Why was a husband not executed for falsely accusing his wife of not being a virgin?

[tonychanyt]

Deuteronomy 19:

16 If a malicious witness [M1] arises to accuse a person [P1] of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother.

E.g., if M1 falsely accused P1 of murder, then M1 deserved a death sentence.

Now, Deuteronomy 22:

13 If any man [M2] takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her 14 and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,'

M2 accused his wife of not being a virgin.

If false, M2 would be fined:

19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He may not divorce her all his days.

If true, his wife would be put to death:

20 But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones.

If M2 accused his wife falsely, why was he not put to death according to De 19:19?

M2 was not malicious; he hastily jumped to a wrong conclusion. De 19 described the general situation between two parties, while De 22 depicted a specific case related to a husband and wife. It made sense that they had different consequences.

 

[RDKirk]

Deuteronomy 19:


E.g., if M1 falsely accused P1 of murder, then M1 deserved a death sentence.

Now, Deuteronomy 22:


M2 accused his wife of not being a virgin.

If false, M2 would be fined:


If true, his wife would be put to death:


If M2 accused his wife falsely, why was he not put to death according to De 19:19?

M2 was not malicious; he hastily jumped to a wrong conclusion. De 19 described the general situation between two parties, while De 22 depicted a specific case related to a husband and wife. It made sense that they had different consequences.

M2 might well have been malicious. However, the reputation of the bride had been stained, she'd been married, and she'd likely find no other husband. So, M2, in addition to paying a fine to his father-in-law, would still be required to support that woman for the rest of her life.

The proof of the bride's virginity was the blood-stained bed clothes from the night of consummation. Sometimes even a virgin does not bleed, but God is clever. Scripture prescribes that the bride's mother is the one to collect and maintain the evidence of her virginity...the blood-stained bedclothes from the marriage night. I suspect that there were never bedclothes from the marriage night...that were not blood-stained.

 

[tonychanyt]

Scripture prescribes that the bride's mother is the one to collect and maintain the evidence of her virginity

verse?

 

[RDKirk]

verse?

Deuteronomy 22:13-17 (NIV): "If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, 'I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,' then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. Her father will say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, "I did not find your daughter to be a virgin." But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.' Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town."

It’s plausible that this provision in Deuteronomy served as a deliberate mechanism to discourage false accusations and provide the bride’s family with an "out" in situations where physical proof of virginity might not have been straightforward. The deterrent effect on the groom, coupled with the control the bride’s family had over the tokens, suggests that the law might have been designed not only to protect the bride’s honor but also to prevent frivolous or malicious legal challenges from the husband. Thus, while framed as a strict legal requirement, it likely contained a degree of flexibility that both families and the community understood.

 

[tonychanyt]

Deuteronomy 22:13-17 (NIV): "If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, 'I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,' then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. Her father will say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, "I did not find your daughter to be a virgin." But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.' Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town."

Can you bold the words where it says the bride's mother is the one to collect and maintain the evidence of her virginity?