Abu Dawud

Benefits and Issues:
➊ The animal killed by a dog that was not trained is not lawful (halal).
➋ This ruling applies even if the dog was released after reciting "Bismillah".
➌ However, if one is able to perform slaughter (dhabh) on the animal, then after slaughtering it, its consumption will be permissible.

Hadith Commentary: Benefits and Issues: The view of Aisha (radi Allahu anha) was that it is permissible to perform prayer after ‘Asr, because the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) used to perform two units (rak‘ahs) of prayer at her home after ‘Asr. However, it is not permissible to intentionally and deliberately perform prayer at the time of sunset. As for Umar (radi Allahu anhu), he used to prohibit people from praying after ‘Asr, because he said that if people are permitted at this time, they will begin to pray at the time of sunset.

Explanation:
1:
The apparent meaning of the hadith is that if other vessels are available, then even after washing the vessels of the Jews and Christians, they should not be used.
(Wallahu a‘lam)

Benefits and Issues:
➊ According to need and necessity, hunting and going in search of it is not blameworthy; what is blameworthy is that a person becomes heedless of his other religious and worldly obligations.

➋ If the taste and smell of food and drink items become spoiled to such an extent that they may be harmful, then they should not be used. However, if no clear harm is apparent, then it is permissible.

Benefits and Issues:
Since when releasing a hunting dog or shooting with a bow, "Bismillah" is recited,
then whatever dies in this manner is lawful (halal).
If it is found alive, then recite "Bismillah" and slaughter it.

Benefits and Issues:
The original issue is the same
as has passed in the authentic ahadith mentioned earlier,
that if the dog has eaten from the game, then eating it is not permissible.
For this reason, some scholars have declared this hadith to be munkar (contradictory to authentic ahadith).
And this view is more correct.
And some individuals, due to this hadith, hold the opinion that the game remains lawful even if the hunting dog has eaten from it.
And some have interpreted it as follows:
that the hunting dog first caught and killed the game, then left it for the owner and went away from there.
Then, if it returns again and eats some of it, in this case its eating is not harmful.
It is permissible for the owner to eat from this game.
Because initially, it hunted for the owner,
and kept it reserved for him, and only ate from it afterwards, so this eating will not be taken into consideration.