Regarding the Rabbi's article on sustainability

Hello Rabbi,
The Gemara says in Bava Metzia 22:1:
"Hearken: 'A Nazirite who said, "Give to my wife and my children, they do not listen to him," and why did you say, "He eats from his own property, my mother does not listen to him?" You are just saying, "A Nazirite, a slave, a slave, may not approach the vineyard." Hearken, a worker who said, "Give to my wife and my children, they do not listen to him," and why did you say, "He eats from his own property, my mother does not listen to him?" What makes a worker a Nazirite? And the Tana'ah of a Nazirite and the Tana'ah of a worker? From the hands of my back, you have Tana'ah."
On the surface, it seems that by placing the second baraita in the context of a nazir, the gemara changes the entire novelty of the baraita: according to this okuima, the baraita intended to teach a special penalty regarding a nazi worker who has nothing to do with an ordinary worker, and after all, it explicitly makes an okuima in which lies the main novelty of the baraita. How does this fit in with the rabbi's explanation regarding the phenomenon of okuima? Perhaps it can be said that there are places where okuima is a presupposition of an error in the version?
PS: Quite the opposite of what the Maga says that the Rabbi likes to quote, is it possible to use things the Rabbi said without mentioning their source if I am afraid that mentioning the Rabbi's name will cause the listeners to not accept the words?