[Baba Kama 41a] Why does the Torah not simply state - where appropriate - that one may not benefit from the animal and thereby imply one is also not allowed to eat it rather than stating one may not eat it and leaving the issue of benefiting for deliberation in the Talmud?

Shalom, Thank you for your question. I’m not sure of the answer in every case – but in many cases we learn extra laws from the fact that the Torah uses the words forbidding eating rather than just benefiting, even though eating should be assumed under the rule of benefiting. For example, Rabbi Akiva Eiger points out that we learn that “gid ha’nasher” is forbidden to eat. If so, it is also forbidden to benefit from. But if we eat it alone it has no taste, which would not be a forbidden benefit. None the less, it is still forbidden as it says in the Torah that it is forbidden to eat it – in any form, apparently even when there is no benefit. Another example would be how much does one have to eat, or benefit, in order for it to be forbidden by the Torah. All “benefit” is usually measured by the value of a prutah. However eating is measured by the size of a keziet. Now, if the Torah only taught us that these things were forbidden to benefit from, we would think that a person only breaks the law if they ate a prutahs worth – which might be more than a keziet. Now that the Torah words the law using “eating” we know that even a keziets worth is forbidden by the Torah (see also Rabbi Akiva Eigher, Responsa 104). I hope this is a start for you to delve deeper and find other answers as well. Blessings.