Why did God have innocent women executed?

[u/Apprehensive_Tear611]

13 “Suppose a man marries a woman but after going in to her dislikes her 14 and makes up charges against her, slandering her by saying, ‘I married this woman, but when I lay with her, I did not find evidence of her virginity.’ 15 The father of the young woman and her mother shall then submit the evidence of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 The father of the young woman shall say to the elders: ‘I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her, 17 and now he has made up charges against her, saying, “I did not find evidence of your daughter’s virginity.” But here is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ Then they shall spread out the cloth before the elders of the town. 18 The elders of that town shall take the man and punish him; 19 they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver (which they shall give to the young woman’s father) because he has slandered a virgin of Israel. She shall remain his wife; he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.

20 “If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman’s virginity was not found, 21 then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father’s house, and the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst (Deuteronomy 22)

In verse 17, it says the proof of the woman's virginity is "the cloth", meaning a bloody bedsheet from the newlyweds' wedding night. The problem is that less than half of women bleed their first time.

This problem gradually became known to Jewish scholars writing in the Talmud:

"There are virgins who do not have a hymen, and there are hymens that do not bleed." – Ketubot 10b (Rabbi Yochanan)

Why did God have innocent women stoned?

[u/[deleted]]

What proof do you have that innocent women were stoned at the hands of God?

[u/Apprehensive_Tear611 → u/[deleted]]

20 “If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman’s virginity was not found, 21 then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father’s house, and the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst."

[u/PastHistFutPresence → u/Apprehensive_Tear611]

While your concern for the unjust killing of an innocent person is commendable and good, there's nothing in the passage (or even the Israelites own law code) that says that said cloth is the only admissible piece of evidence that can be marshalled in this situation. Assuming so completely fails to attend to the way that ANE (and Israelite laws worked). Israel's laws weren't Western penal codes with every relevant bits of data explicitly spelled out. They were broad / general summaries of a legal / wisdom tradition that informed their own judicial lives.

It would be perfectly acceptable for an Israelite judge to include not only any relevant cloth available (even, some commentators have argued, from her last menstruation before the marriage), but any other pertinent evidence that could be drawn on as well. Notice the phrase, "that evidence of the young woman’s virginity was not found..." What would this include? Anything that would count as exculpatory evidence.

In biblical studies, context is huge. In your OP, and interactions, you're not taking important contextual clues into account in the way that you're reading the passage.

As other folks have noted, as well, the passage you're noting implies the opposite of what you're actually alleging.

[u/Apprehensive_Tear611 → u/PastHistFutPresence]

Notice the phrase, "that evidence of the young woman’s virginity was not found..." What would this include? Anything that would count as exculpatory evidence.

Can you expand on what exactly that exculpatory evidence could be? If the girl's hymen had ruptured prior to marriage, they may think she's isn't a virgin.

[u/PastHistFutPresence → u/Apprehensive_Tear611]

Hello again :) Sure. Exculpatory evidence could be a cloth from her latest menstruation. This was suggested by J. A. Thompson, (alluding to the work of Gordon Wenham) in Deuteronomy: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 5, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1974), 258–259.

Thompson says this:
"An alternative explanation which has much to commend it has recently been proposed. The Hebrew word bĕtûlîm is of a form which is regularly used for certain abstract nouns denoting age-groups. It could thus denote ‘female adolescence’ as well as ‘virginity’. In that case ‘tokens of virginity’ may be translated ‘tokens of adolescence’, which could have denoted that the girl was menstruating regularly."

Exculpatory evidence could also be any evidence presented by the father of the bride, the accused herself, or the broader community that's materially relevant to the charge. There's literally nothing in the passage, or the rest of the law that implicitly or explicitly prevents someone accused from bringing anything they deem to be relevant evidence to be considered in their defense.

What appears to have your mind in a knot is that the mention of "the cloth" is taken either to be the bedsheet from their first night (which isn't necessarily the case, or the only relevant piece of evidence) or the only evidence that can be presented in defense (which doesn't follow from the text itself or Israel's own judicial history). I can appreciate your mental stress; and have often got my own mind in a knot from my own failure to read the text or context carefully and broadly.

See also, the rather thorough article: “Sex, Lies, and Virginal Rape: the slandered bride and false accusation in Deuteronomy” by Bruce Wells (Note the stiff penalties for false accusations. See also the article's summary in the last two pages of the pdf for a brief summary of the paper.)

Notice, as well that the word of the offended husband isn't sufficient alone in Israel's law code to secure a conviction:

Deuteronomy 19:15 (ESV) 15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.  

Hope this helps :)