The Torah rule makes no sense at all.

The eighth root of the Rambam is mentioned: You shall not go out as the slaves went out, and this one of ours has already disappeared, until it is said, “You shall not go out as the slaves went out.” And he did not know that it was a negation, not a warning. In this light, as I will explain: And this is because God has already judged whoever strikes his Canaanite slave or maidservant, and at the time of the beating, one of the heads of his limbs is missing, that he goes out as a free man. And it would occur to us that if this is true of a Canaanite slave, how much more so of a Hebrew woman. And that when she is missing one of the heads of her limbs, she goes out as a free man. And this is a negation of the law from her, by saying, “You shall not go out as the slaves went out”. As if to say: ‘He does not obligate her to go out as a free man due to the lack of a limb from her limbs,’ and this is a negation of the law from her, not a warning. However, it is difficult for me, logically, to understand that a slave whose limbs are missing by the Lord goes out as a free man completely, while his Hebrew mother, who is of a higher rank than him, will not go out as a free man? It doesn’t work out… Let’s say he cut off his finger – and he goes free, and if he cuts off his mother’s finger, he’ll just pay her back and she won’t go free. How? – Is that Pierre?