Comentário sobre Gênesis 3:3

ולא תגעו בו NEITHER SHALL YE TOUCH IT — She added to God’s command (which did not forbid touching the tree, but only eating of its fruit) therefore she was led to diminish from it. It is to this that the text refers (Proverbs 30:6): “Add thou not unto His words” (Genesis Rabbah 19:3).

But of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the Garden: And she did not specify it - "But from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" - since Adam had not explained to her that it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. As he was concerned, lest she pine to eat it. For only Adam, who clung to God with love, did not desire to do good for itself, since God's will was that he not know good and evil. But Adam had to concern himself about revealing the cause and the reason to the woman, who did not know about the love of God. Hence he simply said to her, "of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the Garden." And do not ask, "If so, the tree of life is also included in this." As, in truth, with this, we can understand that which Onkelos translated above (Onkelos Genesis on Genesis 2:9), "and the tree of life was in the middle of the Garden; and the tree from which the fruit, if eaten, gives knowledge (to differentiate) between good and evil"; and he did not explain about eating the fruit of the tree of life. However it is shown from this that the tree of life does not [have] fruit at all, but rather leaves for medicine. [This is] like the way of [the true] purpose, which is not pleasurable to the palate, but is rather pleasure and enjoyment of God. That is not the case with the tree of knowledge of good and evil - the purpose brings physical enjoyment. Because of that, when Adam said, "But from the fruit of the tree," she understood through it, that she was only prohibited from the tree that had fruit in it. But it appears to me that Adam was not concerned about this - that she not also eat from the tree of life. However it was worthwhile to distance her from that place. And because of that, he also said, "and do not touch it." And we have already explained that this is hinted to in the word of God, that He forbade [the tree] also for benefit. But [Adam] explicitly warned about this, and said, "lest you die." As he could not say, "since you will die" certainly, as they would not die for the touching alone, but rather lest they would come from this to eating. And all the more so [is this the case] according to our words - that he warned her about the two trees, lest she eat from the tree of knowledge and die. But she did not know the intent, as to why he used an expression of doubt (lest). So she just said that Adam told her, "lest you die." And from this, the serpent found room to deny [it]. And note that Adam said to her, "But of the fruit," because only from them is there a concern about death .

You certainly will not die. If Chavah had not ascribed a rational explanation to the prohibition (“lest you die”) but merely said that Hashem had commanded it, the serpent could not have lured her into sin by challenging her explanation.

ולא תגעו, neither must you touch it. This is the plain meaning of the verse. We find that the Torah does forbid something that is forbidden to eat, i.e. a carcass that did not die through ritual slaughter. (Compare Leviticus 11,8, where the halachic meaning is that it must not be touched when the purpose is to eat it.) The truth is that when one adds a restriction to G-d’s commandment, instead of improving it, one causes harm to it, makes it less effective instead of more effective. Seeing that the additional restriction had not been issued by G-d directly, it is less than useless. (Compare Sanhedrin 29).