What bothers me is people saying that Chavah was already showing her badness when she added that words. I fully agree with R Daniel on that. I have been thinking about the apparent contradiction of Rashi vs.Talmud and I think that both are right. Hashem told Adam" do not eat", Adam out of godly fear added the mitzvah " do not touch" and taught her wife so. Chavah thought the whole saying came from God. Obviously touch the food is the first step to eat it so Adam words were derived from Hashem's words. The snake asked Chavah about the mitzvah and Chavah unknowingly added the words that Adam said. The snake tricked Chavah either by eating of the tree or touching the tree (Interestingly the mitzvah about the tree according to the parashah was given tho the humans not the beast as well). Chavah saw that the snake did not die so Chavah thought Hashem to be wrong and we all know the rest.... Is this reasoning acceptable? Tell me please, Rabbi.

What bothers me too is this notion tha Rashi is always right, his comments are out of human error. Well I respect Rashi very much and his comments are universaly accepted on the Tanach and the Talmud but sages like Rambam disagree with Rashi and nothing happened, it is not a sin. It appears that in any issue of contradiction Rashi is always accepted by default. I prefer to use the brain and make sure what all the sources say. Any comments about Rashi prominence over anything else?