ultimately why the din of asking the Urim V’tumim was removed.  

Rashi (28:30) says the shem Hashem that was put inside the choshen is the Urim V’tumim and it wasn’t there in the second Temple.  It is clear that the Rambam that holds the Urim V’tumim is one of the priestly garments and was worn in the second Temple disagrees.  The achronim say he holds the Urim V’tumim was the stones of the choshen itself that would light up to indicate answers to questions.  That is supported by the explanation of Rav Avrohom ben Rambam that explains the Urim V’tumim refers to the stones themselves.  That fits well with what he cites from his grandfather, Maimon, that the word choshen comes from the word חש - to hasten, because of the quick response it gave via the Urim V’tumim.  That only works if the choshen includes the Urim V’tumim.

What is the lesson of the lack of the Urim V’tumim (according to Rashi) after the first Temple?  As we cited here, חשן has the same letters as נחש, yet it is the gematria of משיח.  Even in the times of golus when the effects of the נחש are apparent, the חשן, the power of משיח is in existence, it just has to be revealed.  That was the lesson of the presence of the חשן ; even though there was no more Divine spirit and the Urim V’tumim didn’t respond, behind the scenes that great level of kedusha was still lurking (based upon Likutay Sichos volume 11.)