Shared ground
These verses assume a poverty-driven arrangement where a father “sells” his daughter into another household as a female servant in a way tied to marriage or future marriage. The text does not present this as an ideal; it regulates it.
The clearest emphasis is protective: her release rules are different from male servants, and the man who takes her faces limits. If he rejects her, she must be redeemable and he may not sell her to outsiders. If she is placed with his son, she is to be treated as a daughter. If he takes another wife, he must still provide her food, clothing, and “marital provisions,” and neglect triggers her freedom without payment.
Where interpretation differs
Did the master already marry her in v. 8, or was marriage only intended? Some read v. 8 as describing an actual marriage (“who has married her to himself”), so the case is essentially divorce-like protection: he cannot simply discard or resell her. Others read it as a failed betrothal/intent-to-marry arrangement, so the protection is about not trapping her in service after backing out.
What exactly are the “marital provisions” in v. 10? Many take this to include sexual relations and the security of recognized wife-status. Others read it more broadly as the full set of rights/maintenance owed to a wife (including household support and standing), without specifying details.
Who counts as a “foreign people” in v. 8? Some understand it as any non-Israelite buyer (a general ban on exporting her from the community). Others think it targets selling her outside the family’s social/legal protections more generally (selling her away as though she were disposable), whether or not ethnicity is the main focus.
Why the disagreement exists
The Hebrew wording behind “who has married her” can be read in more than one way, and the passage is written as brief case law, not a narrative, so it leaves background details unstated. Likewise, “marital provisions” is a compact phrase, and interpreters infer its scope from broader ancient marriage expectations and from how the text contrasts provision versus neglect.
What this passage clearly contributes
Explicitly, the passage sets guardrails that constrain the buyer/master and create enforceable outcomes for the girl/woman: no resale to outsiders, a required path to redemption if rejected, elevated standing if given to the son, and guaranteed material and relational provision even if another wife is taken. It also shows that in this legal material, “freedom” can be triggered not only by time served but by the master’s failure to meet defined obligations.