Dear Rabbi,
On daf 97a one tanna tells Rabbi Akiva that he will be taken to task for revealing the identity of the mekoshesh. The gemara answers that Rabbi Akiva had a gezeira shava and as Rashi comments it is as if the Torah explicitly revealed the identity of the mekoshesh. Nevertheless, the implication of the gemara is that something that the torah does conceal should remain concealed. In parashas bereishis, Rashi tells us that the Torah did not reveal which tree was the Ez hadaas to save it from being blamed as the cause of all sin, yet rashi himself tells us (bringing a gemara from Berachos) that the tree was the fig tree. What is the heter for telling us what tree it is?
Avrohom Yaakov, Israel
I can suggest a couple of distinctions between RASHI SHABBOS 97a DH VE'ELA and between RASHI on BEREISHIS 3:7.
(1) Gemara Sanhedrin 70b, which Rashi Bereishis cites, states that they did the sin with the fig tree. However the Gemara immediately adds that this very same tree helped them by providing them with clothing. Since there were both good and bad things which came from this tree, this is not considered as speaking so badly about it. In contrast, in Gemara Shabbos there was no corresponding Mitzvah mentioned that the wood gatherer did in order to balance out his negative aspects.
2. DIVREI DAVID - a commentary on Rashi on Chumash by the author of TAZ on SHULCHAN ARUCH- comments that Rashi explains the reason why the fig tree was not publicized directly, but instead only referred to indirectly by the mention of the fig-leaf clothes. In contrast Gemara Shabbos teaches only that one is not allowed directly to reveal undesirable secrets. Notes to Divrei David by R. Shaval point out that TAZ's intention is to stress that the Torah does actually say what tree it was. Therefore Rashi must be explaining why the tree was not mentioned directly.
KOL TUV
D.Bloom