This is making me hungry.
Wouldn't "kaj mangxi" be "...and to eat"?
Well, it technically is eat. The only reason we have to before eat is to differentiate between the 'conjugated' versions from I eat and they eat. English is weird, and in this sentence there is no to.
So the "to" is like the infinitive article in the sense that it's just contextually implied?
Yeah, because you say "to go and eat" you can miss the second "to" before "eat". Saying "I want to go and to eat" is awkwardly wordy.
You are right, however in English there would be parallelism in form between the two infinitives so you would only need the one 'to' for it to be understood, but it technically is to go and to eat which it accepts now