Midrash su Levitico 25:42

1) (Vayikra 25:42) ("For they are My servants, whom I took out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves are sold.") "For they are My servants": My deed (of servitude) came first. (Therefore, they may serve you only as I permit you.) "whom I took out of the land of Egypt": on condition that they not be sold as slaves are sold. "as slaves are sold": that they not be stood up in public and sold on the auction block.

(Exodus 21:3) "If alone (i.e., without a wife) he came, alone shall he go out." What is the intent of this? It is written (9) "If his master gives him a woman" (a Canaanite bondswoman). ("If" here is) optional (and not mandatory). You say "optional," but perhaps it is mandatory. It is, therefore, written "If alone he come, alone shall he go out" — It is optional and not mandatory. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: "If alone (i.e., intact) he came, alone shall he go out" — If he came with his organ prominences (intact), he goes out with them intact (i.e., the master must indemnify him for any organ prominence loss that he caused him). R. Yishmael says: Our verse is not needed for this. For it is written (Ibid. 7) "And if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, she shall not go out as the (Canaanite) bondsmen go out" — by (loss of) organ prominences, as the Canaanite bondsmen do go out. You say (it means) this; but perhaps (it means that) she should not go out with (six) years (of service) or with Jubilee years, as the (Hebrew) bondsmen do go out. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:12) "If your Hebrew brother or sister is sold to you, etc." — whereby we are apprised that she does go out with (six) years (of service). Whence do we derive (the same for) the Jubilee? From (Leviticus 25:42) "For they (i.e., all Hebrews are My servants." In any event, (it has been shown that) it is not the second conclusion (i.e., that she does not go out with years of service and with Jubilee), which is correct, but the first (i.e., that she does not go out with loss of organ prominences). This tells me only of a Hebrew maidservant. Whence do we derive (the same for) a Hebrew bondsman? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:12) "the Hebrew man or the Hebrew woman." The first is likened to one second. Just as the Hebrew woman does not go out with (loss of) organ prominences, so, the Hebrew man (But why is a verse needed for this?) Can it not be deduced a fortiori? viz.: If a Hebrew maidservant, who goes out with (the appearance of pubertal) signs, does not go out with (loss of) organ prominences, then a Hebrew bondsman, who does not go out with signs, how much more so should he not go out with (loss of) organ prominences! __ No, this (that she does not go out) may be true of a Hebrew maidservant, who was not sold for thieving — wherefore she does not go out with (loss of) organ prominences — as opposed to a Hebrew bondsman, who was sold for thieving — wherefore he does go out with (loss of) organ prominences. It must, therefore, be written "the Hebrew man or the Hebrew woman" — to liken the first to the second, viz.: Just as she does not go out with organ prominences, so, he.