Reason: Since we would have thought that he is not worse than an Eved Cana'ani, who does not go out in six years or Yovel, or with deducting what he paid and who serves the daughter, yet he goes out with the main limbs.

Clarification: This means the lighter side of the sin, since the basic Isur of Sh'mitah is working the land - such as plowing and planting ...

Clarification (cont.): Whereas business is merely an Asei - "to eat", 'and not to trade' ...

Conclusion: It therefore stands to reason that the current punishment is for trading - measure for measure.

Implied Question: Even though he redeems her against his will (above, Daf 18b) ...

Answer: Nevertheless, interest is a harsher punishment.

Reason for the Term: Because ultimately it will be uprooted.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Pasuk is speaking where he neither increased nor decreased in value.

Question: In that case, why does the Pasuk change its Lashon, it should either write "mi'Kesef Miknaso" by both or "K'fi Shanav"?

Explanation #2: ha'Rav Baruch therefore explains that "Im Od Rabos ba'Shanim" speaks - where he worked two years and four remained, "mi'Kesef Miknaso" teaches us that he must give him four Dinrim, irrespective of whether he decreased or increased in value ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Since he is closer to the time of his entry than of his departure.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And "Im Me'at Nish'ar ba'Shanim" teaches us that where he worked four years and two remain, and he is closer to the time of departure, he gives him according to his current value, whether his value decreased or increased.

Question: Why is he a master over himself? Why will it not sufficce if he (the Eved) is equal to his master?

Answer: As it says in the Yerushalmi - 'There are times when he only has one cushion; if he himself lies on it he fails to fulfill "ki Tov lo Imach" ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas if he neither lies on it nor gives it to his Eved, he is guilty of 'Midas S'dom'. Consequently, he has no option other than to hand it to the Eved.

Answer (concl.): And that is what is meant by 'Adon le'Atzmo'.

Clarification: Rabeinu Tam explains that this is not a real Gezeirah Shavah, but merely an indication ...

Proof: Because if it was, how can the Gemara say 'or perhaps we only apply it le'Kula but not le'Chumra' ...

Proof (cont.): Since it is a Gezeirah Shavah, we must apply both le'Kula and le'Chumra, based on the principle 'Ein Gezeirah Shavah le'Mechtzah (There is no Gezeirah Shavah in halves)'.

Support: And this is also implied shortly in connection with houses in a walled city, when the Gemara says 'Where the Torah reveals it is revealed, and where it doesn't, then it is not.

Proof: Again, if it is a Gezeirah Shavah, it should apply even where it is not revealed.

Clarification: The proof is from the Seifa, which states 'Someone who sells a house in a walled city may not borrow to redeem it or redeem it in halves'.

Question: What is the Kashya on Rav Sheishes? Perhaps that Beraisa goes like Rebbi Shimon ...

Question (cont.): And when it says earlier by Batei Arei Chomah that 'One may borrow to redeem it or redeem it in halves' speaks after the Pasuk include by Makdish "Im Ga'ol Yig'al" ...

Question (concl.): Whereas the Beraisa that states that one may not, speaks if it had not written "Im Ga'ol Yig'al"? ...

Support: As the Gemara said before that one may.