Most likely, when the Torah permits hunting, it permits hunting in its usual form—the Torah speaks in the common manner of things. As far as I know, the common form of hunting in the ancient period was with ordinary hunting tools (a bow or spear), not with traps. This verse implies that ordinary hunting is permitted, with one limitation: spilling the blood and covering it. But from the words of the Sages it seems that ordinary hunting is definitely forbidden. That’s the contradiction I was referring to in my original question. My suggestion for resolving the contradiction is that the whole obligation of slaughter applies only to cattle and sheep—that is, animals fit for sacrifice—and there all the laws of non-sacrificial slaughter apply. But not to wild game.

Maybe this can be softened a bit, since even in the Hebrew Bible, “hunt” is used in the sense of a trap (“for she is nets and snares,” and Rashi explains: an expression of netting, like “he draws them up with his net and gathers them in his dragnet”). In Aramaic too, “he spread a net” is translated as “he spread a trap.” And also “pit” (as in “they dug a pit to catch me”) is translated as “fortification/trap” (“caught in their corruption” is translated: “seized in the trap of their snares”).

By the way, Oren, how do you make such a nice quote like the one you did?

What you’re saying is possible, but it requires a positive basis, not just a possibility. This is a halakhic question, and the Talmud and the halakhic decisors do not say that.

To Cardigno: you can only make a quote like that when submitting a question, by marking the part you want to quote and pressing Shift+Alt+Q.

I looked into this topic again and found a few sources that could resolve the contradiction:

Maimonides, Laws of Slaughter, chapter 4, sections 17–18:

When Israel were in the wilderness, they were not commanded regarding the slaughter of ordinary meat; rather, they would stab or slaughter and eat, like the other nations. In the wilderness they were commanded that anyone who wished to slaughter should slaughter only peace-offerings, as it says: “Any man of the house of Israel who slaughters an ox…” and “to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting…” and “so that they may bring…” and “they shall slaughter peace-offerings to the Lord….” But one who wished to stab and eat in the wilderness would stab.
This commandment did not apply for future generations, but only in the wilderness, during the time when stabbing was permitted. There they were commanded that when they entered the land, stabbing would become forbidden, and they would not eat ordinary meat except through slaughter. And they would slaughter everywhere forever, outside the Temple courtyard, as it says: “When the Lord your God enlarges your border…” and “you shall slaughter from your cattle and from your flock that the Lord your God has given you….” This is the commandment that applies for future generations: to slaughter and afterward eat.

That is, it seems that some of the verses are relevant only to the wilderness period and not to future generations, and some are relevant only to future generations and not to the wilderness period. So any contradiction between verses can be resolved by assigning one side to the wilderness period and the other to later generations.

And I also saw another source in Maimonides that explains the method of derivation from which they learned that there is an obligation of slaughter also for wild animals and birds.

Maimonides, Laws of Slaughter 1:1:

It is a positive commandment that one who wishes to eat the meat of domesticated animals, wild animals, or birds must slaughter and then eat, as it says: “You shall slaughter from your cattle and from your flock.” And regarding a firstborn with a blemish it says: “Only as the gazelle and the deer are eaten”; from this you learn that a wild animal is like a domesticated animal regarding slaughter. And regarding birds it says: “Who hunts any beast or bird…” and “he shall pour out its blood,” teaching that the spilling of the blood of a bird is like the spilling of the blood of a wild animal.

And I also saw that Maimonides went on at length to explain why an animal rendered non-kosher through ordinary hunting is forbidden (which seems to imply that the simple understanding really is that this is permitted, and only on deeper analysis can one understand why it is forbidden):

Maimonides, Laws of Forbidden Foods, chapter 4, sections 6–8:

Section 6
One who eats an olive’s bulk of the meat of a kosher domesticated animal, wild animal, or bird that was rendered torn/maimed incurs lashes, as it says: “And flesh that is torn in the field you shall not eat; you shall cast it to the dogs.” The torn animal mentioned in the Torah is one torn by a wild beast, such as a lion, leopard, and the like; and similarly a bird attacked by a predatory bird such as a hawk and the like. You cannot say that it means it was torn and killed, for if it is dead, it is a carcass; and what difference does it make whether it died on its own, or was struck with a sword and killed, or was mauled by a lion and killed? Rather, it speaks only of one that was torn but did not die.

Section 7
And if a torn animal that did not die is forbidden, one might think that if a wolf came and dragged a kid by its leg, tail, or ear, and a person chased after it and rescued it from its mouth, it would be forbidden, since it was attacked. Therefore Scripture says: “And flesh that is torn in the field… you shall cast it to the dogs”—only once it has been made into flesh fit for a dog. From this you learn that the torn animal mentioned in the Torah is one that a wild beast attacked and broke, leaving it inclined to die though it has not yet died. Even if one hurried and slaughtered it before it died, it is forbidden as a torn animal, since it cannot live after such an injury.

Section 8
You thus learn that the Torah forbade one that is dead—that is a carcass—and it also forbade one inclined to die because of its injuries, even though it has not yet died—and that is the torn animal. Just as you do not distinguish in the case of death between one that died on its own, one that fell and died, one that was strangled until it died, or one trampled by a wild beast and killed, so too you do not distinguish in the case of one inclined to die: whether a wild beast tore it and broke it, or it fell from a roof and most of its ribs were broken, or it fell and its limbs were crushed, or someone shot an arrow into it and pierced its heart or lung, or it became ill on its own and its heart or lung was pierced or most of its ribs were broken, and the like. Since it is inclined to die in any case, it is a torn animal, whether the cause was by human hands or by Heaven. If so, why does the Torah say “torn”? Scripture speaks of the usual case. For if you do not say this, then only one torn in the field would be forbidden, but if it was torn in a courtyard it would not be forbidden. So you learn that Scripture is speaking only of the usual case.

I didn’t understand. Bottom line, it says here that slaughter is required.

Yes, but it also says that in the wilderness slaughter wasn’t required, and it seems that ordinary hunting was possible there, which explains the verse about hunting.

So nowadays slaughter is required.

“Now then, please take your gear, your quiver and your bow, and go out to the field and hunt me some game.”

“And any man of the children of Israel, or of the stranger who sojourns among them, who hunts any beast or bird that may be eaten, shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.”

The main point is not to drink blood. And before that, not to slaughter sacrifices for idol worship. All the slaughter rituals and their fine details have no basis, and certainly no importance, from the Torah’s perspective.

An upside-down world. Today the laws of slaughter are treated as being as important as the Sabbath. But the laws of the Sabbatical year and Jubilee, and the prohibition on lending with interest—which are the things important from the Torah’s perspective—are violated without batting an eye.