וְהִשְׁבִּ֨יעַ אֹתָ֜הּ הַכֹּהֵ֗ן וְאָמַ֤ר אֶל־הָֽאִשָּׁה֙ אִם־לֹ֨א שָׁכַ֥ב אִישׁ֙ אֹתָ֔ךְ וְאִם־לֹ֥א שָׂטִ֛ית טֻמְאָ֖ה תַּ֣חַת אִישֵׁ֑ךְ הִנָּקִ֕י מִמֵּ֛י הַמָּרִ֥ים הַֽמְאָרְרִ֖ים הָאֵֽלֶּה׃
The priest shall adjure the woman, saying to her, “If no one else has lain with you, if you have not gone astray in defilement while living in your husband’s household, be immune to harm from this water of bitterness that induces the spell.…”
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term אִישׁ, by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)
Prototypically, the situating noun אִישׁ labels an essential party whose involvement defines the situation of interest. At the same time, by regarding its referent in terms of the overall situation, אִישׁ directs our attention to that situation.
Here, the presence of אִישׁ carries out its prototypical function. It efficiently introduces a hypothetical additional participant into the situation under discussion, one whose involvement would be definitive.
Because the reference is non-specific (i.e., to a type of person), the noun phrase אִישׁ does not itself constrain the gender of its referent (Stein 2008; Stein 2013). Rather, the implication of masculinity comes from the adjunct phrase שִׁכְבַת־זֶרַע “carnal relations.”
Other biblical usages of singular אִישׁ to introduce an additional party as constitutive of the depicted situation (often rendered with terms like “another…” or “someone else”) include: Gen 31:50; 41:38; 45:1; Exod 2:12; 12:44; 34:3; Lev 7:8; 16:21; 19:20; 20:10 (2nd instance); Num 5:13; 19:9, 18; Deut 19:16; Josh 10:14; Judg 16:19; 1 Sam 2:25 (2nd instance); 10:22; 12:4; 2 Sam 17:18; 18:26 (2nd instance); 21:4; 2 Kgs 12:5 (2nd instance); Isa 3:5 (2nd instance); Ezek 18:8 (2nd instance); Ps 49:17; Prov 20:5; Est 1:8. Nearly all of these cases employ the bare noun.
As for rendering into English, the NJPS “no man” nowadays unduly emphasizes the referent’s gender, prompting the misleading implication that gender is at issue: no man has had relations with her—perhaps even her husband—as opposed to a woman. Rather, the issue is that this participant is someone else aside from the woman’s husband. The revised rendering makes this point more clearly.