Q. Dear Rabbi.
I found a parrot on my backyard a few days ago and I placed found-a-parrot signs on the posts on the neighborhood. A Jewish neighbor came shortly after and gave as a siman, a name (his) that the parrot repeats when it sees him. Can I rely on the parrot’s cognition and return it to the claimer?
Thanks so much for a fast reply (not equipped to deal with the bird)

A. A main issue is that requires clarification is what is the status of the majority of neighbors, are they Jewish or Gentile. If non-Jewish, you don’t have the restrictions involved in the mitzva of Hashovas Aveida and you can return it or not at your will and conviction.
Rema (Shulchan Aruch C.M. 259: 7) rules that geese and chickens that rebelled and escaped their masters property, since they are hard to retrieve, they became hefker or ownerless and do not have to be returned. Choshen Aharon (p. 71) is in doubt whether parrots are similar to the above fowls or once conditioned to captivity are easier to catch. (See also Hayoshor Vehatov p. 97 in regards to yiush or giving up in a similar shaileh)
In regards to if the parrots cognition is a good siman or no, the Mishna (Sota 31a) mentions about one who issued a warning to his wife not to seclude herself with a certain man and then becomes aware of the seclusion, even from a bird in flight. Tiferes Yisroel (ibid.) explains that we are dealing with a talking parrot, that gave away her secret. Although the information gathered, according to Rabi Eliezer is enough in that case, it is only so because there no formal testimony is required.
Chashukei Chemed (Shabbos 107a) deals with a similar shaileh. He rules that one may not rely on the parrot’s name callings abilities for the purposes of deciding who the parrot’s owner is, when the ownership is being contested in Beis Din, if the claimant has no possession and wants to use the above to prove his proprietorship. The reason is that the claimant may have been indeed once the bird’s owner, but sold it, and the bird still remembers him.
However in a case of hashovas aveidah, although the finder has possession, since he is only interested in returning the bird to its rightful owner and does not claim ownership for himself, he possibly may rely on the name calling as a siman. Horav Akiva Steinmetz Shlit’a pointed out that in our case the siman is more significant, since the alleged owner provided the key word before it was articulated by the parrot Preferably, he should try to use a better distinguishing mark.

Rabbi A. Bartfeld