Obligation to slaughter game animals

It is reasonable to assume that when the Torah permits hunting, it permits hunting in its present form (the written word is speaking in the present). To the best of my knowledge, the common form of hunting in ancient times was with ordinary hunting tools (bow or spear) and not with traps. This verse implies that hunting in the ordinary way is permitted with one restriction of shedding blood and covering it. However, the words of Chazal imply that hunting in the ordinary way is strictly forbidden. This is the contradiction I was talking about in my original question. My proposal to resolve the contradiction is that the entire obligation of slaughter is for cattle and sheep - that is, animals that are kosher for sacrifice, and there all the laws of mundane slaughter apply. But not for game animals.

Perhaps it should be sweetened a little, because in the Bible, a fortress is also used in the language of a trap (”which is a trap and a spoil” and the interpreters of the language of a net, such as ‘He will catch him with his spoil and gather him in his net’). In Aramaic, a trap is translated as a trap from the middle. And a pit (as in a pit for a trap) is translated as a fortress (caught in their corruption, caught in the midst of their wickedness).

By the way, Oren, how do you make a quote as beautiful as you did?

What you are saying is possible, but requires a positive basis and not just a possibility. This is a halakhic question and the Talmud and the poskim say otherwise.

For Cardigan, only when raising a question can such a quote be made by highlighting the part you want to quote and pressing Shift+Alt+Q.

I looked into this issue again and found several sources that can resolve the contradiction:

Rambam Hilchot Shechita, Chapter 4, 17-18:
When Israel was in the desert, they were not commanded to slaughter the unblemished, but they would snore or slaughter and eat like the other nations, and it was commanded in the desert that anyone who wanted to slaughter should not slaughter anything but whole animals, as it is said, “Every man of the house of Israel who slaughters an ox, etc., and to the door of the Tent of Meeting, etc., so that they may bring, etc., and sacrifice peace offerings to the Lord, etc., but whoever wanted to snore and eat in the desert would snore.
And this commandment does not apply to generations except in the desert only during the time of the permission of snoring, and it was commanded there that when they entered the land, snoring would be prohibited and they would not eat anything except by slaughtering, and they would slaughter everywhere forever except for the help as it is said that the Lord your God will enlarge your border and the sacrifice of your cattle and your flock which the Lord your God has given you, and this is the commandment that applies to generations to slaughter and then eat.

That is to say, some of the verses are relevant only to the desert and not to generations, and some are relevant only to generations and not to the desert. Thus, any contradiction between verses can be resolved by casting one side to the time of the desert and the other side to the time of the generations.

And I also saw another source in the Rambam that explains the way of learning from which they learned that there is an obligation to slaughter even animals and birds.

Rambam Laws of Slaughter 1:1:
It is a mitzvah that whoever wishes to eat the flesh of a living animal or a bird should slaughter it and then eat it, as it is said, "And you shall sacrifice from your cattle and your sheep," and it is said of the firstborn with a defect, but when he eats the deer and the ram, did you not learn that a living animal is like a living animal for the purpose of slaughter? And with the bird, he says, "Whoever hunts an animal or a bird and sheds its blood" and teaches that shedding the blood of the bird is like shedding the blood of the animal.

I also saw that the Rambam went to great lengths to explain why predation resulting from regular hunting is forbidden (meaning that the simple understanding is that it is indeed permissible, and only with a deeper understanding can the prohibition in question be understood):

Rambam Laws of Forbidden Foods Chapter 4; Laws 6; – 8:

Halacha 6
The one who eats as much as an olive from the flesh of a pure animal or bird that was eaten by a blemish, as it is said, and meat in the field is prey, you shall not eat it to the dog; you shall throw it to the dog. The prey mentioned in this Torah was devoured by a wild animal, such as a lion and a leopard, and the like, and also a bird that was devoured by a bird of prey, such as a hawk, and the like. And you cannot say that it was devoured and killed. If it died, then it is a corpse. And what do I have to say that it died of itself, or that it was struck with a sword and killed, or that it was torn apart by a lion and killed? Does he not speak only of its being torn apart and not dead?

Halacha 7
And if the prey that did not die is forbidden, it is possible that if a wolf came and dragged the kid by its leg or tail or ear and chased a man and saved him from his mouth, it would be forbidden, since the Talmud teaches to say, and meat in the field is prey, etc. You shall throw it to the dog until it makes it meat fit for the dog. Have you learned that the predation mentioned in the Torah is when a wild animal devours it and breaks it and tends to die and still does not die, even though it was slaughtered before it died? This is forbidden as predation, since it is impossible for it to live from this blow that comes upon it.

Halacha 8
It is found that the Torah forbade the dead, and she is the corpse, and forbade the one who is prone to die because of her wounds, and even though she is not yet dead and she is the one who is devoured. And just as it does not distinguish between a dead person and a person who died of her own accord, whether she fell and died, whether she was strangled to death, whether she was trampled by an animal and killed, so it does not distinguish between a person who is prone to die, whether she was devoured by an animal and broke it, whether she fell from the roof and most of her ribs were broken, whether she fell and her limbs were shattered, whether an arrow was thrown into her and pierced her heart or lung, whether she fell ill because of herself and pierced her heart or lung, or broke most of her ribs, and the like. Since she is prone to die from any cause, then this is devouring, whether the cause was in the hands of flesh and blood or in the hands of heaven. So why does the Torah say that devouring is the word written in the present tense? If it does not say so, it does not prohibit except that which was devoured in the field, but if it was devoured in the yard, it does not prohibit. Have you learned that the Scripture speaks only in the present tense?

I didn't understand. After all, it says here that slaughter is required.

Yes, but it also says that in the desert there was no need for slaughter and it seems that it was possible to hunt as usual, which explains the verse about hunting.

So nowadays slaughter is needed.

And now take your quiver and your bow and go out to the field and hunt game for me.

And if any man of the children of Israel or of the stranger who sojourns among you hunts any beast or bird that he may eat, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust.

The main thing is not to drink blood. And before that, not to slaughter sacrifices for the Lord. All the rituals and grammar of slaughter have no basis and certainly no importance from the Torah.

The world is upside down. Today, the laws of slaughter have the same importance as the Sabbath. But the laws of Shmita and Jubilee and the prohibition of interest-bearing loans, these important things from the Torah's perspective, are violated without blinking an eye.