Midrash su Deuteronomio 12:24

"You shall not cook": This tells me only that cooking it is forbidden. Whence to I derive (the same for) eating it? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the Pesach offering, which is not forbidden to be cooked, is forbidden to be eaten, meat and milk, which is forbidden to be cooked, how much more so may they not be eaten! __ No, this may be true of the Pesach offering, which may not be cooked in any liquid — wherefore it may not be eaten. Would you say the same for meat and milk, which (meat) is not forbidden, wherefore it should not be forbidden to be eaten? R. Akiva says: It need not be written (that eating meat and milk is forbidden), for it follows a fortiori, viz.: If the thigh sinew (gid hanasheh), which is not forbidden to be cooked, is forbidden to be eaten, then meat and milk, which is forbidden to be cooked, how much more so should it be forbidden to be eaten! __ No, this may be true of the thigh sinew, which was forbidden before the giving of the Torah, wherefore it is forbidden to be eaten, as opposed to meat and milk, which was not forbidden before the giving of the Torah, wherefore it should not be forbidden to be eaten. This is refuted by (the instance of) carrion, which, even though it was not forbidden before the giving of the Torah, is forbidden to be eaten. __ No, this may be true of carrion, which confers tumah by being carried, as opposed to meat and milk, which does not confer tumah by being carried! __ This is refuted by the instance of fats and blood, which, though they do not confer tumah by being carried are forbidden to be eaten, so that meat and milk, likewise, though it does not confer tumah by being carried, should be forbidden to be eaten. __ No, this (that they may not be eaten) may be true of fats and blood, which are liable to kareth, as opposed to meat and milk, which is not liable to kareth. It must, therefore, be written (Devarim 12:24) "You shall not eat it," to include meat and milk as forbidden to be eaten. Issi says (Ibid. 23) "You shall not eat the life with the flesh" — to include meat (cooked) in milk as forbidden to be eaten. Issi b. Guria says: "Holiness" is mentioned here (in respect to meat and milk [Devarim 14:21]), and "holiness" is mentioned elsewhere (Exodus 22:30) "And men of holiness shall you be unto Me, and flesh in the field, treifah (torn) you shall not eat." Just as there, eating is forbidden, so, here. This tells me only of the prohibition against eating. Whence do I derive the prohibition against the derivation of benefit? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If it is forbidden to derive benefit from arlah (the fruit of trees of the first three years), with which no transgression has been done, how much more so from meat cooked in milk, with which a transgression (the cooking) has been done! __ No, this may be true of arlah, which was never permitted, as opposed to meat and milk, which was permitted (before the cooking)! __ This is refuted by chametz on Pesach, which was permitted (before Pesach) and from which benefit may not be derived. __ No, this may be true of chametz on Pesach, which is liable to kareth (cutting-off), as opposed to (cooking) meat and milk, which is not liable to kareth. __ This is refuted by klai hakerem (forbidden hybridization of plants), which, though not liable to kareth is forbidden in the derivation of benefit. Rebbi says: It is written (Devarim 14:21) "… or sell it to the gentile. You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk." Scripture hereby tells us: If you sell it, do not cook it and sell it — whence it is derived that it is forbidden in the derivation of benefit. "You shall not cook a kid, etc.": This tells me only of its mother's milk. Whence do I derive (the same for) its older sister's milk? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If it is forbidden to cook it in the milk of its mother, who does not enter the shed alone with it to be tithed, how much more so is it forbidden in the milk of its sister, who does enter the shed along with it to be tithed! Whence is (the same derived for cooking) its flesh in its own milk? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If re shechitah (slaughtering), where "fruit" with "fruit" is permitted (i.e., it is permitted to slaughter two siblings on the same day), "fruit" (child) with mother is forbidden, then here (re cooking) where "fruit" (child) with "fruit" (milk) is forbidden, how much more so is it forbidden to cook "fruit" (milk) with mother! Whence is (the same derived for cooking) the milk of goats with sheep? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If in reviah (mating of animals) where the Torah permitted "fruit" with mother (in cooking) it forbade "fruit" with (milk of) mother, then here where in reviah it forbade "fruit with fruit" (i.e., mating goat and sheep), how much more so does it forbid (in cooking) "fruit" with (milk of) mother! And this is, likewise, the halachah for cattle. Why, then, does Scripture speak (specifically) of a goat? Because a mother goat has a plentiful supply of milk. Rebbi says: It is written here "its mother," and elsewhere (Leviticus 22:27) "its mother." Just as there Scripture writes "ox, sheep, or goat," so here (these are intended).