Exodus 21:7

And if a man of Israel sell his daughter, a little handmaid, she shall not go forth according to the going forth of the servants of the Kenaanaee, who are set at liberty on account of the tooth or the eye; but in the years of remission, and with tokens, and at the jubela, and on the death of her master, and by redemption with money.

SHE SHALL NOT GO OUT AS THE MENSERVANTS DO. This means that the Hebrew maidservant does not go out free “in consequence of the loss of a tooth or an eye, as Canaanite slaves do.” Thus is Rashi’s language, and our Rabbis interpreted it likewise. Indeed it is so, for a Hebrew servant is not called eved [as in Verse 2 here: if thou buy an ‘eved ivri’ — a Hebrew servant] but never just eved, which term by itself signifies a Canaanite bondman. Here in Verse 7 where it just says ha’avadim (menservants) it must therefore refer to the Canaanite bondmen. For a similar statement of Ramban see also further Verse 20. without any further qualification.
But I wonder: why does Scripture find it necessary altogether to tell us this [that a Hebrew maidservant does not go out free because of the loss of a tooth or eye, as Canaanite bondmen do]? Perhaps it is to tell us that we should not argue by applying the method of kal vachomer Note 208. — The kal vachomer in this case would be as follows: A Canaanite bondwoman who does not go out free at the end of six years or in the jubilee year, does go out free because of the loss of any of the chief external organs. It is therefore only logical that a Hebrew maidservant, who does go out free at the end of six years or in the jubilee, should surely go out free because of the loss of any chief external organs. from a Canaanite women, that a Hebrew maidservant goes out free because of the loss of a tooth or eye. This law is stated expressly in the case of a Hebrew woman, but such is also the law for a Hebrew man, who has been compared to her [thus he too does not go out free because of the loss of any of the chief external organs]. The author of the ‘Hilchoth Gedoloth,’ (613) Commandments, for in a preface to this work the author was the first scholar who attempted to define each separate commandment (see my foreword to “The Commandments,” Vol. I pp. viii — ix). wrote, however, that [the verse is not needed to exclude this kal vachomer, Note 208. — The kal vachomer in this case would be as follows: A Canaanite bondwoman who does not go out free at the end of six years or in the jubilee year, does go out free because of the loss of any of the chief external organs. It is therefore only logical that a Hebrew maidservant, who does go out free at the end of six years or in the jubilee, should surely go out free because of the loss of any chief external organs. …

לא תצא כצאת העבדים, after the expiry of six years. Her employer is supposed to marry her, as will be explained later.

לא תצא כצאת העבדים. It is not appropriate for an upstanding member of society to buy a Jewish girl as a servant against her will. Such a “sale” is acceptable only if the girl in question will become the wife of the buyer or his son when reaching puberty. The purchase price will be given to her father as our sages have stipulated in Ketuvot 46.

וכי ימכור איש, “If someone “sells” his daughter, etc.;” according to Rashi, he can only do so while she is less than 12 years of age. If someone were to claim that the father can still do so when that daughter has demonstrated signs of puberty, and that person would argue that the work performed by a daughter belongs to her father even while she is between 12 years and 12 and a half years old, the Torah has added the word לאמה, “to become a maid-servant.” She cannot be “sold” as such when older than 12 years and a day.Some scholars are of the opinion that when a minor male had been “sold” by his father, that minor would be free to leave the employment of his masters when he displayed signs of puberty. This is totally erroneous, as nowhere did we read that a father may “sell” a son, and to draw a comparison from the text in Deuteronomy 15,12, where a male Israelite is described as “selling” himself is quite absurd. If that verse would speak about a minor boy, say an orphan, selling himself. This would be legally completely invalid as minors cannot do such a thing in Jewish law. The reason is that a Jewish court has no authority to penalise a minor. (Compare the addition to Rashi’s commentary on that verse)

לא תצא כצאת העבדים, the terms under which she leaves the employ of her “master” are not the same as apply to male “servants.” Ibn Ezra explains specifically that his master cannot force such a servant to perform labour outside the master’s home. [not found in the Ibn Ezra editions of Mossad harav Kook. Ed.]