We find a similar expression in Sanhedrin 19b, where it says that one who raises an orphan in his home "it is as if he fathered him." The concept is the same, but Chazal derive the two ideas from different pesukim.
One has to wonder, what does "as if" mean? Is this a homiletic encomium, or is it a statement of halacha? Is it meant to be taken at face value? Do Chazal really mean that if you raise an orphan, or teach a child Torah, that he is your child?
Reb Shlomo Kluger, in his first comment in Even HaEzer, says that this depends on a machlokes between the Drisha and the Taz in Yoreh Dei'ah 242. The Drisha says that "Ke'ilu," "as if," does not indicate real parity. It just means that the one has certain aspects of the other. Therefore, according to the Drisha, one who raises an orphan would not thereby fulfill the mitzva of Pru Urvu, the mitzvah to have children. The Taz, on the other hand, says that Ke'ilu must be taken seriously, that it means actual halachic parity. Therefore, says Reb Shlomo Kluger, according to the Taz, one who raises an orphan fulfills the mitzvah of Pru Urvu. (He says more there; it's worth reading.)
great unknown, in the first comment below, pointed out an interesting thing- that Reb Shlomo Kluger himself was an orphan raised by the Dubner Magid. Chaim B notes that Rav Amiel in his Middos L'echeker Halacha vol. III has a very lengthy disquisition on the permutations of "ke'ilu" and K' in Chazal. It's available on Hebrewbooks.org. (Good luck reading it. Don't expect the same style as Drashos el Ami. To me it reads like a hybrid of Reb Shimon Shkop's lomdus written in Rav Kook's prose.)
The Taz cannot be taken too far. Obviously, there is no din erva/prohibition of incest midoraysa with an adopted child. Ugly and depraved, yes. Incest, no. Incest depends on a biological relationship, and a virtual child is not a biological child. The din of ke'ilu only applies to the relationship between these two individuals, not to external ramifications of that relationship. Also, I doubt that Reb Shlomo Kluger would say the Taz holds that one who teaches a child Torah is mekayeim Pru Urvu. But who knows? After all, the original Taz said his shittah regarding the obligation to honor and fear a teacher, which he says follows from the Chazal that one who teaches is like a father.
On the other hand, R' Sh'K's Taz would certainly hold that the dinim of Arrur Makleh Aviv and Missas Beis Din by Makeh and Mekalel would apply to an adoptive parent if not for Ein onshin min hadin. But at least there would be an arrur for Makleh.
Teenagers in the 90s had a sarcastic expression, "as if." The phrase conveys the absurdity of something that another person has alleged. As you see, "as if" is a machlokes between the Drisha and the Taz.
Practical relevance of this issue:
- Many poskim say that there is no issur of yichud with an adopted child because their emotional relationship is that of a parent and a child (Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igros EH 4:64:2, but only so long as the adoptive parent is married; and Rav Eliezer Waldenburg in Tzitz Eliezer 6:40:21, but only if the adoption took place before a girl was 3 and a boy 9 years old. The osrim are the Chazon Ish, the Steipler, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and Rav Vosner. Ask your LOR!)
- Reb Aharon Soloveichik once said that as a young rav, he was asked who should walk the Chassan to the Chupah- the natural or the adoptive parent. He said that the adoptive parent should walk him down. He said that he took a lot of criticism for his advice, but he was steadfast.
- Similarly, there are poskim that say that when getting an aliyah, or writing a shtar like a kesuva, the adopted child may write "ben [adoptive father's name]". (Others disagree: see Choshen Mishpat 42 in the Gaon #42. Reb Moshe in EH I:99 says you should write the biological truth, and if we do not know who his father is, you should write "ben a person whose name is not known, and raised by [adoptive parent's name], although when you read it under the chuppah, you can make concessions to avoid embarrassing the person. Ask your LOR!)
- This really expands the previous point, but deserves a paragraph of its own. Micha, in the second comment, points out that calling a child "Ploni ben adoptive father" gets complicated where one is e.g., a Kohen and the other is not, and poskim that generally allow "Ploni ben adoptive father" change their position in such cases. I don't know why, though. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people whose fathers were kohanim and who themselves are not kohanim, due to having been the product of a marriage prohibited to a kohen. Besides the frum ones, I know a fellow named Christopher Cohen, a lawyer. His mother is not Jewish.
- By the way, Rav Sherira Gaon says that Abbaya of the Gemara was not really named Abbaya, but Nachmeini, after his grandfather. His father had died before Abbaye was born, and his mother died at child-birth, and he was raised by his uncle Rabbah bar Nachmeini. Rabbah did not want to call his nephew Nachmeini, which was the name of his father; he therefore called him "Abbaya," meaning, "my father." Others say that Abbaya stands for Asher Becha Yerucham Yasom. Rashi, though, says that Abbaya was his real name, and his uncle called him Nachmeini. According to Rashi, then, it could be said that Rabbah held that the adoptive parent has certain naming rights.
- But who needs to speculate about Abbaya? Moshe Rabbeinu was raised by Bisya bas Pharaoh, and it was she that gave him the name by which we know him. Reb Chaim Shmuelevitz says that the Torah identifies him by his Egyptian name davka to teach us about Hakaras Hatov. True, in that case she didn't only adopt him, she saved him from death, while most adoptions are not matters of life or death. But once you start splitting hairs in the sugya of Hakaras Hatov, you are going down a dangerous path. Even when you help a person in need, the Tanchuma in Shemos by Moshe and Yisro says
It seems to me that an adoptive parent is a perfect example of this Medrash-- Pasach li es pesach beiso, Ve'ani imo ke'ben...nafsho hu chayav lo.
Moving to another case where Chazal said "Ke'ilu," the Gemara in Menachos 110a says that one who studies the parsha of a korban "it is as if he sacrificed the korban." Would the Taz say that if a person became obligated to bring a chatas for some inadvertent sin, and then he read and learned the parsha of korban chatas, and then the Beis Hamikdash was rebuilt, that he would not have to bring the Chatas? And what if you were lazy, and while the Beis Hamikdash was standing you decided to stay home and read the parsha. Are you pattur? I would say that this, too, depends on the shittos of the Drisha and the Taz.
The Yad David in Menachos says this question is the subject of the machlokes between Reish Lakish and Rava there. According to Reish Lakish, learning Torah accomplishes a similar atonement to that of bringing a Korban only during a time when there is no Beis ha'Mikdash and one cannot bring a real Korban. According to Rava, even when the Beis ha'Mikdash is standing, learning Torah atones exactly as if one had brought a Korban.
The Gan Raveh in Parshas Tzav brings the Binyan Ariel who says that when Hashem told Moshe, "Tzav Es Aharon v'Es Banav Leimor Zos Toras ha'Olah" it means that the Kohanim should make sure that they teach the people the rule that whenever they learn the laws of the Korban, it is as if they have offered an Olah, even though telling this to the people will surely decrease the number of Korbanos brought to the Beis ha'Mikdash. Despite the resulting monetary loss to the Kohanim (who receive the hides of the korban Olah and much of the flesh of other korbanos), the Kohanim were enjoined to let people know about this halacha.
See a nice discussion of the din amira for a korban in the first piece in the Har Tzvi. who addresses the Beis Yosef that says that amira is mechaper "ktzas," and Reb Yishmael ben Elisha in Shabbos 12b (I will bring a chattas shmeinah, mashma that amira wouldn't patter him.) Also, I once saw a svara (from Reb Refoel Hamburger, and a similar but slightly different slant from Reb Chaim Ozer's cousin from Omaha, Reb Tzvi Hirsch Grodzinsky in his sefer Likutei Tzvi, about whom Reb Aharon Soloveichick said that the Brisker Rov said that he was considered the bigger lamden of the two,) that amira doesn't work where there are other aspects of the korban that cannot be fulfilled through amira, such as "Kohanim ochlim ubaalim miskaprim." Your amira does not make a kohen's achila. Kind of like the Beis Halevi on Kol Rom. Also, great unknown pointed out in a private communication that it would not work for a nazir, because amira does duplicate or parallel the Matan Behonos. Eli in the comments sends us a link to a beautiful piece from the Cheshek Shlomo that deals with this.
A slight digression: I had this in my journal, but forgot about it until Chaim B reminded me.
The Magen Avraham in Siman 1 says that you should stand when you say the parshas korban, because avoda is be’amidah. Reb Chaim Kanievsky brings a Yalkut Shimoni in Yirmiah that says that a min asked someone, how can you believe the nevi’im when the navi says that the Kohanim and Leviim will do avodah forever, but you can't deny the reality that the churban stopped the avodah, and he was answered that amiras parsha by Kohanim and Leviim is like hakrava. The pirush there, which happens to be written by the Magen Avraham, indeed says that when kohanim and leviim say parshas korban it is as if they brought it, which is apparently different from what he himself says in Shulchan Aruch!Another interesting ramification of this discussion: The mitzva of Birkas Kohanim, according to Reb Yaakov Emden, is only de'oraysa when recited after the hakrava of a korban tzibur. Therefore, he says, the duchening we do today is derabanan. The Mishna Berura argues, but doesn't address the pasuk that is mashma like RYE. So Reb Yakov Karliner answers in his Mishkenos Yaakov OC 66 that this is why we say "'ve'se'erav alecha asiroseinu ke'olah u'chi'korban" before duchenning- because our duchening is based on the parity between tefilla and korbanos. Only because ve'se'erav can we duchen. (His brother, the Keren Ora, says the same teretz in Maseches Sota in the sugya of birkas kohanim.)
The Chofetz Chaim in his hakdama to his son in law’s Avodas Hakorbonos brings the same medrash and is docheh the raiya that it only applies to kohanim, and says that it is mamash like hakrava no matter who says it. The son in law brings the same medrash and skips the words kohanim and leviim! How do you like that!
But there are also problems with the Yalkut itself. First of all, this can’t be accepted as our derech, because then only kohanim should be saying the parshas hakorban, which is something weird that nobody has ever said in print.
Second, R’ Matisyahu Solomon brings from the Chazon Yechezkel that the pshat in “neshalmah parim sfaseinu” is that we bring to ourselves the zchus of the korbanos that were brought at the time of the Beis Hamikdosh. R’ Solomon connects this to the din of “pokeid avon avos ahl banim...v’oseh chesed l’ohavai...” which teaches that zchus avos comes to descendants that are “ocheiz b’ma’asei avosam.” Here too, our saying the parshoh of korbanos brings us the zchus of our ancestors’ korbanos. If we take this mehalach at face value, it is not like the shittah brought by the Magen Avraham that you have to stand during amiras parshas korbanos, and also it is not like the Yalkut that says that the amiras haparsha is like hakrovoh only when a kohen says it.
However, we can be meyasheiv all these kashes. There are two dinim: the zchus of amiras haparsha- or the zchus avos we create by saying the parshah- can be either the zchus of the ma’aseh hakrava or the zchus of having a korban brought on your behalf, the rei’ach nicho’ach aspect of the korban. If you say that the zchus avos is the zchus of their ma’aseh hakravah, that just as they were makriv, it is as if we were makriv, (and not the zchus of the korban,) so this only is legitimate and helpful if the person is a kohen whose avodah is kosher. But there is also a din that saying the parshah brings the zchus of the rei’ach nicho’ach of the korban, i.e., that it is as if a korban was brought for us, then even a Yisroel will benefit. And there is no reason to think that one din is more mistavra than the other, and both dinim are true, so a kohen’s amira is as if he was makriv, and a yisroel’s amirah is as if he brought a korban and it was nikrav on his behalf. (This question might revolve around the Gemara in Nazir and Kiddushin about Shluchi de'Rachmana or Shluchi didan.)
This is meyasheiv all three kashes: the kashe on the Chofetz Chaim’s son in law (because the Yalkut that limits it to kohanim is the response to the min that said that avodah is boteil, and the proper response is that through the amirah of kohanim the avodah is eternal), the kashe that nobody limits amiras korbonos to kohanim (because although kohanim may have the additional aspect of the zchus of avodah, everyone has the zchus of the kiyum hamitzvah of bringing the korban), and the kashe on the Chazon Yechezkel from the Magen Avraham (because R’ Abramsky is talking about the zchus of the rei’ach nicho’ach, not the zchus of the avodah).
I know about the Baal Hatanya in #37, and I don't want to put it in here, because it is not my mesora. So please don't send me comments about his pshat in the Gemara in Menachos, thank you.
Next ke'ilu: Shomeia Ke'oneh.
Rashi in Sukkah 38b says that one who is in the middle of Shmoneh Esrei when the tzibbur is saying Kaddish or Kedushah should stop and listen quietly, thus answering through Shomeia Ke'oneh. Rabbeinu Tam and the Ri in Tosfos Brachos 21b ask on Rashi that if shomeia is really ke'oneh, then it should have a din hefsek. (They say that Rashi is wrong ahl pi svara, but "gadol haminhag," so go ahead and do like Rashi anyway.) Here, too, we see a machlokes as to the extent of Ke'. (There are many other ways to answer Tosfos' kashe without saying that Rashi holds like the Drisha, though. Example: The Tzlach in Psachim 56a holds that a whisper is not a hefsek, like in Baruch Shem in Krias Shma. So even if Rashi holds like the Taz, the ke'oneh would not be worse than a whisper.)
This is getting too long. Unless you or I can think of a really interesting machlokes about another ke'ilu, that will be it. Nathan- thanks for mentioning Ke'ilu hu yatza mimitzrayim, but it doesn't say "yotzei," it says "yatza."
But considering that Shavuos is around the corner, here's one good thing to end with. Kiddushin 30a.