“Men, women, and children”—It may be that women whose husbands had taken foreign wives also assembled there, and they too wept, as Malachi—who is identified with Ezra—said concerning this: “And this second thing you do: you cover the altar of Hashem with tears.”

From that point onward, this transgression was attributed to everyone because they failed to protest it. Nevertheless, there was now hope of rectifying the matter, something they had previously lacked the power to do, because—

“And now, let us make a covenant with our God, according to the counsel of Hashem and of those who tremble at His commandments, to send away all the women and those born from them.” They knew that many would oppose them and refuse to send away their wives. Ezra possessed authority to punish only according to Torah law, whereas he now needed to frighten them with penalties more severe than those prescribed by law. The community has the power to impose such penalties if its members accept the matter by oath, for the community then possesses the authority of a king, who may impose punishments beyond the strict law, as seen in the incident of the concubine at Gibeah and elsewhere. Therefore, he proposed that they all enter into a covenant and unite with him in accepting the matter through an oath and imprecation. Then “let it be done according to the law”—they could punish anyone who violated it by virtue of the authority of the collective body of Israel, just as a severe punishment was imposed upon the people of Jabesh-gilead for violating the congregation’s oath.

“Then Ezra arose”—Ezra therefore administered the oath to the leaders of the priests and to the leaders of all Israel, so that the matter was enacted with the consent of the entire community.

“And he went—and when he went there”—That is, even after he went there, he still ate no bread. Although the fast had ended, he was mourning over the exiles’ transgression and could not bring himself to eat.

“All his property shall be confiscated”—This penalty derived its authority from the collective enactment described above [verse 3]. Therefore, it was imposed “in accordance with the counsel of the officials and the elders,” for the community possesses the power to enact such a penalty.

“Trembling”—both because of the matter—that is, the transgression—and because of the rains.

“You have acted treacherously”—Since all Israel are responsible for one another, the guilt rested upon the entire community. Ezra wanted everyone to consent to the enactment, so that anyone who violated it would separate himself from the community. The community would then possess the authority of a king to punish him, whether by death or by eradication.

“Let them remain”—That is, the leaders of the people should remain in Jerusalem on behalf of the entire congregation and in their place, so that whatever they did would be considered as having been done by the congregation as a whole. “Until this matter”—that is, until all the breaches of the generation were repaired, including this breach, so that no matter would remain for which Hashem’s anger might be kindled against them.

“Only Jonathan”—Only these two opposed the matter contentiously, and two others supported them; the rest of the people, however, consented to it.

“And they separated themselves”—That is, Ezra and the heads of the ancestral houses remained in Jerusalem, separated from the people who had returned to their affairs, and they sat to investigate the matter.

“And they finished with all”—[Scripture explains:] “with the men”—the preposition bet applies to both words, and therefore the word bakol is vocalized with a holam, as Ibn Ezra explains. “Who had married”—that is, who had caused foreign women to dwell with them. “And being guilty, they offered a ram from the flock”—Our Sages explained in Keritot 11a that they had relations with a designated maidservant and were therefore legally obligated to bring a ram as a guilt offering. This explains the words “and being guilty,” because one is liable for relations with a designated maidservant only if he had relations in the ordinary manner and completed the act. Therefore, if two witnesses said to him, “You had relations with a designated maidservant,” and he replied, “I did not,” he is not liable, since his response may mean, “I did not complete the act,” as explained in Keritot 12a. Consequently, witnesses alone could not obligate him to bring a ram as a guilt offering; rather, the men themselves admitted that they were guilty and thus obligated to bring a ram from the flock. Although they could have freed these women, the men were priests, and the women would have remained forbidden to them as women who had engaged in prohibited relations. They therefore pledged, under a conditional vow, to send them away, following the law governing a priest who married a woman forbidden to him: he makes a vow to divorce her and may then perform the Temple service. Rashi writes that this was a temporary ruling, but this is difficult, because it contradicts the Gemara cited above. It appears that Rashi follows his own position in Gittin 36a that the Jubilee was not observed during the Second Temple period. Since the accepted law identifies the designated maidservant as one betrothed to a Hebrew slave, such a case could not have occurred during the Second Temple period, because Hebrew slavery applies only when the Jubilee is observed. Rav Hisda’s statement that they had relations with designated maidservants must therefore follow the opinion of Aherim in Keritot 11a, which identifies her as a maidservant betrothed to a Canaanite slave, an opinion that does not accord with the law according to Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael, who maintain that she is betrothed to a Hebrew slave. Tosafot in Gittin and Arakhin [31b], however, write that the Jubilee was observed during the Second Temple period and that Hebrew slavery therefore applied. According to their view, Rav Hisda’s explanation accords with the accepted law.

“Of the descendants of Bani”—They were already enumerated [in verse 29], unless these were the grandchildren of Bani.

“And some of them had wives”—The word “had married” applies to both parts of the statement: some had married foreign wives, and they had produced children. Scripture does not say “and they had begotten children,” because the child of a non-Jewish woman has her status.