The Torah (Genesis 2:16-17) describes God's prohibition of eating the forbidden tree/fruit. In Genesis 3:3 (per Chazal - see Rashi) Eve adds the additional proscription banning touching the tree/fruit. And she is taken to task by Rashi/Chazal for doing so. But could she, either in reality, or at least pursuant to her own thought process, derive benefit from the fruit -i.e. smell? The verses do not discuss the issue of non-eating benefit.
This particular question about fragrance assumes a) that the fruit gave off a scent (per Genesis Raba 15:7, the fruit, indeed, was an Etrog) and b) that inhaling that scent is a threshold Halachik form of deriving benefit.
Another example of prohibited benefit might be for Eve to use the forbidden fruit tree as a source of shade (again I assume that this is a halachik form of deriving benefit).
Relatedly, what object was actually prohibited by God and subsequently Eve - fruit? Tree? Both? - there are many moving parts here. I would not rush to assume that the bark could not be included in the do-not-eat biblical proscription - if the tree was an etrog, the etrog is famously known for its bark tasting like its fruit (see Midrash Raba quoted above).
If deriving non-eating benefit was not a problem per God, and Eve did not personally decree an additional safeguard banning smelling the fruit and/or using the tree as source of shade AND all of these activities are halachikally material forms of benefit ... why not? Can't the act of enjoying the fragrance of the forbidden fruit and/or relaxing in its shade lead to eating it? We already have established that she took prophylactic steps to promulgate a ban on touching the fruit/tree. Why not go the extra step?
What about making a fruit shampoo or feeding the fruit to a pet - activities which are clearly accepted as acts of deriving benefit? Biblically prohibited? Eve-prohibited due to the fact that these acts involve touching? What if she directed her pet to the fruit but did not touch the fruit?
If indeed the scent and/or shade of the forbidden fruit tree were truly biblically prohibited because they are included in the prohibition of eating (see later) and shade and/or scent fall under the rubric if the general no-benefit activities (a lot of assumptions here) it would make sense for her to maintain a proper, cautionary distance from the tree. Yet per Rashi Genesis 3:4, Eve was close enough to be pushed into the tree when she encountered the Snake!?!
By the way, per Rabbi Abahu in the Talmud I have every reason to believe that the forbidden fruit and/or tree was biblically prohibited from generally deriving benefit from it too (feeding it to one's pet or making a shampoo out of it), but, again, I cannot be certain if odor and shade are within this general ban on benefit (if they are, then perhaps this is why she only added a personal ban on touching the tree/fruit - there was not much left to ban). (Pesachim 21b):
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל״, ״לֹא תֹאכַל״, ״לֹא תֹאכְלוּ״ — אֶחָד אִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה וְאֶחָד אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה (מַשְׁמַע)<, עַד שֶׁיִּפְרֹט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב . Rabbi Abbahu said that wherever it is stated: “It shall not be eaten,” “You, singular, shall not eat,” or “You, plural, shall not eat,” both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of deriving benefit are implied, unless the verse specifies that one may benefit ...
If the tree/fruit per R. Abahu was truly already biblically prohibited in terms of eating plus deriving general benefit (shampoo and pet food), doesn't touching it provide information/sensory feedback? Isn't this then a form of benefit? Why would Eve need to add this? Or is this manner of 'benefit' potentially not a real benefit a la shade and odor?
