The Gemara says we need the reason of chsad when there are 2 prutzim. isn't a parutz not concerned about chsad? if we say like the mforshim who hold everyone not muchzak as a kusher is a paritz, then its understandable the beinoni person would want to avoid chsad, but according to those who say only actual prutzim are considered parutzim, why would they care?
moshe lamm, brooklyn usa
1. The Nafka Minah would be if one of the men was Kosher and the other was Parutz. The Kosher man would not be allowed to accompany the Parutz into the ruins. This would apply even if there were several Perutzim with him.
2. There is another possible scenario. Even though the Parutz is not concerned about the laws of Yichud, he may be aware that there is a Halachah that one should not enter ruins, and he may be afraid of the Mazikim and not aware of the fact that if two people enter together there is no danger of Mazikim. Therefore, two Perutzim might come to ask the Rav whether it is safe to enter the Churvah. In such a case, even though the Rav knows that the Churvah is strong and there is no worry that it may collapse, he still will answer that they may not enter because of Chashad (although he would not reveal to them that this is the reason for his answer). In contrast, if two Kesherim would ask the Rav the same question, he would answer that they may enter the Churvah.
3. Bs'D, I found in Sefer Or ha'Chamah on Maseches Berachos (by Rav Zundel Kroizer shlit'a)the first answer I gave above, that if one is Parutz and the other is Kosher, then the Parutz will not guard the Kosher man from an Aveirah and the Kosher man is therefore considered as being only one man present and he may not enter the ruins.
The Or ha'Chamah also makes the point made in the question: if the two people are not totally Parutz, but merely people who do not trust themselves to be careful enough in these situations, then these sort of people might well ask whether they are allowed to enter the Churvah, and the answer they will be given is that they are not allowed.
4. I also saw in Sefer Divrei Sofrim on Hilchos Yichud (by Rav Nachum Yavrov; see Emek Davar #322) that after citing a few Poskim who maintain that one Parutz and one Kosher are allowed to be alone with one woman, he adds that this Heter applies only to cases where the Parutz is not entirely Parutz but is merely not a totally reliable person. The Divrei Sofrim adds that if one of them was totally Parutz, it is possible that they may not be isolated with one woman. This opinion now finds proof from our Gemara: if one of them is a Parutz, he does not help to guard his Kosher accompaniment.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
1) Bs'd I found in the Sefer Or Hachamah on Maseches Berachos, by Rav Zundel Kroizer shlita, that he gave my first answer in my previous reply, that if one is Parutz and the other is kosher then the parutz will not guard the Kosher from an aveira and the kosher is therefore considered as only being one man and may not enter the ruins.
Or Hachama also makes the point made in the original question:- if the 2 people are not totally parutz, but merely people who do not trust themselves to be careful enough in these situations ,then these sort of people might well ask whether they are allowed to enter the churva and the answer they will be given is that they are not allowed.
2) I also saw in the sefer Divrei Sofrim on Hilchos Yichud by Rabbi Nachum Yavrov (Emek Davar #322) that after citing a few Poskim who maintain that one parutz and one kosher are allowed to have yichud with one woman, he then adds that this only refers to cases where the parutz is not entirely parutz but merely not a totally reliable person . Divrei Sofrim adds that if one of them was totally parutz it is possible that they may not have yichud with 1 woman.
We can now bring a proof to this latter opinion from our Gemara:- if one of them is a parutz he does not help to guard his kosher colleague.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom