The Gemara in Shabbos 127b relates a story about the importance of being dan l'chaf zechus, judging people favourably / giving others the benefit of the doubt.
The story goes that a man left from the Upper Galilee and went to the south to work for a landowner for three years. At the end of this period, the worker sought to return home, and asked for his wages on Erev Yom Kippur. The employer apologised saying that there was no money with which to pay him. Knowing that his employer was wealthy, the worker asked for payment in produce. Once again, none was available. The worker tried asking for land, animals, pillows and blankets and received the same negative response each time. Without any other choice, the man left and returned home. After Yom Tov, his employer arrived with a wagon laden with food, drink and more. The landowner asked him what he really thought when he said he was unable to pay. The worker answered that presumably all his money had been spent on inventory, the animals and land had probably been rented out to others, the produce was possibly not properly tithed and the bedding etc. had been consecrated making it hekdesh. The employer stated that this was indeed the case, and in the same way that the worker was dan lechaf zechus, so too Hashem should be with him.
The mefarshim there, teach that this worker was none other than Rabbi Akiva (E.g. the Rama MiPano siman 63. So, we see even before he was the famous tanna, he was of a refined character.
However, in Pesachim 49b it writes:
תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כְּשֶׁהָיִיתִי עַם הָאָרֶץ אָמַרְתִּי: מִי יִתֵּן לִי תַּלְמִיד חָכָם וַאֲנַשְּׁכֶנּוּ כַּחֲמוֹר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו: רַבִּי, אֱמוֹר כְּכֶלֶב! אָמַר לָהֶן: זֶה נוֹשֵׁךְ וְשׁוֹבֵר עֶצֶם, וְזֶה נוֹשֵׁךְ וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹבֵר עֶצֶם.
It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva said: When I was an ignoramus I said: Who will give me a Torah scholar so that I will bite him like a donkey? His students said to him: Master, say that you would bite him like a dog! He said to them: I specifically used that wording, as this one, a donkey, bites and breaks bones, and that one, a dog, bites but does not break bones. (William Davidson translation and notation)
Now, I appreciate that a person can perhaps maintain a hatred for a certain segment of society and yet act nicely to others, but it does seem somewhat at odds. On the one hand, he was extremely patient and courteous, the epitome of sterling middos, and yet on the other hand, maintained an intense hatred for talmidei chachomim.
Do any commentaries pick up on this?
