וְאִֽישׁ־יִשְׂרָאֵ֥ל נִגַּ֖שׂ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֑וּא וַיֹּ֩אֶל֩ שָׁא֨וּל אֶת־הָעָ֜ם לֵאמֹ֗ר אָר֣וּר הָ֠אִ֠ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יֹ֨אכַל לֶ֜חֶם עַד־הָעֶ֗רֶב וְנִקַּמְתִּי֙ מֵאֹ֣יְבַ֔י וְלֹא־טָעַ֥ם כׇּל־הָעָ֖ם לָֽחֶם׃
Israel’s side was distressed that day. For Saul had laid an oath upon the troops: “Cursed be anyone who eats any food before night falls and I take revenge on my enemies.” So none of the troops ate anything.
(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 containing אִישׁ, by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)
The nonspecific reference means that the Hebrew noun cannot convey referential gender. Yet from the military context it goes without saying that women are not in view.
When viewed from a situation-oriented vantage point, we see that the referring expression הָאִישׁ is definite because it refers to a type: those who fit the stated criterion. See Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (2017) §24.4.4(4) [emphasis in original]: “The article is used generically to designate a class of persons of things that are definite in themselves.”
Here הָאִישׁ labels its referent in terms of constitutive participation in that situation, thus tying the stated action directly to the resulting consequence. This is a classic usage of a situating noun, to allow for the succinct, schematic depiction of a desired state of affairs.
As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘the man’ is archaic in this setting. The revised rendering follows NRSV, NLT, NIV. Cf. similar language in Deut 27:15 and Josh 6:26. (Meanwhile, the fact that women are not in view can go without saying, because it is self-evident from the military context.)