Bleeding is an indication of virginity, but the indication is not absolute. There are situations where there is bleeding without that, or where there is no bleeding even in a virgin. Therefore, when carrying out the examination, that has to be taken into account. I assume that if there is no other indication of virginity, it is reasonable to rely on this, because it is the best available. It is not correct to say that bleeding is unrelated to virginity, but rather that the connection is not absolute. So the mistake is not so crude, if it is a mistake at all.
Beyond all that, the correctness of information has to be checked factually, not through texts. The gates of interpretation of the text have not been locked. You can say that “spreading out the cloth” is only a metaphor for testing virginity, which in their day was conceived of as spreading out the cloth, and that is how this expression came about. And at most I will remain with the matter requiring further study. I certainly do not deny scientific facts because of something written somewhere.

This is a question from the same genre as the hare not chewing its cud, or yes chewing its cud, etc.—worn out, even if not completely ridiculous (or maybe it is). I simply don’t understand how, in the Torah, they stone a young woman for non-discovery of virginity if there is no unequivocal way to determine it. Until this video I was sure it was an absolute connection and that it was proof one way or the other. How did the divine source that created human beings write something in the Torah touching on capital law in such a decisive, almost scientific way? It says that the father brings out the virginity of his daughter and then she is acquitted, and if not she is stoned. I’m not well-versed in the Talmudic discussion. Right now I’m referring only to what is written in the Torah. Will the answer necessarily be connected to the Oral Torah as expressed in the Talmud, which qualifies this punishment? How do you explain a scientific error of this type? No one there talks about an indication; they all talk about an absolute connection. In general, according to the video, there is no way at all to determine virginity in a woman.

Rashi already wrote there that “and they shall spread out the cloth” is a metaphor.

But according to the video there is no other way to check the matter either. What is the metaphor pointing to in practical terms?

If you’re interested in something, you need to check it. If you can’t be bothered to check, then please don’t bother me. No one stones a woman because they didn’t see blood.

I didn’t quite understand where the line is between burdening the Rabbi and a legitimate question. I have no problem admitting my ignorance, but the Torah says that if virginity is not found in the young woman, she is stoned. I know (if in my poverty I am correctly understanding the Rabbi’s view) that it is possible to thwart an execution in religious court through exhaustive cross-examination, and that an execution-prone court, etc. But my problem is that after all the conditions have been met, the woman would be put to death. The chain of events would not be interrupted by the fact that, from the outset, virginity is not at all an unequivocal indication of promiscuity. This whole situation described in the Torah rests on mistaken knowledge (of course, all this is only if the doctor is right).

Meaning to say that of course it all depends on the assumption that the doctor’s words are correct.

A correction is needed to the second-to-last message: that non-bleeding is not an unequivocal indication of promiscuity.