Leviticus 24:10 - On the nouns אִשָּׁה and אִישׁ

(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation—an adaptation of the NJPS translation—according to a correction proposed for late 2024. 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.)

This verse presents a longstanding interpretive crux: From where did the first fellow “come out”—and what exactly does the initial notice about him tell us?

The United Bible Society (UBS) Translator’s Handbook summarizes the usual two scholarly construals: “This may either mean that the man lived among the Israelites and left his tent, or that he lived outside the camp (compare Exo 12.38 and Num 11.4) and left his home to enter the camp.” The first view was expressed by, e.g., Ibn Ezra (12th cent.), and the second by, e.g., Keil and Delitzsch (19th cent.).

Both of those construals take the verb וַיֵּצֵא “came out” literally, as referring to movement from one place to another. Unfortunately, neither construal yields a particularly coherent text, because it is strange to mention an act of exiting without stating its point of origin. Furthermore, the locative notice בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל seems strangely disconnected—tacked on at the end of the clause.

To solve the crux, the presence of the situating nouns אִשָּׁה and אִישׁ should alert us that what we have here is the schematic depiction of a situation. So let us attend to how the situation of interest is depicted.

Remarkably, the person who is the topic of this sentence (as represented by its grammatical subject) is not cast as an essential participant in the initial scene. (Despite the identification of him as such in many translations, such as CJPS, NRSV, REB, GNT, and NLT.) On the contrary, he is profiled as the product of his parents; he is anchored in terms of his relationship to them.

It is the parents who are each identified—via a situating nouns אִשָּׁה and אִישׁ—as being essential for grasping the depicted situation. I.e., the conspicuous presence of those nouns signals that the actual situation of interest is the son’s emergence from his parents’ union. On this view, the verb וַיֵּצֵא “came out” is actually describing his lineage, not his actions. Its import is abstract, rather than literally spatial. (For similar usages of יצא as expressing lineage, see Gen 10:14; 1 Chr 2:53.) Happily, this explains why the phrase about the spatial setting בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל appears only at the far end of the clause from its opening verb.

As for the social gender of the initial referent (the offspring), the specific nature of the reference to that party calls for the masculine gender of the verbal inflection to match his social gender. Thus we know that a woman is not in view. The same applies to his adversary—the party mentioned at the end of the verse as אִישׁ הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי.

As for rendering into English, there is warrant for rendering in gendered terms. The NJPS ‘There came out among the Israelites one whose mother was Israelite and whose father was Egyptian’ is unduly vague about this person’s gender. The same is true of the first mention of his adversary: ‘a certain Israelite.’ Yet in English idiom, the gender of specific individuals is normally mentioned upon introduction or where germane. (NJPS finally does use gendered language in v. 11, where I find its sudden appearance confusing.) The proposed correction would insert gender markers for clarity: ‘son’ and ‘man,’ respectively.

Finally, to offer the alternative construal of the verb as described above, I have added a footnote.