Quotation for Pesachim 42:1

He prohibited [us] from eating meat with milk. And that is His also saying, "you shall not cook, etc.," a second time (Exodus 34:26) - meaning to say, the prohibition of eating [it]. And in Chullin (Chullin 114a), they said, "Milk and meat - one is lashed for its cooking, and lashed for its eating." And in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 21b), they said, "One who cooks a sciatic nerve in milk on a holiday and eats it is lashed five [sets of] lashes: On account of eating a [sciatic] nerve; on account of cooking on a holiday; on account of cooking meat and milk; on account of eating meat cooked with milk; and on account of kindling [a fire]." And there (Makkot 22a), they said, "Remove kindling, and insert [the use of] consecrated wood - the prohibition of which is from here: 'And their tree-gods you shall burn in fire […] you shall not do so to the Lord, your God' (Deuteronomy 12:3–4)." And in the Gemara, Chullin (Chullin 114a), they said, "The [Torah] expressed eating with a term of cooking, so that like if he cooked, he is lashed; he is also lashed for eating." And in the second [chapter] of Pesachim (Pesachim 21b), they said, "Because of this did [the Torah] not write about eating meat with milk explicitly - to say that we give lashes for it even when [consumed] not according to the way of its enjoyment." And remember this. And here it is appropriate for me to note an important principle that I have not yet mentioned. And that is His saying, "you shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk" three times; and the Teachers have said that each one of the negative statements is for [specific] content: And they said (Chullin 115b), "One is for eating, one is for cooking and one is for benefit." But the questioner will ask and say, "For what reason did you count the prohibition of its eating and its cooking as two commandments, yet you do not count the prohibition of its benefit as a separate commandment?" The questioner should know that it is inappropriate to count its benefit as a separate commandment, since it and its eating are the same matter. And His saying about something that is forbidden to eat is indeed one of several examples of benefit. But the intention is that he not benefit from it, not by eating and not by anything else. And that is their saying (Pesachim 21b), "Wherever it is stated, 'You shall not eat'; 'It shall not be eaten' - both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of benefit are implied; until the verse specifies that one may benefit, in the manner that it specified with regard to a carcass." As Scripture explained the use of that, and that is His saying, "you may give it to the resident alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it" (Deuteronomy 14:21). And according to this principle, it is inappropriate to count the prohibition of eating and benefit as two commandments. And if we had counted them [as] two commandments with meat with milk, it would have likewise been appropriate with chametz, with orlah (fruit of trees during their first three years) and with forbidden mixtures of the vineyard - that each one of them be two commandments - if the prohibition of benefit is its own commandment. But since these were not counted, but rather only the negative commandment of eating, alone, was counted - and the prohibition of benefit was included in this prohibition - the same should occur regarding meat with milk. And only one question remains about this. And that is that one could say, "Since the prohibition of benefit ensues from the prohibition of eating, for what purpose did Scripture need a negative statement about meat and milk, to forbid its benefit, as we explained?" Behold the answer to this is that it is needed regarding this because it is not written, "Do not eat from this" - from which eating and benefit would have been forbidden. Hence a negative statement to forbid benefit was required. And we have already mentioned the reason for which the eating of meat with milk was not mentioned: For anything about which it mentions eating is only liable when his throat derives enjoyment from it. However, if he open his mouth and swallows what is forbidden, or it is [so] hot as to burn his throat, he is exempt - except for meat with milk, about which one is liable for its eating even if he did not derive enjoyment from it, as we mentioned. And likewise [is the case with] forbidden mixtures of the vineyard, as we will explain after this (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 193). And understand all of these principles and remember them. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 8 of Chullin. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 9.)