פּירוש אויף בראשית 3:2

ותאמר, not so, said Chavah; G’d did not deny us the fruit of more than one single tree which is בתוך הגן שאמר לנו לא תאכלו מממנו ולא תגעו בו פן תמותון in the middle of the garden of which He has forbidden us to eat on pain of death. Perhaps it is in the nature of that tree that its fruit causes death to anyone eating from it. The meaning of the word פן in that verse is the same as אולי or שמא , “maybe.” G’d told Adam that he would certainly die if he ate from it, as the Torah wrote literally in 2,17 “on the day you will eat from it you will certainly die.” Seeing that she had not quoted the prohibition correctly as G’d had not said anything about maybe dying as a result of eating from the tree, we must assume that Chavah had invented this word meaning for it to apply to touching the tree, an addition which had been altogether her own. She meant to say that G’d so loves us that He denied us to touch the tree as a safeguard against eating from it.
An alternate way of explaining the words פן תמותון is similar to פן תשיב את בני שמה which Avraham warned Eliezer about (Genesis 24,6) which meant “do not bring back!” or Genesis 30,24) פן תדבר עם יעקב, “do not speak to Yaakov, etc.,” G’d warning Lavan.

עץ הגן נאכלת, “we can eat from the trees of the garden and do not need to endanger our lives by eating from the tree that G’d has prohibited us to eat from on pain of death.” Having said this, however, her power of imagination kept nagging at her weighing the possibility that G’d might indeed be jealous of competition from his creature. Her doubt, i.e. the voice of the evil urge, was expressed in the words

ותאמר האשה. Eve said, etc. Eve answered the serpent very intelligently, addressing all the three points which we described the serpent as having made. Concerning the first argument that all the trees were forbidden, Eve said that this was not so, that only the tree in the centre of the garden was prohibited. Concerning the argument that all the other trees were really earthed branches of the tree of knowledge she argued that this was quite irrelevant. It might have been relevant if G'd had not specifically permitted the fruit of all the other trees. There was therefore absolutely no sense in denying oneself something G'd had specifically permitted. She refused to accept the testimony of the serpent because it contradicted the testimony of her own husband. She argued along the lines of the school of Hillel, i.e. the common denominator between what the serpent had declared as out of bounds and what her husband had declared as out of bounds was only the tree of knowledge. Therefore, that tree and its fruit was forbidden; the other trees were permitted since no valid testimony existed that would deny them to her.