Parrot Peeves

Prologue: "Some recall him L'Shevach and some L'Genai." It is a very well known statement of the Midrash that people often can parrot from Rashi concerning Noach. While many commentaries struggle to reconcile the two opinions, one could simply ask himself why we are daring to deify or vilify Noach? Additionally, while trying to reconcile the two opinions (In his generation he was a Tzaddik vs. not being the Tzaddik of Avraham's character) we must ask ourselves why Chazal use such strong, diametrically opposing recollections of Noach (Shevach and Genai) when it seems as if the Midrash is merely trying to contrast Noach in different situations and terms like 'Tzaddik' vs. 'less Tzaddik' would apply better?

Moreinu Harav Yosef Blau Shlita (Sichos, 5760) suggested that when talking about Noach one must remember that Chazal were not simply contrasting him with Avraham or the people of his generation. Rather, from a closer examination of Chazal, it appears that the two positions taken were taken about Noach himself. (Yesh Dorshin OSO L'Shvach) The statements are made about Noach and clearly concern him. Harav Blau shlita suggested that Noach the man, later classified himself following the flood. As the Possuk tells us, he went from Ish Tzaddik to Ish Ha'adama. In fact, he did not go from one level to the other. Rather, when there was no one left in the world and he was to begin anew,

Noach was who he was, an Ish Ha'adama. The question of Shevach or Genai is a question of discussing how this man dealt with his own life. L'Genai, he was a Tzaddik only in the face of adversity. Avraham, by contrast, was a Tzaddik all the time. Lacking the ability to rise to the occasion all the time is a Genai of Noach.

Others disagree. They feel that the ability to stand up to adversity, especially when the individual's internal locus of character is somewhat weaker, is a marked Shevach. Noach was an Ish Ha'Adama. He could not convince the people of his generation to stay off the flood. Still, this individual did not succumb to the pressures of society. He did not parrot the actions of the world around him and stood up to that world for himself anyway.

That is a Shevach and a strong one according to this position (See TBP-YIJE, 5759).

Hence, when discussing a character who appears in a Sefer of Ma'aseh Avos Siman L'Banim, Chazal dare to try to discuss the power of Noach's activities. As a Tzaddik he could withstand adversity against his nature (of Ish Ha'Adama) and withstand society because he knew they were wrong. However, as a full role model, he was not able to withstand himself, he lacked the consistency of an Avraham. These two statements are ones about Noach the person and are, by definition diametrically opposed.

Often when facing challenges or tough decisions we are called upon to make decisions. Sometimes we can withstand the 'peer pressure' while at other times we feel overwhelmed. However, society is quickly developing a new category of decision making. This category refuses to recognize a decision. It turns down the right to think and merely mimicks patterns the individual has learned without providing much thought to the decision-making process. It leaves us like parrots in our own homes. This week's Chaburah discusses the appropriateness of having parrots in our homes entitled:

********* Pet Peeves *********

The Maharsha (Sotah 48a) commenting on the Possuk "Kol Yishorer BaChalon," notes that the singing voices in the window referred to in the Possuk are a reference to birds that are placed there for the purposes of their singing in order to relax the listener. Rava decides that a home that has song in it will ultimately have destruction in it.

Based upon the Maharsha, it seems as if one could not own parrots or canaries which are purchased simply for their ability to relax their owners with their voices.

The Shut Chessed Yehoshua quotes the Midrash (VaYikra Rabba, 22) which notes that Rav Shimon was Makpid not to allow a bird that was Tamai to sing in his Pardes. He adds that all singing birds are Tamei and therefore it is wrong to keep these birds in one's home.

To this, the Beis Yosef (Yoreh Deah, 117) argues that one may raise birds that are Tamai including the singing ones, so long as he does not raise them for profit. When discussing the Halacha, the Michaber (Y.D. 117) writes that something that is Assur Min HaTorah to eat but that one can derive benefit from, is Assur to raise for business purposes. The Birkei Yosef (2) and Darchei Teshuva (10) write that based upon the Michaber's Psak we have a Heter to raise birds that sing, for non-business purposes.

The Kaf HaChaim (5) notes that the Levush and Maharikash note that one can raise birds that are Tamai for decoration or entertainment or even for business. The Maharikash adds the category of animals used for riding. As for the Shulchan Aruch's Psak about Tamei birds, these sources seem to understand that the Psak referred specifically to birds whose sole purpose was for food. The Shulchan Hatahor offers a different explanation for a Heter. He maintains that it is only Tamei birds that are known to be consumed are Assur to raise. Other types, even if Tamei, would be Mutar.

So, based on the above it would seem that one can raise canaries or parrots at least based upon the Heter of the Shulchan Aruch so long as one does not intend on selling them.

The Shut B'tzel Hachochma (V, 35) notes a different reason for the Heter to own parrots and canaries. He quotes the Gemara (Shabbos 152a) which takes the position that birds wake a man in his old age (See Kohelet, 12:4). The Maharsha, in explaining that Gemara notes that most people raise birds in their home to sing them to sleep. However, these birds tend to wake a man in his old age. Based upon this Gemara's premise, we see people are allowed to raise the "singing birds" in their homes. How can we explain the apparent contradiction between the Gemara in Sotah and in Shabbos and the parallel Maharsha commentaries?

The B’tzel Hachochma answers that the Gemara in Sotah refers to raising animals after the Churban. Then, the Issur discussed, is the one against having instuments in one's home for musical purposes (See Orach Chaim 560:3 for further explanation). The Gemara in Shabbos speaks about Kohelet. Kohelet lived during the time of the Beis Hamikdash when instruments and parrots and canaries were Mutar to have at home.

Either way, according to the Beis Yosef and Birkei Yosef, one can own and raise parrots even after Churban Bayis. They were not even concerned for the problem of Tamei birds.