I am not familiar with any commentary that discussed your question in depth.

The CHASAM SOFER on Shabbos, though, points out that the explanation you quoted from the Torah Temimah and others is flawed. Although TOSFOS (Bava Basra 119b) quotes a Midrash (see Targum Yonasan end of Shelach) according to which Tzelafchad's intentions were l'Shem Shamayim, this would not seem to be the opinion of Rebbi Akiva. In Bava Basra (119a) it is "a student of Rebbi Akiva's" who is quoted as saying that the punishment for a Mechalel Shabbos was written in the Torah due to the actions of the Mekoshesh because of "Megalgelin Chovah Al Yedei Chayav."

(By the way, the way I understand it, even if he was Mechaven l'Shem Shamayim, he was still a "Chayav" -- a guilty party who committed a shameful act. His was not the correct approach to strengthening Shemiras Shabbos in Israel. In any case, since he committed an act for which he was Chayav Sekilah it would not be appropriate to attribute his actions to the wrong person; it was still a worse sin than that of the Ma'apilim.)

But the truth is that the question on Rebbi Akiva ("How can you publicize what the Torah hid") was not a question in the first place. After all, the Gemara and Midrash is full of Derashos on Pesukim explaining who was behind which act; even villianous acts. (See, for example, Nedarim 64b, "Wherever it says Nitzim or Nitzavim it is Dasan and Aviram." Rav Chaim Kanievsky, shlit"a, has a Sefer called Ta'ama d'Kra identifying all of the hidden people in Tanach.) What, then, bothered Rebbi Yehudah about Rebbi Akiva's statement?

The answer can be found in Rashi DH v'Ela (97b). Whenever an inference is found in the verse pointing to who did what, we need not worry that the Torah "hid" the person's actions. To the contrary, an inference is a revelation of the person's acts, even if it is only a Gezeirah Shavah. Thus, the fact that the Torah teaches who did what through a Derasha and not explicitly, does not demonstrate that the Torah wants to protect someone's reputation. Since Rebbi Akiva learned what he learned from a Gezeirah Shavah (or from an inferenence from a word in the verse), he was not "revealing what the Torah had hidden."

How then are we to understand the accusation Rebbi Yehudah leveled against Rebbi Akiva? The answer can be found in the Gemara. In the case of the Gezeirah Shavah, "Lo Gamar." That is, he held there was no such Gezeirah Shavah (see Tosfos DH Gezeirah, and another approach to the matter in Rabeinu Chananel). Since the verse did not allude that Tzelafchad did such a bad sin, it would certainly be wrong for Rebbi Akiva to claim that he did; we must lessen his sin rather build it up. That is, Rebbi Yehudah was responding to Rebbi Akiva l'Shitaso that the Derasha did not supply a strong enough source. The same applies with regard to the argument about whether or not Aharon had Tzara'as; Rebbi Yehudah said we must lessen his sin since there is no source to build it up. But Rebbi Akiva found an allusion in the word "Bam" that the punishments of Miryam and Aharon were similar, and both suffered from Tzara'as.

As for the following Gemara, which discusses ha'Choshed bi'Kesheirim -- the statement may have been mentioned because Rebbi Yehudah accused Rebbi Akiva of being Choshed. Besides, it was appropriate to mention Moshe's short bout of Tzara'as in connection with Aharon's short bout of Tzara'as (according to Rebbi Akiva).

As for who we follow, the rules of Psak that apply to Halachic matters do not necessarily apply to Agadah. In fact, we usually try to say "Elu v'Elu Divrei Elokim Chayim" (see Gitin 7b).

I hope this is helpful to you. Best wishes,

Mordecai Kornfeld

P.S. I have a nice discussion, that ends with an explanation for the connection between Tzelafchad and the Mekoshesh, online in our audio Shiurim section for Parashas Shelach 5763. http://www.dafyomi.co.il/lectures/tapes/ppg-shelach63.ram .

Thank you, Morris, excellent point. The Torah clearly has a reason for why it sometimes teaches things through a Drash rather than writing them explicitly. For example, in a famous essay in Pachas Yitzchak Hagaon Rav Yitzchak Hutner proposes that even a miracle which we know about only through Drash but is not discussed openly in the Torah (such as necks which turned to stone etc.) may not have occured in an "open" (and literal) manner, but in a more hidden (symbolic) manner. This is what makes puts that miracle in the realm of Agadah and not the realm of Torah she'bi'Chetav.

Similarly, laws that are taught openly in the Torah are, according to some, permitted to be taught to Non-Jews, whereas what is learned from Drash may not be taught to them. (See Netziv in Teshuvos Meshiv Davar #1.) Those laws were meant for a different audience to read.

The same might apply to Derashot such as this one. Although Rashi writes that what is learned from a Drash is considered "explicit," and it does not involve "Lashon ha'Ra" to tell it over, nevertheless the Torah certainly had a reason for leaving these details out of the narrative, and placing them in the realm of Drash. Perhaps the Torah only wanted those fit to learn Derashos (or Dafyomi) to know about the sinner, but not everyone else.

Best wishes,

Mordecai Kornfeld

Yasher Koach! By the way, I always understood that according to the Arizal "Tzlaf Chad" meant a "sharp" (thorned) tzlaf, not a "single" Tzelaf.

Note also that Tzlafchad sinned b'Ma'aseh, but not b'Machshavah (since he had good intentions). On the other hand, the Chasid in Shabbos 150b sinned b'Machshavah but not b'Ma'aseh, bringing a Tikun to Tzelafchad. Note also that a new depth of understanding can be reached for the fact that the Tzelaf grew to repair the Chasid's fence, based on my audio Shiur for last week's Parasha (Shelach 5763). (The link should be up already on http://www.dafyomi.co.il/lectures/shiurlist.htm under Parasha Shiurim.)

Best wishes,

Mordecai Kornfeld