The interpretation timeline
Genesis 3:3 Douay-Rheims

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die.

A.D. 45 – 1849 5 witnesses

Patristic

before A.D. 750
45
A.D.
c. 15 B.C.–A.D. 45
“(35) Why, when it was commanded them to avoid eating of one plant alone, the woman made also a further addition to this injunction, saying, "He said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it?" (#Ge 3:3). In the first place she says this, because taste and every other sense after its kind consists in the touch appropriate to it. In the second place she says it that it may seem to condemn them themselves, who did what they had been forbidden. For if even the mere act of touching it was prohibited, how could they who, besides touching the tree, presumed to eat of the fruit, and so added a greater transgression to the lesser one, be anything but condemners and punishers of themselves?”
Source

Scholastic

c. 1100 – 1500
1105
A.D.
Rashi Jewish
1040–1105
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).”

Post-Reformation

c. 1650 – 1900
1771
A.D.
John Gill Reformed
1697–1771
“But of the fruit of the tree, which is in the midst of the garden,.... This tree stood near the tree of life, as is highly probable, since that is described in the same situation, Gen 2:9 she does not give it any name, which perhaps was not as yet given it; or she was not acquainted with it, its name in the preceding chapter being given by anticipation; and most likely it is, it had its name from the event, and as yet was without one: God hath said, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die: here the woman is charged by some both with adding to, and taking from the law of God; and if so, must have sinned very heinously before she eat of the fruit; but neither of them are sufficiently proved; not the former by her saying, "neither shall ye touch it", which though not expressed in the prohibition, is implied, namely, such a touching the fruit as to pluck it off the tree, take it in the hand, and put it to the mouth, in order to eat it: nor the latter by these words, "lest ye die", or "lest perhaps ye die" (h); as if it was a matter of doubt, when it was most strongly assured; for the word used is not always to be understood of doubting, but of the event of a thing; see Psa 2:12 and may be rendered, "that ye die not" (i); which would certainly be the case, should they pluck the fruit and eat of it. (h) "ne forte", V. L. Tigurine version, Fagius. (i) , Sept.”
Source
1832
A.D.
Adam Clarke Methodist
1762–1832
“Neither shall ye touch it - Did not the woman add this to what God had before spoken? Some of the Jewish writers, who are only serious on comparative trifles, state that as soon as the woman had asserted this, the serpent pushed her against the tree and said, "See, thou hast touched it, and art still alive; thou mayest therefore safely eat of the fruit, for surely thou shalt not die."”
Source
1849
A.D.
1774–1849
“Not touch it. She exaggerates, through dislike of restraint, St. Ambrose. Or through reverence, she thought it unlawful to touch what she must not eat, lest perhaps, as if there could be any doubt. “God asserts, the woman doubts, Satan denies.” (St. Bernard) Thus placed, like Eve, between God and the devil, to whom shall we yield our assent? (Haydock) — Perhaps we die, Hebrew, “lest ye die.””
Source
Modern · 1953 →

The in-app commentary runs from the Fathers to the early-modern record, then stops — that's where the public-domain sources end, not where the reading does. For the modern reading, follow the sources directly.