It goes without saying. Kiddushin 10:2

“Rabbi said from the Torah, etc. And what about a Canaanite slave girl whose return from eating her offering is not like her return from eating her offering, nor is it a divination for the simpson? The one whose return from eating her offering is not like her return from eating her offering, nor is it a divination for the simpson.”
It’s hard for me, because there’s nothing easy here, let alone what we find.
The very definition of a slave girl as easy compared to a woman as difficult is a reason for the affirmative, but the question under discussion is for the negative . Is there a concern that would invalidate eating her as a gift because of a syphon? As for the reason for invalidating the law of Daw, the two cases under discussion are equal. After all, in both cases the starting point is that they do eat as a gift (in the case of a woman also by marriage and in the case of a slave girl only in a way that she was bought with money), and the question is whether we should prohibit them. And the reason we are renewing the prohibition is because of a syphon concern that is equal in both cases.
So there is no comparison here, just a comparison.
Thank you very much!