וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־הָעָ֔ם הֱי֥וּ נְכֹנִ֖ים לִשְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֑ים אַֽל־תִּגְּשׁ֖וּ אֶל־אִשָּֽׁה׃
And he said to the men,* “Be ready for the third day: do not go near a woman.”
*the men Heb. “the people.” Moses’ intended audience is not further specified because it goes without saying: by convention in Israelite society, only men are treated as the active agent in heterosexual relations.
(The above rendering and its footnote come from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation.)
Given the Torah audience’s natural expectation of textual coherence (and under the assumption that only heterosexual relations are in view), the label הָעָם “the people” must continue to denote the elders, as discussed in my comment to verse 8. As noted there, the presence of women among the elders is unlikely—yet cannot be ruled out.
More to the point, both Moses’ immediate audience and the Torah’s ancient audience took it for granted that Moses would not have addressed women in a public pronouncement on the topic of sex. The fact that Moses couches the present instruction in male terms implies nothing about women’s inclusion (or lack thereof) within the term הָעָם in the larger passage.
The ancient Israelites believed that when discussing the role of initiating (hetero)sexual relations, it was normal to treat the masculine gender as the initiator. This view is supported by the following evidence:
- The extensive sexual regulations of Leviticus 18 and 20 are addressed only to men (as shown not only by language but also by subject matter), except for the laws about bestiality, where women are mentioned as the active party (18:23b; 20:16).
- Leviticus 20:10 portrays the man as the more active party in cases of adultery, even while both the law’s penalty and its wording make clear that the woman is treated as a responsible participant (cf. Deut 22:22).
- Even in the Song of Songs, the female protagonist invites sexual contact by her beloved only via indirection, using deferential language (1:2; 7:12–13).
- Many biblical expressions presume that the male is the active sexual partner. As Elaine Goodfriend writes: “References to sexual relations usually contain a masculine subject and a female object: a man ‘knows’ a woman, ‘lies’ or ‘lies with’ her, ‘approaches’ her, or ‘comes to’ her. This language presents the male as the active figure and the female as the passive party” (commenting in The Torah: A Women’s Commentary, 2008, pp. 414–15). She calls this a “linguistic pattern.” One exemplar is Prov. 30:19 (וְדֶרֶךְ גֶּבֶר בְּעַלְמָה, “the way of a he-man with a maiden”).
- Biblical cases in which women appear to initiate sexual relations (Lot’s daughters, Gen 19:32–35; Rachel, 30:16; a would-be adulteress, Prov 7:13–18) all can be discounted as out-of-bounds situations.
The late Tikva Frymer-Kensky’s remark on Torah law serves as an apt summary: “It is only when the text considers sexual lust that it stops being inclusive” (“Deuteronomy,” Women’s Bible Commentary, p. 59).
(A contemporary analogy: This is like an airline flight attendant who announces to everyone aboard: “As we prepare for landing, please discontinue the use of all electronic devices.” We cannot infer from such wording that everyone is operating such devices at the moment. Rather, the instruction is addressed only to those present to whom it applies. That goes without saying.)
With regard to translation, the NJPS rendering “the people” is awkward, because it is at odds with how gender is discussed in English. Today’s readers do not share the same assumptions about gender as were held by the ancient audience. Upon making a shift in speaking about the elders as representing “the people” in general to addressing those among the elders who are men as men, a speaker would normally note that shift. For clarity, I give readers a clearer indication of what the ancient audience took for granted, which is more in line with English convention.